ADVERTISEMENT

With NIL, What's to stop...?

EyeCat

Member
May 29, 2001
24
22
3
Scenario: Said high/major-level recruit is choosing between OSU and NU. Local Ohio car dealership says to prospect, "Hey, you come here to OSU and I'll put up your picture on our billboard to advertise our cars for $10K/month". Even we if consider that "above market rate" for such exposure, who is to question it? Is this the new recruiting war? Forget the more direct appeal of the athletic department letting the top 100 recruits know that they will have lots more national exposure for their brand name at OSU than NU, which is definitely permissible. I am just wondering how this will allow boosters to create easy, legal opportunities to further tilt the recruiting tables. Before, boosters were at least not able to hand money directly to the athletes, but now, a half-ass attempt to engage for the rights to the athlete's likeness or name will technically be permissible. I get it the kids should get "paid" but I wonder what it does to NU?
 
  • Like
Reactions: StreamCat
In short, I think it will be very, very, very easy.

Where there's a will, there's a way.

If you ain't cheatin', you ain't tryin'.

NCAA will always be anywhere from 9 to 36 months behind in generating new regulations to curtail the behavior.

But what else is new?
 
In short, I think it will be very, very, very easy.

Where there's a will, there's a way.

If you ain't cheatin', you ain't tryin'.

NCAA will always be anywhere from 9 to 36 months behind in generating new regulations to curtail the behavior.

But what else is new?
I don't think the NCAA is really going to try to curtail the behavior. Their decision on NIL is beyond the mere "educational expenses" of the SCOTUS ruling. This is the NCAA already giving up.
 
I don't think the NCAA is really going to try to curtail the behavior. Their decision on NIL is beyond the mere "educational expenses" of the SCOTUS ruling. This is the NCAA already giving up.
Yeah, I think market forces will have to run their course and more than one new model will emerge with various degrees of market freedom or cooperation.
 
In short, I think it will be very, very, very easy.

Where there's a will, there's a way.

If you ain't cheatin', you ain't tryin'.

NCAA will always be anywhere from 9 to 36 months behind in generating new regulations to curtail the behavior.

But what else is new?
And then those new regulations would likely be taken to court
 
When a student in a lab at the University comes up with a new idea and files a patent, the University and Lab all share in the financial benefits because it is recognized that the entire environment (resources, intellect, exposure, team, etc) all played a role in that individual's success. The value of these student athlete's NIL is no different. Perhaps there should be co-marketing deal where all can profit and without pinning one student or department against another?
 
  • Like
Reactions: CoralSpringsCat
When a student in a lab at the University comes up with a new idea and files a patent, the University and Lab all share in the financial benefits because it is recognized that the entire environment (resources, intellect, exposure, team, etc) all played a role in that individual's success. The value of these student athlete's NIL is no different. Perhaps there should be co-marketing deal where all can profit and without pinning one student or department against another?
It's an interesting point. I assume that if one of our student-athletes is doing an ad for a local business, there would be restrictions against using the name or images of Northwestern University in the ad. So, just how recognizable and influential will these students be without the immediate association to their team/school?
 
There’s nothing to prevent “I’ll pay $x,xxx for every xxxx player to do xxxx.”

I would argue that this is far better than decades and decades of dollars being funneled towards gaudy training facilities because it was illegal to just pay the players.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dugan15
There’s nothing to prevent “I’ll pay $x,xxx for every xxxx player to do xxxx.”

I would argue that this is far better than decades and decades of dollars being funneled towards gaudy training facilities because it was illegal to just pay the players.
How much of that comes from private donors? How did NU pay for the Taj Fitz? I think we'll still see the gaudy training facilities; it's part of the arms race.

We see some schools with lazy rivers and artificial ski slopes. Tuition costs have skyrocketed and some schools have benefited immensely from that.
 
How much of that comes from private donors? How did NU pay for the Taj Fitz? I think we'll still see the gaudy training facilities; it's part of the arms race.

We see some schools with lazy rivers and artificial ski slopes. Tuition costs have skyrocketed and some schools have benefited immensely from that.
Of course the facilities arms race won’t stop. But I’m happy some lineman might get a few thousand bucks instead of, like, 80 XBoxes in a rec room.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dugan15
Of course the facilities arms race won’t stop. But I’m happy some lineman might get a few thousand bucks instead of, like, 80 XBoxes in a rec room.
I wonder if student-athletes accepting a paycheck will still have the option to sit out of bowl games. (I guess, as long as the paycheck comes from a sponsor instead of the university, the answer is probably yes.)
 
