I don't get this at all. Why would this be effected at all? NIL has no impact on the academic side.
Allowing guys to play for 7 years would greatly effect the academic side.
Iowa and the NIL
- Thread starter jhawkinaz
- Start date
I don't get this at all. Why would this be effected at all? NIL has no impact on the academic side.
Allowing guys to play for 7 years would greatly effect the academic side.
I could see that happening for sure. Just because kids can be used in marketing, it doesn't mean the marketing budgets of businesses will grow. Where they might have thrown 50k at the athletic department in the past, do they go 25k to the athletic department and 25k to players? I think that will happen for sure and any AD worth their salt needs to be planning on it.
OT:
"The Twins" might make more than the President.
"The Twins" might make more than the President.
How is that? He can take classes for the 7 years. Double majors or grad degrees.
This. At this point anyway, you still have to be a "student/athlete. You have to be actually attending class and in good academic standing. And you still just have 5 years to play 4 barring some God forsaken pandemic striking again....
This seems much more organic than "Chat with me for 5 minutes for $40." I wonder how long it takes before some of this gets to "sexual" for the likes of the university.
I don't think the university (much like the NCAA) would win the Twins' lawsuit.
This was pretty much my original point, and I do the there is something to it.
The point is that them making money is completely unrelated to the rules around eligibility. Why would they change eligibility? They could have changed that at any time and they haven't.
You don't think at some point a player or group of players will file a suit? There is no real minor league football. If a kid could stay for a 5th or 6th year (not quite enough talent for NFL or just not interested in that level) and get free schooling and make $40k or $50k or more why should they be stopped by the NCAA?
And they hadn't changed the pay until now so why didn't they in the past, because they wanted it all and the Supreme Court just spanked them? Someone is stuck in the 1980s. Whoaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Nellie!
Yes there is minor league football. CFL and other semi pro leagues.
Allowing players to make money off of themselves has been a big sticking point for a very long time as it kind of flies in the face of the amateur model.
There has literally never been anything stopping the NCAA from changing eligibility requirements.
per NIL rules a student athlete cannot have any school identifiers in their marketing.
Seriously!? Hell no. Make the lower ranked player walk on. Why would a four star want to pay his tuition and rent out of his NIL money when another school could provide both the scholarship and NIL?
Who's rules? They most certainly can't have it without permission of the school. Who's saying they can't get permission from the school?
Also, the school cannot put the player's name on the shirts they sell without the permission of the player.
Thus, they get together, and both make money.
Ill guarantee you a group of players (class action lawsuit) will be filed soon leading to unionization. The train has left the station, and It can't be stopped.
The highest level of men's football and b-ball have had a "fig leaf" approach to the whole student-athlete concept for decades. This NIL issue is just the latest in that process. With the dollars that are at stake NCAA and the universities won't let the pretense of amateurism that they've fostered fall easily.
I give it 5 years before the current sport doesnt resemble todays sport. I left NBA and college is working 24/7 to make me leave. Oh well
You might be of the mistaken belief that they (NCAA/Universities) are still in control, but they're not. Players (and their attorneys) are now in control, and the players have more attorneys (and, of course, U.S. v. Alston) on their side.
Alston made clear where this ends.
Disagree.
First, it's never been that the NCAA and the member schools were ENTIRELY in control. It's about the balance of power. That balance was overwhelmingly on the side of the NCAA and the schools. Now it's not.
But it's not as if the NCAA and schools have no power. This decision by itself isn't that far reaching. The NCAA and schools won't simply give up what they have left. Not with the dollars that are at stake.
NCAA, and their schools, are impotent. They know it, I know it, and now you know it.
But one could just as easily argue the opposite. Being the best player on Oregon State or Georgia Tech is probably not going to maximize your NIL earnings. The coaches at Ohio State and Alabama are offering you a starting spot to play for them and you'll still be one the the best players on the team and a great chance to be a high draft pick. Plenty of prime time exposure and rich boosters to stuff your pockets.
The lower tier schools might not end up with net losses but I'm not sure they get a net gain either.
Because I think rather than recruits going where they develop great relationships with coaches, where they're a good fit, etc, they're going to now consider where they can maximize NIL, which has nothing to do with football or basketball and will have way too much weight in the decision.
Well, off course there is, but because my original post was about NIL ruining football and basketball, it's not too relevant, is it?
Of course it's relevant: business (NIL) vs. pleasure (non-NIL). NIL isn't going to ruin football; it's going to change football. Change for the better, probably not, but it won't ruin football.
The interesting thing will be how much this synergizes with players being allowed to transfer. Like, will their representatives make recommendations?
I'll be honest I highly doubt this is going to trickle down to programs outside of the top tier, and those programs were already getting almost all of the best players... so I think people are vastly overstating this.
Yup. I don't think the money is gonna be big enough to be the main determinant for most recruits. The top 5-10 players in the country? Maybe there is big money for them as recruits. And maybe there is something smaller for the top 100. Idk.
But, for most recruits, they need to become elite players (on the field, in college) to have a national market. And there are really only a handful of national names in college football in a given year. I'd say around 10-15.
Beyond them, the NIL money is going to be local and it's going to be a lot less and it's going to be driven by local fanbases.
That local money matters. I think it can be a recruiting edge for teams like Iowa and Nebraska that dominate their markets. But I doubt it will be the main factor for most recruits.
Well, I think the unspoken market is with the high school recruits. As of today, Iowa has offered the following kids:
YEAR # STATE OF RESIDENCE
2025: 2 (MO & IL)
2024: 7 (CT, IA, IL, FL, MO, NE)
2023: 26 (AL, IA, NJ, AZ, FL, MN, KS, MO, TN, IL, MI, IN, NE, GA)
They're all local stars. We all know if they're good enough to get a Hawkeye offer, others will follow. It's these recruits that might very well be establishing the NIL businesses (with parental consent). Similar to child actors.
How well they do (and, where they do well at) will impact their school choice.
Remember, the example above is only Iowa ~ multiply by 129 other D-1 schools.
I’d say the gross amount of money in college fb and bb destroyed them, not the players who have long been exploited by the past ncaa system.
Some for certain and that’s ok. The universities have been getting the lobg end of the stick for years.
Agents will broker deals for high level players with programs....taking a cut in the process. It'll become a total cesspool. I'm happy the kids can now make money, but now there will be a whole new group involved that are there simply to leach off of them and the system.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Players file lawsuit against state for privacy rights violations
- Latest: WaterlooChazz
-
