REPORT: Michigan presents $5 million NIL offer to 5-star QB Bryce Underwood
The Wolverines have stepped up their NIL game in a big way in an attempt to lure the No. 1 quarterback away from LSU...
Report - Michigan Offers 5 million to QB Bryce Underwood to leave LSU for Michigan next year
- Thread starter Eurocat
- Start date
Nd you know why they do it? Because they can. We talk about having $5 million for the entire team from revenue sharing and they talk about it for one guyREPORT: Michigan presents $5 million NIL offer to 5-star QB Bryce Underwood
The Wolverines have stepped up their NIL game in a big way in an attempt to lure the No. 1 quarterback away from LSU...www.si.com
If we have $5 million for the entire team, I would be good with giving $4 million of that to a star QB.
Let's be accurate - the number is $5M over 3-4 years. Less than $2M a year. I'd say it's money well spent for the top QB prospect in the nation.
The thing is, we don't (currently) need a $5M guy. We need someone of Bryant or Ramsey caliber.
Admissions notwithstanding, our QB squad is bottom quartile in FBS. We just need to be around "average"
We should have $20M for the entire athletics program after the distribution is turned over to the schools. Got to figure 80%+ will go to Football and Men’s basketball. We can spend $1M for a good QB if we want to. We aren’t competing for the Bryce Underwood’s of the world.
Spending the most money doesn’t guarantee success. However, Spending way below peers almost guarantees failure. We should be able to pay Very good players and NIL shouldn’t be used as an excuse for our talent or recruiting.
Congratulations to those of you who promoted and steadfastly stood behind this new revenue sharing plan, especially for not framing it with any type of guardrails, limits to cheating, or any other realistic limits. You are getting what you asked for.
Are you happy?
Are you happy?
As long as the player gets paid more than the Provost, I’m happy!
Pretty happy, yeah. The worst part currently is the free for all in transfer rules. I’m hopeful that bringing the revenue sharing in-house is going to help with that by allowing schools and guys to sign contracts with guaranteed lengths to them, ie, here’s a three year deal for you, during which you cannot transfer.
You’re right… it’s all my fault. I’m sorry everyone.
I havent learned the new math yet but is 5 million roughly 100 tuitions at NU? Bread and Circuses comes to mind.
You think you need to do the math again.
I hope he gets $10M. I love watching rich people do stupid things.
Not once the Title IX lawyers have their say. I figure 50% will be earmarked for the women's teams.
You doubt the power of Title IX? We're talking about the money ($20 million) actually paid by the schools, not NIL payments from third parties.
Absolutely. Title XI will never impact revenue sharing. If it did the revenue will slow to a crawl and not grow.
We're talking about $20 million. NU's annual athletics revenue already well exceeds this, I'm confident to say.
You think the lawyers care? If schools themselves try to pay more to the men than the women, it's going to end up in court.
Do you really think any fan had any say at all in where this was going? We are all collectively guilty of watching college football with unabating passion, driving up the value of the media rights and injecting $$$$ into the game.
Who cares. They would lose soundly in court if they were foolish enough to pursue this. This is a revenue based distribution. We could win a decade straight of Field Hockey and LaCrosse NCAA titles and the athletes aren’t getting more than a fraction of the payout that Men’s Football and Basketball get. The cable carriage fees are for these two sports.
Certainly the "superfans" (the under-the table mega donors) are the primary cause of the problem?
There was a system of rules for college athletics. Corrupt fans cheated to get around the rules because the only thing that mattered to them was winning.
Their dirty money was always the problem and they, in the end, will ruin college athletics, at least for me.
Because you say so? Why do schools need to balance men's and women's sports right now?
Because Purple Pile Driver said so.
Or maybe it was Coral Springs Cat.
You don’t understand Title XI.
The Federal government threatened to withhold funding if equal scholarships weren’t allocated to Men and Women. It was designed to prevent sex discrimination in activities that received Federal funding. It led to the demise of many Men’s sports programs in non-Revenue sports and the growth of women’s collegiate sports. We can debate whether this was good, bad or indifferent for college sports but it has nothing to do with how NIL is designed.
NIL is the right of college athletes to profit from their name image and likeness. The revenue generated by TV is largely based on the Men’s Football and Basketball programs. BTN would not exist without these two sports. The National TV contracts are for a specific product ( ie Football and Men’s Basketball) they sure aren’t going to split it with Sally Swimmer when Sally literally does nothing to generate that revenue. Donors can decide where there NIL money goes. Michigan is certainly not paying $5M for a QB and then matching that $5M for a Fencer.
If you pay your son $30 to mow your lawn and then he finishes the job and you tell him he has to give half of it to his brother who stayed in front of his TV watching the Flintstones, how long do you think your son will mow your lawn before he takes his lawnmower down the block to cut his neighbors grass for the full price?
I tried to put in layman’s term in my response.
Does Olivia Dunne need to share her NIL money with the LSU men’s atheletes? Besides maybe Paul Skenes, I would provide a resounding “No”!
it’s really not that hard to understand unless you come from a Socialist Nation.
We're not talking about NIL money. We're talking about $20 million paid directly from the colleges to the students.
I'm not talking about Title XI. I'm talking about Title IX.