Of course the facilities arms race won’t stop. But I’m happy some lineman might get a few thousand bucks instead of, like, 80 XBoxes in a rec room.
Yeah, offensive linemen at NU will be rolling in dough!
 
This is what people wanted, for some reason…
So I'll come in with a view that seems to be against the consensus here. I think it was pretty silly that a football player's (or any other athlete) roommate could get paid for sponsored Instagram posts if they have sufficient followers to justify that, while the athlete can't because of antiquated NCAA rules.

Sure it opens up opportunities for corruption, but do you think that's not already happening at many schools that are less scrupulous than us? It's better to have it legal and out in the open, IMO. I'm not pounding the table for NIL to happen, but I think at the margin it's an improvement over the prior situation.

People are very worried about parity, but it's not like we have parity right now. I don't have data on this but it sure feels like the top recruits are converging more than in the past on the top few schools (Alabama, Clemson, OSU, Georgia, Oklahoma). I've heard the case that this is due to recruits talking to each other on social media and meeting up together at football camps so basing it less on individual coach relationships, more on who produces the most NFL prospects. I could make other arguments, who knows, but given the current state of affairs it's hard for me to see there being LESS parity in college football after this. I could be wrong, we will see.

But I don't think this will ruin college sports, it will simply continue the trajectory of it gradually becoming more and bigger money and closer to professional sports (at least in the big-money ones like CFB and CBB) over time.

PS the "omg they'll have to pay taxes how can they figure out how to do that" is silly, it's no different from any HS or college student that earns more than $12k doing a job.

PPS the ones that make the most off of this won't only be top football players, it'll also be the attractive female athletes that can now compete with the other Instagram model types out there and go do deals with apparel companies, fitness, food and diet stuff, etc. Trevor Lawrence has 981k followers on IG, but Olivia Dunne (LSU gymnast) actually has 1.1M.
 
Last edited:
So I'll come in with a view that seems to be against the consensus here. I think it was pretty silly that a football player's (or any other athlete) roommate could get paid for sponsored Instagram posts if they have sufficient followers to justify that, while the athlete can't because of antiquated NCAA rules.

Sure it opens up opportunities for corruption, but do you think that's not already happening at many schools that are less scrupulous than us? It's better to have it legal and out in the open, IMO. I'm not pounding the table for NIL to happen, but I think at the margin it's an improvement over the prior situation.

People are very worried about parity, but it's not like we have parity right now. I don't have data on this but it sure feels like the top recruits are converging more than in the past on the top few schools (Alabama, Clemson, OSU, Georgia, Oklahoma). I've heard the case that this is due to recruits talking to each other on social media and meeting up together at football camps so basing it less on individual coach relationships, more on who produces the most NFL prospects. I could make other arguments, who knows, but given the current state of affairs it's hard for me to see there being LESS parity in college football after this. I could be wrong, we will see.

But I don't think this will ruin college sports, it will simply continue the trajectory of it gradually becoming more and bigger money and closer to professional sports (at least in the big-money ones like CFB and CBB) over time.

PS the "omg they'll have to pay taxes how can they figure out how to do that" is silly, it's no different from any HS or college student that earns more than $12k doing a job.

PPS the ones that make the most off of this won't only be top football players, it'll also be the attractive female athletes that can now compete with the other Instagram model types out there and go do deals with apparel companies, fitness, food and diet stuff, etc. Trevor Lawrence has 981k followers on IG, but Olivia Dunne (LSU gymnast) actually has 1.1M.
To be honest, it doesn't bother me at all having these athletes get paid for their followers or brand name. It is the idea now that anyone can pay recruits to come to a particular school. You want some good OL recruits? Have a local unaffiliated "booster" for the program "sponsor" ad-space for their business - how much is a good OL recruit worth? - 20K/year? 50K/year? 100K/year?. There will be a cottage industry of satellite groups proliferating around various universities that facilitate "donations" from your businesses to sponsor recruits. Did that kind of stuff happen before in the shadows? Absolutely. Were there some repercussions and at least the sense of being unsavory? Yes. Now, if you're not contributing to the recruitment of student athletes, then you're probably not a great fan. There has to have been a better transparent way to pay student athletes and let them profit from the value they brought to a university and the NCAA itself, without basically putting them all up on E-Bay or Craig's List to the highest bidder. I am as interested in seeing where this heads over the next decade as I am in continuing to cheer and support NU's own student athletes.
 
So I'll come in with a view that seems to be against the consensus here. I think it was pretty silly that a football player's (or any other athlete) roommate could get paid for sponsored Instagram posts if they have sufficient followers to justify that, while the athlete can't because of antiquated NCAA rules.

