The 1890 Initiative

[Mavric]

I don't doubt it. 

What I do doubt is the On3 NIL information that they mostly make up. Starting with the estimated NIL value of recruits (which has no basis other than a players following on social media) and articles like this which they have a 0% chance of having reportable information to write.

Again, you are making assumptions to fit your narrative.  You don't know what they do or don't do to come up with that information.

 

[teachercd]

NIL is far from the only factor that goes into that.  To try to make it this simplistic is disingenuous.

Your assumption.  Which, as @teachercd noted, is ignorant of the situation.

Yeah, it is not hard to figure out which schools might/do have some big a$$ donors.  

Just wait until Warren gets on board with NU's NIL!!!!

"You get a billion and you get a billion and you get a billion!"

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

Again, you are making assumptions to fit your narrative.  You don't know what they do or don't do to come up with that information.

I'm making common sense connections. I don't think this is rocket science.

Nobody knows the amount of money NIL collectives take in. I also know that the On3 business model is pretty much click bait, as seen here:


I also know that recruits, on average, commit to schools offering the most money. Not always, but schools need to at least be in the ball park. Recruits aren't going to Bama for the love of wearing Crimson, it's because they're getting paid commensurate rates.

The fact that Alabama/LSU/Georgia have dominate recruiting classes despite not having top NIL collectives, according to On3, means that: 

1. Recruits are going to those schools for reasons outside of significant amounts of money. This is despite coaches like Lane Kiffin openly admitting that players go where they get paid the most.

OR 

2. On3 is making things up based on bad/incomplete reporting to drive clicks. 

 

[Mavric]

Nobody knows the amount of money NIL collectives take in.

This includes you.  But you seem to act like you do.

I also know that the On3 business model is pretty much click bait, as seen here:

I mean, there isn't much for media anywhere that isn't just doing "click-bait" reporting if that's what your threshold is going to be.  "If it bleeds, it leads" is as old as the media industry.

I also know that recruits, on average, commit to schools offering the most money.

Again, you're making assumptions.  You have no idea what goes on in the minds of 1000s of high school kids.  But you like to think you do.

Not always, but schools need to at least be in the ball park.

How many other schools that have seven straight losing seasons are getting five-star recruits to visit?  It's been pointed out numerous times that we have to be pretty competitive with the other heavy hitters in the NIL space to be able to even get their attention, let alone be seriously considering us.

Recruits aren't going to Bama for the love of wearing Crimson, it's because they're getting paid commensurate rates.

I'm just spitballing here but it seems like I remember them also being somewhat competitive on the field recently as well.

The fact that Alabama/LSU/Georgia have dominate recruiting classes despite not having top NIL collectives, according to On3, means that: 

1. Recruits are going to those schools for reasons outside of significant amounts of money. This is despite coaches like Lane Kiffin openly admitting that players go where they get paid the most.

OR 

2. On3 is making things up based on bad/incomplete reporting to drive clicks. 

It seems like it should be pretty obvious that there are a whole ton of issues other than money.  You're insistence that that's the overriding factor in the majority of decisions doesn't have any more basis in fact than the lack of fact you are trying to impute on On3.

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

This includes you.  But you seem to act like you do.

I mean, there isn't much for media anywhere that isn't just doing "click-bait" reporting if that's what your threshold is going to be.  "If it bleeds, it leads" is as old as the media industry.

Again, you're making assumptions.  You have no idea what goes on in the minds of 1000s of high school kids.  But you like to think you do.

How many other schools that have seven straight losing seasons are getting five-star recruits to visit?  It's been pointed out numerous times that we have to be pretty competitive with the other heavy hitters in the NIL space to be able to even get their attention, let alone be seriously considering us.

I'm just spitballing here but it seems like I remember them also being somewhat competitive on the field recently as well.

It seems like it should be pretty obvious that there are a whole ton of issues other than money.  You're insistence that that's the overriding factor in the majority of decisions doesn't have any more basis in fact than the lack of fact you are trying to impute on On3.