Anyway, we're talking about $20 million paid directly from the schools to the athletes, and it's not clear to me why Title IX wouldn't mandate that be shared equally between men and women just like the scholarships.
You're right about Title IX. (Title XI has to do with maritime law)
I'm not sure NIL is tied to TV rights. I thought it was for advertising, merchandise and video games.
Anyhow, if the schools pay the players (all sports) as if they have work study jobs and each sport has its own flat rate per hour, and each player on the team got paid the same, then I could probably support that structure. It addresses the "poor kid has no spending money" argument.
NIL would be separate and reserved for superstars, subject to rampant abuse, of course.
Last edited:
I have no stake in this discussion, but I’ll throw this in and let you all battle it out:
An official for the U.S. Department of Education, the federal enforcer of gender equity in sports, said Title IX rules will apply to future revenue dollars that schools share with college athletes, but the department declined to offer guidance on how schools should distribute the money between men and women to comply with the broad language of the law.
"Schools must provide equal athletic opportunities based on sex, including with respect to benefits, opportunities, publicity, and recruitment, and must not discriminate in the provision of financial aid," Catherine Lhamon, the assistant secretary for the department's Office for Civil Rights, said in a written statement to ESPN. "In the new NIL environment, these same principles apply."
www.espn.com
An official for the U.S. Department of Education, the federal enforcer of gender equity in sports, said Title IX rules will apply to future revenue dollars that schools share with college athletes, but the department declined to offer guidance on how schools should distribute the money between men and women to comply with the broad language of the law.
"Schools must provide equal athletic opportunities based on sex, including with respect to benefits, opportunities, publicity, and recruitment, and must not discriminate in the provision of financial aid," Catherine Lhamon, the assistant secretary for the department's Office for Civil Rights, said in a written statement to ESPN. "In the new NIL environment, these same principles apply."
Feds: Title IX will apply to college revenue share
The U.S. Department of Education said Title IX rules will apply to future revenue dollars payments that schools share with college athletes but declined to offer guidance on how schools should distribute the money between men and women.
The schools are acting as intermediaries for distribution of media revenue which is and will likely remain the largest source of athletic revenue. If Title XI has the juice to throw its weight around, the schools would simply stay completely out of the process and we would continue to have the True NU collaborative or something similar. I will repeat, no way, no how, the revenue is equally split between revenue generating sports and non revenue generating sports.
If the courts say that Title IX (I still don't know where you're getting this XI i.e. eleven from; that's thrice you've done it) applies to compensation the schools pay to athletes, then yes way, yes how. It's not clear to me why this compensation would be treated differently from scholarships in the eyes of Title IX.
Does the settlement mean that NIL collectives go away? As far as I'm aware, no. The men's athletes can still negotiate their NIL deals with third parties that aren't subject to Title IX. This settlement is just about money paid directly from the schools to the athletes.
I think it speaks for itself.I have no stake in this discussion, but I’ll throw this in and let you all battle it out:
An official for the U.S. Department of Education, the federal enforcer of gender equity in sports, said Title IX rules will apply to future revenue dollars that schools share with college athletes, but the department declined to offer guidance on how schools should distribute the money between men and women to comply with the broad language of the law.
"Schools must provide equal athletic opportunities based on sex, including with respect to benefits, opportunities, publicity, and recruitment, and must not discriminate in the provision of financial aid," Catherine Lhamon, the assistant secretary for the department's Office for Civil Rights, said in a written statement to ESPN. "In the new NIL environment, these same principles apply."
Feds: Title IX will apply to college revenue share
The U.S. Department of Education said Title IX rules will apply to future revenue dollars payments that schools share with college athletes but declined to offer guidance on how schools should distribute the money between men and women.
But not everyone was for a playoff or thought players were being screwed by "only" having their way paid at some of America's most elite universities which sets them up for life if they are smart about it. I think it was Pat Fitzgerald himself who good naturedly laughed that while he was paid well at the University (this is before he got the last REALLY nice contract), that despite being a big ten head coach he still might not make the Top 10 of money makers from his graduating football class/year. There were lawyers, real estate biggies, entrepreneurs, all doing very well because of those scholarships. I wish I could find that quote and interview but is was quite a few years ago.
I did a little research, and Underwood is a 2025 recruit who has committed to LSU. He is not presently enrolled at LSU. So this would be no different than somebody poaching one of our 2025 commits. However, it's clear to me that the NCAA has to put some limits on what schools can expend to recruit top players.
I will work on my Roman numerals.
Nothing I am going to say will change your opinion, but where is the money the school gets come from? Serious question. Does it make any sense to you to split the money evenly between genders when two sports (both men sports) generate all the revenue. I am not trying to diss Women’s sports or non-revenue sports but they lose money for the Universities. The move to university distribution was proposed to put some guardrails around a process. IMO, It actually would result in women’s athletes actually getting some NIL. How on earth does distributing money generated by a Network football contract to the Woman’s soccer team violate Title IX ( got it right this time)?
Men's sports have always funded the women's sports. It was like that before NIL, too. Whether or not I think Title IX is fair or good doesn't matter. The intention of the law is that schools don't provide opportunities to men at the exclusion of women. Scholarship, compensation, whatever. These are schools. Why are they even in the sports business if they aren't providing opportunities to students?