Sure it opens up opportunities for corruption, but do you think that's not already happening at many schools that are less scrupulous than us? It's better to have it legal and out in the open, IMO. I'm not pounding the table for NIL to happen, but I think at the margin it's an improvement over the prior situation.

People are very worried about parity, but it's not like we have parity right now. I don't have data on this but it sure feels like the top recruits are converging more than in the past on the top few schools (Alabama, Clemson, OSU, Georgia, Oklahoma). I've heard the case that this is due to recruits talking to each other on social media and meeting up together at football camps so basing it less on individual coach relationships, more on who produces the most NFL prospects. I could make other arguments, who knows, but given the current state of affairs it's hard for me to see there being LESS parity in college football after this. I could be wrong, we will see.

But I don't think this will ruin college sports, it will simply continue the trajectory of it gradually becoming more and bigger money and closer to professional sports (at least in the big-money ones like CFB and CBB) over time.

PS the "omg they'll have to pay taxes how can they figure out how to do that" is silly, it's no different from any HS or college student that earns more than $12k doing a job.

PPS the ones that make the most off of this won't only be top football players, it'll also be the attractive female athletes that can now compete with the other Instagram model types out there and go do deals with apparel companies, fitness, food and diet stuff, etc. Trevor Lawrence has 981k followers on IG, but Olivia Dunne (LSU gymnast) actually has 1.1M.

Is that player’s roommate already getting a full ride?

I think this article sums up perfect all the problems and destruction to college athletics that NIL will bring.

 
So I'll come in with a view that seems to be against the consensus here. I think it was pretty silly that a football player's (or any other athlete) roommate could get paid for sponsored Instagram posts if they have sufficient followers to justify that, while the athlete can't because of antiquated NCAA rules.
That roommate isn't receiving an athletic scholarship. I would have given up my "right" to profit from Instagram posts in exchange for the university paying for my tuition, books, room, and board, plus a "cost-of-living" stipend and "training table" food. That would have served all my needs in pursuit of a college education since that was my primary reason for enrolling in the first place.
 
To be honest, it doesn't bother me at all having these athletes get paid for their followers or brand name. It is the idea now that anyone can pay recruits to come to a particular school. You want some good OL recruits? Have a local unaffiliated "booster" for the program "sponsor" ad-space for their business - how much is a good OL recruit worth? - 20K/year? 50K/year? 100K/year?. There will be a cottage industry of satellite groups proliferating around various universities that facilitate "donations" from your businesses to sponsor recruits. Did that kind of stuff happen before in the shadows? Absolutely. Were there some repercussions and at least the sense of being unsavory? Yes. Now, if you're not contributing to the recruitment of student athletes, then you're probably not a great fan. There has to have been a better transparent way to pay student athletes and let them profit from the value they brought to a university and the NCAA itself, without basically putting them all up on E-Bay or Craig's List to the highest bidder. I am as interested in seeing where this heads over the next decade as I am in continuing to cheer and support NU's own student athletes.
Yeah, I'm with you on this. I'm much more in favor of them being allowed to do endorsement deals to profit from their own brand than something like what that Miami U MMA has said he'll do which I think is basically give every scholarship football player $6k per year. But it is America, it's a free country, and one side kind of goes with the other. NCAA could try to maintain some reasonable restrictions on it and enforcement of the rules though rather than just saying every school can deal with it however they want on their own.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CatManTrue
Yeah, I'm with you on this. I'm much more in favor of them being allowed to do endorsement deals to profit from their own brand than something like what that Miami U MMA has said he'll do which I think is basically give every scholarship football player $6k per year. But it is America, it's a free country, and one side kind of goes with the other. NCAA could try to maintain some reasonable restrictions on it and enforcement of the rules though rather than just saying every school can deal with it however they want on their own.
They're going to cheat anyway. Better to get it all "out in the open," don't you think?
 
Is that player’s roommate already getting a full ride?

I think this article sums up perfect all the problems and destruction to college athletics that NIL will bring.

I read it, and ... meh, i'm not convinced
1 the transfer portal had already exploded before this, the NCAA's decision to give a free one-time transfer waiver to everyone in a Covid year had much more to do with that than NIL will.
2 the taxes thing I already said is being wildly overstated as a concern IMO
3 okay sure there could be some locker room jealousy because one guy is making more than the other which could hurt team cohesion, but there are always going to risks to locker room dynamics - it's not that much different than if one more popular (or better?) player gets a girl that another also liked... college kids aren't fully adults but they are close to it so they should have at least some maturity, if not that's their (or their coaches') problem to manage
4 i'm not even quite sure what point they are trying to make with this one... the NCAA makes tons of money from college football and basketball and none of it goes to the students... wouldn't that suggest that enabling NIL to allow some of it to flow to the athletes is a good thing?

i think the outspoken opponents here are mostly (i) propping up red herrings that were trends already happening before NIL that they now want to blame on NIL (e.g. lack of parity in CFB, the transfers, etc) or else (ii) blowing up minor issues that are solvable into huge ones (e.g. the taxes thing, potential for locker room tension).

