The main recruiting tool will be how much money we can get you for you likeness etc. There will be a cancer in the locker room and college sports will be over as we know it. A few select stars will get a lot of money will most will get nothing. You think recruiting is unfair now, just wait.
Recruiting will be a cut throat money grab
- Thread starter pgsailor
- Start date
For the last ****ing time, you aren’t being paid directly. You are allowed to hold a camp in your name, have a YouTube channel, etc. When you are being recruited, teams will not be allowed to hand you a bag of money. That’s not how this will work.
Did you get video of the Easter Bunny yesterday as well? You are correct, teams won't just hand you money. Think anyone will want to 'sponsor' the camp that the potential starting quarterback is going to have? Think the star basketball player won't be highly compensated for the car dealer using his likeness on commercials? If you don't think that these unintended consequences will occur........
C'mon. You don't think there will be sweet whispers of what awaits????? Get real.
Idk might also spread out the 4stars and 5 stars instead of them all just going to a handful of schools. They will have a better chance of making some money off their name if they're playing and not bench riding at bama.
Oh, Bama and tOSU and others will continue to cheat. That I don’t doubt. But the way OP is describing it is not how it’ll work.
Nothing is changing.... Cheaters gonna be cheating no matter what, They will be able to cover it up better with athletes already getting paid on the side.
The amount of money already exchanging hands is egregious, if anything this helps the smaller programs who aren’t currently cheating offer some sort of compensation. In a state like Iowa without professional teams the college players will be the biggest stars. I think it benefits Iowa in the long run.
You need to factor in the concept that 4* and 5*’s don’t think they will ride the pine
What is going to happen is that programs will coordinate with boosters to have the boosters offer the recruits endorsement deals. Come to Alabama and the local car dealership will give you a 100k endorsement deal. Fail to perform and it will go away. Offer endorsement deals to the best players on opposing teams and with the transfer portal you can cripple your opponent. Even if you do not play the guy, he still isn't playing for your opponent. Programs like Texas will always have significantly more money to spread around.
There will have to be some sort of cap and all sorts of paperwork and documentation, accountants, lawyers, audits. Fun times kids, fun times.
I haven't read all the legislation out there, but I don't think schools will be allowed to coordinate with outside parties to pay the athletes. However, I would say your point still stands since we all know what's going to happen behind the scenes. But hell, even if there isn't illegal coordination, NIL would still allow outside parties to have a large influence on if a player comes to the school, stays at the school, or transfers from it.
I also don't believe there will be limits on the amount an athlete can earn. That coupled with the fact it will be difficult to really determine the true value of these endorsements makes it pretty easy to game. If a fan with a lot of money wants to buy 10 autographed footballs by the star QB for 100k, I don't think there is anyway to stop it because wouldn't the value in this case be subjective?
It's gonna be a mess.
I'm not convinced you or anyone else really knows how it will work yet.
Well if it does pass, it will teach these college kids about federal and state income taxes in a real hurry.
Agree 100%. Probably easier for schools to take advantage of this if the rules prohibit them coordinating with the outside parties. Hard to imagine how this will be governed effectively if the coaches/schools aren't going to be directly accountable for any cheating. Players will talk and word will get out about NIL $ without coaches saying a word to recruits, so that won't be an issues.
It is already obvious that there are only 5 or six teams allowed to win the national championship. Create another division that wants to pay players and one that wants to play by the old rules.
The NCAA has had decades to make this work, and ignored the issue. This is what happens when leadership fails to lead. There's no going back...only forward. I'm expecting many Recreation and P.E. majors to be switching to Marketing majors very soon.
Have they discussed capping the amount an athlete can earn? Feel like that would be a good way to prevent this from turning into an absolute Sh*tshow of a bidding war for recruits.
You can't earn more than 50k in a year, let's say. Bama, iowa, nebraska, wherever...50k is the maximum. Period.
If it's not capped, it really will turn into a bidding war w boosters, autograph sessions, endorsements, all that.
You can't earn more than 50k in a year, let's say. Bama, iowa, nebraska, wherever...50k is the maximum. Period.
If it's not capped, it really will turn into a bidding war w boosters, autograph sessions, endorsements, all that.
True, $50k would be a serious paycut for some of these guys.
