The NCAA will allow athletes to profit from their name, image, and likeness

[BigRedBuster]

12 minutes ago, gobiggergoredder said:

I don't really care for NIL or transfer portal, but I think this take is dead on..........

 

 

 

 

Yes.

 

None of us have to like it.  I don't.  But, if it's happening, programs need to be proactive and take advantage of it.

[Mavric]

 

[Mavric]

 

[Red Five]

 

[runningblind]

49 minutes ago, Red Five said:

 

I've always thought that guy (and Marrow), are jacka$$e$.

[funhusker]

On 9/14/2023 at 4:23 PM, Mavric said:

 

Had no idea who she was, so I Googled her.

 

Being gorgeous and sharing bikini pics online must be great for business!

 

I think folks don't always understand that NIL doesn't just come from boosters.  It allows the kids to create online profiles and make money.  Generating clicks is what makes the money.  If some college athletes were to create "Dude Perfect" they could get paid AND still play sports.

[Red Five]

But I thought NIL and the transfer portal were killing college football

 

 

[runningblind]

27 minutes ago, Red Five said:

But I thought NIL and the transfer portal were killing college football

 

 

This year is because of Deion, and the previous 5 years is due to the growing anticipation of Deion approaching the P5 ranks.

[Mavric]

 

[nic]

"A federal judge granted class certification to three different groups of college athletes Friday in an ongoing antitrust case against the NCAA, a decision that significantly increases the potential financial penalties the NCAA could face if it continues its losing streak in federal court."

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/38813620/athletes-granted-class-certification-antitrust-case-vs-ncaa

 

How many athletes will jump in to get paid?

 

[Mavric]

I'm surprised that they argued for that low of a number...

 

Quote

Wilken approved a plan to divide the large group of athletes into three distinct categories: one class for football and men's basketball players, one class for women's basketball players and another class for all other Division I athletes. The groups are divided based on the ways those athletes might have been able to maximize their earnings if the NCAA's rules were different.

 

The plaintiffs argue that there are three different categories of lost earnings: money from all NIL deals that were prohibited prior to the NCAA adopting new, temporary rules in July 2021, money from video game deals, and money from broadcast rights. They argue that the men's basketball and football players lost money in all three categories, that women's basketball players lost money from broadcast deals and general NIL restrictions and that all other athletes lost money from the general NIL restrictions.

 

The plaintiffs submitted testimony from two experts who argued that football and basketball (both men and women) players provide at least 10% of the value in television broadcast rights contracts -- deals that in some cases are worth more than $1 billion per year. The NCAA's lawyers argued that there was no basis for assigning a dollar amount to how much value the athletes contributed to those contracts. Wilken wrote in her decision that she "finds ample support for Plaintiffs' assumption that student-athletes' NIL in broadcasts have value, and that their value is at least ten percent."

 

[Mavric]

I actually think that making the players employees is probably the most straight-forward way to clean up a lot of this.  If they are employees, they can sign contracts with lengths and terms.  Want that big deal?  Sign a four-year contract.  But then you can't bail after one year.  If you're only willing to sign a one-year deal you take your chances.

 

Then schools don't have to re-recruit the whole roster every year.  And if a schools wants to cut a player, they cut them.

 

There would need to be a salary cap to keep things somewhat even.  

[Red Five]

 

Collectives have shifted funds from spending in recruiting to the portal, where the odds of landing a proven commodity are significantly higher. 

 

“A top-10 caliber quarterback in the transfer portal is worth seven figures. But a high school quarterback isn’t worth anything because they’re not going to start,” a collective leader told On3. “Same thing with any player. You can have a stud defensive end or wide receiver – it doesn’t make sense to spend money on someone who is going to be a non-impact player. It’s just bad management. That’s why in professional sports, rookies make so much less than free agents. You want a guaranteed veteran more than taking a flier on a rookie. 

 

“The problem is everyone’s like, ‘Oh great, I can go recruit this high school kid and he can make a big difference.’ What’s the bust rate in the NFL draft in the first round? Probably a one-third chance the guy is going to work out. So why do you think you’re going to be able to recognize somebody as a high school recruit and then go dump all this money.”

 

Roster management has also emerged as a key component of a school’s NIL infrastructure. While lucrative packages can attract talent, it’s also used to retain top players. In a market where the motto is buyers beware, the safest option is to preserve talent rather than risk a recruiting bust. 

 

Programs often tell recruits not to hold their decisions until December because the portal quickly takes precedence. 

 

“What I feel like, it’s kind of been a shift from – at first it was the recruiting front because the incoming guys caught the first wave,” an SEC player personnel staffer involved in NIL told On3. “They were the ones to be able to capitalize on the era when everyone was trying to figure out what was going on. It seems to me there’s been a shift from the early stage to the retain portion. More people are seeing it’s about maintaining your roster and keeping your guys another year, rather than the young fellas who aren’t a proven commodity.”

[Red Five]

 

[Mavric]