The inconsistency in enforcement or rules is hopefully something that will get improved over time although knowing the NCAA that's probably too much to ask. There are rules in place though against doing deals with drug companies, alcohol companies, or gambling companies so they aren't 100% asleep at the wheel. And the opportunity for outright pay-to-play things is not ideal, again goes along with enforcement, but I guess we are accepting some bad with the good developments (giving the kids their capitalist rights back).
 
I read it, and ... meh, i'm not convinced
1 the transfer portal had already exploded before this, the NCAA's decision to give a free one-time transfer waiver to everyone in a Covid year had much more to do with that than NIL will.
2 the taxes thing I already said is being wildly overstated as a concern IMO
3 okay sure there could be some locker room jealousy because one guy is making more than the other which could hurt team cohesion, but there are always going to risks to locker room dynamics - it's not that much different than if one more popular (or better?) player gets a girl that another also liked... college kids aren't fully adults but they are close to it so they should have at least some maturity, if not that's their (or their coaches') problem to manage
4 i'm not even quite sure what point they are trying to make with this one... the NCAA makes tons of money from college football and basketball and none of it goes to the students... wouldn't that suggest that enabling NIL to allow some of it to flow to the athletes is a good thing?

i think the outspoken opponents here are mostly (i) propping up red herrings that were trends already happening before NIL that they now want to blame on NIL (e.g. lack of parity in CFB, the transfers, etc) or else (ii) blowing up minor issues that are solvable into huge ones (e.g. the taxes thing, potential for locker room tension).

The inconsistency in enforcement or rules is hopefully something that will get improved over time although knowing the NCAA that's probably too much to ask. There are rules in place though against doing deals with drug companies, alcohol companies, or gambling companies so they aren't 100% asleep at the wheel. And the opportunity for outright pay-to-play things is not ideal, again goes along with enforcement, but I guess we are accepting some bad with the good developments (giving the kids their capitalist rights back).

What is your suggestion for “enforcement and rules”?
 
Scenario: Said high/major-level recruit is choosing between OSU and NU. Local Ohio car dealership says to prospect, "Hey, you come here to OSU and I'll put up your picture on our billboard to advertise our cars for $10K/month". Even we if consider that "above market rate" for such exposure, who is to question it? Is this the new recruiting war? Forget the more direct appeal of the athletic department letting the top 100 recruits know that they will have lots more national exposure for their brand name at OSU than NU, which is definitely permissible. I am just wondering how this will allow boosters to create easy, legal opportunities to further tilt the recruiting tables. Before, boosters were at least not able to hand money directly to the athletes, but now, a half-ass attempt to engage for the rights to the athlete's likeness or name will technically be permissible. I get it the kids should get "paid" but I wonder what it does to NU?
Been squawking about this for months. P5 “College” football will become professional football in short course. To a great extent, those who choose NU will continue do so for the reasons that recruits have been choosing NU over powerhouse programs ( where there already often exists a long, sorry reality of bagmen paying players ) for years: the putative benefits for the next 40 years vs. the putative benefits of national exposure and positioning themselves to play in the league.
All that said, I have no idea what this will end up meaning for NUFB …..and I’ll suggest that even the Board’s redoubtable mavens don’t either.
 
I read it, and ... meh, i'm not convinced
1 the transfer portal had already exploded before this, the NCAA's decision to give a free one-time transfer waiver to everyone in a Covid year had much more to do with that than NIL will.
2 the taxes thing I already said is being wildly overstated as a concern IMO
3 okay sure there could be some locker room jealousy because one guy is making more than the other which could hurt team cohesion, but there are always going to risks to locker room dynamics - it's not that much different than if one more popular (or better?) player gets a girl that another also liked... college kids aren't fully adults but they are close to it so they should have at least some maturity, if not that's their (or their coaches') problem to manage
4 i'm not even quite sure what point they are trying to make with this one... the NCAA makes tons of money from college football and basketball and none of it goes to the students... wouldn't that suggest that enabling NIL to allow some of it to flow to the athletes is a good thing?

i think the outspoken opponents here are mostly (i) propping up red herrings that were trends already happening before NIL that they now want to blame on NIL (e.g. lack of parity in CFB, the transfers, etc) or else (ii) blowing up minor issues that are solvable into huge ones (e.g. the taxes thing, potential for locker room tension).