My dude, it has a basis in fact as reported by a head coach at Ole Miss who said that players go where they get paid the most money and that he precedes it by saying other coaches are unwilling to admit that. Now, I don't think it's always true. Some players will go to a bigger program for less money. But it isn't significant. Players aren't passing up large sums to play at LSU instead of Nebraska. 

I'm simply pointing out that On3 pulling this list out of their a$$. Because they do the same thing with the "NIL valuation" number for recruits, it's their schtick to separate themselves from their competitors. I am highly confident that Georgia, LSU, and Alabama all have a more robust collective operation than Nebraska. This shouldn't exactly be earth shattering or hard to conclude based on recruiting results.

None of this is bad or to criticize Nebraska, our NIL operation is as good as it reasonably can be considering the size of the state, the donor/business base, and other limiting factors. My issue is with On3 essentially making TMZ like efforts to report on CFB to drive engagement. It's obvious this list is wrong.

A combined 12 different 5* players are not signing with teams that don't have top 10 NIL operations, like Georgia, Alabama, and LSU are apparently doing. You do not need inside sources to confirm this. These are not wild assumptions that aren't based in reality. 

 

[Lorewarn]

So far behind...

Who is Pete Nakos and how is this top 10 being decided? Amount of dollars? Best performing? Best leadership or operational structure or relationship with their AD or # of players adopted or vibes? 

 

[Mavric]

My dude, it has a basis in fact as reported by a head coach at Ole Miss who said that players go where they get paid the most money

Well, if one guy said it, it absolutely has to be the truth.

Players aren't passing up large sums to play at LSU instead of Nebraska. 

:movegoalpost:

I'm simply pointing out that On3 pulling this list out of their a$$.

Again, you don't know this.  It's just what you want to believe.  You don't have any more evidence of it that the lack of evidence you say they have.

 

[Lorewarn]

Well, if one guy said it, it absolutely has to be the truth.

This whole thing started from you sharing an arbitrary list from one guy with a sarcastic "we're so far behind" commentary implying you give it some credence.

 

[Mavric]

This whole thing started from you sharing an arbitrary list from one guy with a sarcastic "we're so far behind" commentary implying you give it some credence.

Yeah, a company that researches and reports on it should not be given any more credence than one random internet guy who just doesn't believe it.

 

[Lorewarn]

Yeah, a company that researches and reports on it should not be given any more credence than one random internet guy who just doesn't believe it.

While your snark is always greatly admired, your sentence might actually be true from time to time. Without any sources or methodology to back it up, your "company that researches and reports on it" is actually also just one random internet guy, with a logical fallacy of appeal to authority thrown on top. 

 

[Mavric]

While your snark is always greatly admired, your sentence might actually be true from time to time. Without any sources or methodology to back it up, your "company that researches and reports on it" is actually also just one random internet guy, with a logical fallacy of appeal to authority thrown on top. 

But that's not what it is.

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

Yeah, a company that researches and reports on it should not be given any more credence than one random internet guy who just doesn't believe it.

While true, my belief stems from evidence including a coach talking about NIL and where players go, recruiting rankings I can look up, and a host of other evidence that is just common sense. I could be wrong in my analysis: I was wrong about scholarship limits and you changed my mind on that. 

Maybe you're right and players really aren't going to where they get the most NIL dollars. That would have to be true on a pretty widescale basis, with a large number of blue chip players going to certain schools in the Southeast that apparently don't have top notch NIL operations. I personally very much doubt it, and believe that On3 is simply including teams on the list (and excluding certain very popular teams with large fan bases) to drive clicks.

 

[Mierin]

Just thinking logically, NIL $ has to be up there, but they will make so much more money in the NFL, so the chance at NFL must still be the #1 factor for most. Especially if they are listening to the adults around them. Part of that is joining a winning team with national attention, and another part is the depth chart.

Everything else being equal, if Albama is offering $500K and Nebraska is offering $750K, you go to Alabama based on them getting players in the NFL. But they are 18 year olds, and making a quick buck probably wins some of them over.

 

[Mavric]

[No message]

 

[GSG]