A
anon_b29nm7v7dwp6r
Guest
Just had this discussion with someone and their position was, “schools like Iowa won’t be able to compete for top recruits...”
and?....lol that’s the current reality, not some boogeyman. This will change nothing, except get the players their share. OSU and Bama are still going to be OSU and Bama....
and?....lol that’s the current reality, not some boogeyman. This will change nothing, except get the players their share. OSU and Bama are still going to be OSU and Bama....
With the caveat that I fall into the camp of opening up NIL compensation will absolutely devastate college sports and that "brand" drives the demand as opposed to individual players . . . I listened to two Hawkeye Podcasts as I drove home from Pierre, SD last night. The first was Jon Miller's interview with Jordan Bohannon. The second involved a discussion between Jon Miller and Marc Morehouse about the pros/cons of NIL compensation. (BTW, both Miller and Morehouse are "pro-NIL compensation).
One comment made by Miller . . . the metropolitan area for Columbus, Ohio is about 2.1M people. Iowa City is approximately 150,000 people. While I fully understand that OSU is "out recruiting" Iowa right now in the absence of NIL compensation, there is zero chance that Iowa will be able to come close to competing with OSU when it comes to arranging for NIL compensation.
One other comment (can't remember if it was Morehouse or Miller) involved walk-ons. One noted that, during Nebraska's run of dominant teams in the 1970s, there weren't the type of scholarship limitations that exist now. If NIL opens up as claimed by the players, there will certainly be opportunities for schools to arrange for boosters to pay players for NIL and for them to not be on scholarship . . . boosting walk-on numbers. If a student is receiving sufficient NIL compensation, a "free ride" may be far less of an issue.
Someone in this thread suggested that a "cap" would have to be employed. FWIW, Bohannon suggested that Garza would have made between $1M and 1.5M this year if he was able to make money off of his NIL. Miller commented that he thought that Bohannon would have been paid into "the six figures." Bohannon commented that Caitlyn Clark would have easily made more than $100K.
Possible conflict . . . what if Adidas wants to pay Garza to wear Adidas but the Iowa Athletic Department has an apparel contract with Nike? (comparable to conflict experienced by some professional athletes when they participated in the Olympics - US Olympics had contract with Reebok while individual players had contracts with other apparel manufacturers)
Another issue: Should a player be able to utilize NIL while wearing an Iowa jersey or Iowa gear? Must it get Iowa's permission/consent to do so and what cut of the pay will be diverted to the university? Alternatively, can a player like Bohannon only attempt to profit off of NIL without the benefit of the Iowa brand? I.e. If Hy-Vee wants to pay Bohannon for his image in marketing materials, can they only use his face or, if they use an action shot, must the Iowa brand be omitted? I can only imagine the reaction of the players if they cannot use the school's trademarked brand . . . (Garza's NRT certainly raises some interesting trademark issues but I'd defer to trademark/intellectual property specialists for more specific information).
If you think that the players should be compensated for their NIL, doesn't it necessarily follow that you must feel as though the university must enforce its branding rights.
One comment made by Miller . . . the metropolitan area for Columbus, Ohio is about 2.1M people. Iowa City is approximately 150,000 people. While I fully understand that OSU is "out recruiting" Iowa right now in the absence of NIL compensation, there is zero chance that Iowa will be able to come close to competing with OSU when it comes to arranging for NIL compensation.
One other comment (can't remember if it was Morehouse or Miller) involved walk-ons. One noted that, during Nebraska's run of dominant teams in the 1970s, there weren't the type of scholarship limitations that exist now. If NIL opens up as claimed by the players, there will certainly be opportunities for schools to arrange for boosters to pay players for NIL and for them to not be on scholarship . . . boosting walk-on numbers. If a student is receiving sufficient NIL compensation, a "free ride" may be far less of an issue.
Someone in this thread suggested that a "cap" would have to be employed. FWIW, Bohannon suggested that Garza would have made between $1M and 1.5M this year if he was able to make money off of his NIL. Miller commented that he thought that Bohannon would have been paid into "the six figures." Bohannon commented that Caitlyn Clark would have easily made more than $100K.