The inconsistency in enforcement or rules is hopefully something that will get improved over time although knowing the NCAA that's probably too much to ask. There are rules in place though against doing deals with drug companies, alcohol companies, or gambling companies so they aren't 100% asleep at the wheel. And the opportunity for outright pay-to-play things is not ideal, again goes along with enforcement, but I guess we are accepting some bad with the good developments (giving the kids their capitalist rights back).
Taxes- will players have to pay taxes to the city and state where they play their game ?. Professional athletes pay taxes in visiting cities .
 
Last edited:
Taxes- will players have to pay taxes to the city and state where they play their game ?. Professional athletes pay taxes in visiting cities .
Not really, if the money is earned from endorsements (which I think most of this is, either legitimately or less legitimately) it will be slated to their home state, so not based on salary pay from variable locations based on each game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dugan15
What is your suggestion for “enforcement and rules”?
most importantly try to prevent outright handouts from boosters that are straight payments and dont have anything to do with some value provided by the student athlete. might be easier said than done. there are other aspects too but im not in a hurry to get into a big debate about the nuances to be honest. i feel like the nuances have already been missed from this conversation.
 
most importantly try to prevent outright handouts from boosters that are straight payments and dont have anything to do with some value provided by the student athlete. might be easier said than done. there are other aspects too but im not in a hurry to get into a big debate about the nuances to be honest. i feel like the nuances have already been missed from this conversation.

How do you accomplish that in a fair and reasonable way? You said yourself that schools will cheat anyway. Now it will be much, MUCH easier.
 
most importantly try to prevent outright handouts from boosters that are straight payments and dont have anything to do with some value provided by the student athlete. might be easier said than done. there are other aspects too but im not in a hurry to get into a big debate about the nuances to be honest. i feel like the nuances have already been missed from this conversation.

How do you accomplish that?
 
How do you accomplish that?
Are you trying to ask rhetorical questions? How do you create guidelines for usage of NIL and then enforce offenders? It's rather self-evident, isn't it? Whether the NCAA will have the desire or capability to do so is another thing, the answer is probably not at this stage. Still think the go-forward will be better / more fair overall than the prior status quo, but I'm not trying to claim it will be perfect.
 
Are you trying to ask rhetorical questions? How do you create guidelines for usage of NIL and then enforce offenders? It's rather self-evident, isn't it? Whether the NCAA will have the desire or capability to do so is another thing, the answer is probably not at this stage. Still think the go-forward will be better / more fair overall than the prior status quo, but I'm not trying to claim it will be perfect.

Actually, it’s not self evident at all. There’s no way of fairly and properly policing this, and I believe you think the same thing. It will get out of control so very quickly, as we’ve already seen.

Any smaller $ schools will be left in the dust with this, and the gap that was closing between mid majors and majors will be ripped wide open again. In the end, money talks.

Some of us were college fans because we DON’T like the professional model.
 
I actually don’t care if it will “get out of control”. I know. I know. I am a fan. It will change the game, It will change our experience. But, the reality is: The prior system was inappropriate. If I went to Waa-Mu (which I have for many years) and I wanted to pay the stars of the show, I could. Likewise with the transfer portal. I won’t like it as a fan. But, unpaid college students are free agents. End of story.

“Competitive balance” should have nothing to do with a circumstance where the labor is not paid and where there is no collective bargaining agreement. Just my opinion.
 
I actually don’t care if it will “get out of control”. I know. I know. I am a fan. It will change the game, It will change our experience. But, the reality is: The prior system was inappropriate. If I went to Waa-Mu (which I have for many years) and I wanted to pay the stars of the show, I could. Likewise with the transfer portal. I won’t like it as a fan. But, unpaid college students are free agents. End of story.

“Competitive balance” should have nothing to do with a circumstance where the labor is not paid and where there is no collective bargaining agreement. Just my opinion.

Not paid!? It’s called a free ride WITH perks. If you don’t like the deal, don’t play college ball. Nobody is forcing anyone to do it. Changing the system because of greed only destroys the experience we grew up loving. A pro league already exists.
 
I wonder if student-athletes accepting a paycheck will still have the option to sit out of bowl games. (I guess, as long as the paycheck comes from a sponsor instead of the university, the answer is probably yes.)
With the new playoff system will theyopt for a s many as four mmore games if they have already solidified their draft status?
 
ADVERTISEMENT