Possible conflict . . . what if Adidas wants to pay Garza to wear Adidas but the Iowa Athletic Department has an apparel contract with Nike? (comparable to conflict experienced by some professional athletes when they participated in the Olympics - US Olympics had contract with Reebok while individual players had contracts with other apparel manufacturers)
Another issue: Should a player be able to utilize NIL while wearing an Iowa jersey or Iowa gear? Must it get Iowa's permission/consent to do so and what cut of the pay will be diverted to the university? Alternatively, can a player like Bohannon only attempt to profit off of NIL without the benefit of the Iowa brand? I.e. If Hy-Vee wants to pay Bohannon for his image in marketing materials, can they only use his face or, if they use an action shot, must the Iowa brand be omitted? I can only imagine the reaction of the players if they cannot use the school's trademarked brand . . . (Garza's NRT certainly raises some interesting trademark issues but I'd defer to trademark/intellectual property specialists for more specific information).
If you think that the players should be compensated for their NIL, doesn't it necessarily follow that you must feel as though the university must enforce its branding rights.
Unfortunately, nobody knows the final shape this will take since neither the Courts, the NCAA or the Federal Legislatures have weighed in. Doesn't matter what individual states do if the Federal Legislature weighs in, because Federal Legislation takes precedence.
Therefore your statement is absolutely unsupported by facts at this time. It may be the most logical and may actually be what eventually happens, but until then your statement is only an opinion and nothing more so ease up on others simply stating their opinions.
Wow, this shows me that college athletes have no idea what their actual market value would be. Only so many car dealerships, Mexican restaurants, and bars to go around in IC/CR. And they’re certainly not putting down five figures each for JBo or Clark to be thrown on a drink special flyer.
I think it is going to help schools like Iowa who are consistently in top 25 for athletic department revenue while being consistently much lower in our state's ability to produce division 1 recruits. There's going to be a much more even spread of 4 and 5 star recruits because they'll be able to go where the money is. I think it will lead to Iowa getting a few more 4 stars than they would otherwise and an occasional 5 star more often than they have been.
The Dark Underbelly of NIL
I am in total agreement that as long as the NCAA reaps millions from athletes’ performances, those athletes should get something. This will be a very slippery slope however. The days of $500 handshakes from boosters will now be open handouts of money. What’s to keep a local car dealer from...
iowa.forums.rivals.com
Something like what I posted needs to be done as a first step.
NIL should spread talent around better/more evenly. A bunch of private schools and public ivy’s with deep pockets can come in and bid players up and steal some of the best players from the Ohio St, Clemson, Alabama bunch. At the end of the day, this sport needs to be shaken up a bit.
The NIL argument has nothing to do with a university’s athletic department revenue or how big its budget is. Zero. Since the schools aren’t paying a cent, it’s all about how much a third party is willing to kick in for the athletes.
For example, take an area like LA where a rich Hollywood movie/TV producer is a big supporter of USC or UCLA. He can hire their athletes to appear in a very small part of a movie and pay them handsomely for it. And they can do that with whoever they want and however many times they want. It would all above board since the school isn’t paying for it directly.
Or how about Texas oil and gas companies striking endorsement deals with all the kids who enroll in the University of Texas. Again, the school isn’t paying for it so everything is fine… even though we all know what is probably going on out of sight in each of these scenarios.
There is no way Iowa or any smaller Power 5 school in a lower population state or metro area benefits. The athletes will end up going where the money is and it likely won’t be in places like Iowa City, Corvallis, Boulder, West Lafayette, Tempe, Manhattan, or Blacksburg. It'll be even worse for the non Power 5s.
Good, it will convert them to become Republican that much sooner.
I don't know about "allowed," but with the current system that's the way it works out. If things basically stay the same as so many here predict, then as fans nothing will have changed except there will be an even greater diversity of merch available and more state-wide commercials for national products promoted by Hawkeye student athletes.
But if things do change then it will be really interesting to see who starts getting the best recruiting classes. A shakeup at the top of the pecking order would be a good thing for college football fans. We've barely even needed a four-team playoff since the playoffs started. It's been mostly Clemson and Alabama and adding more teams to the playoffs those years wouldnt have changed a thing. And when LSU won it it wouldn't have mattered what teams they had to.play because they would have destroyed all of them.
If this spreads out the star recruits to more schools so that they can be "the man" at a non-blue-blood school with a lucrative market, then that'll be a good thing. It would be nice to have some real mystery about who the best teams will be in a given year instead of Bama, Clemson, Ohio State, and Oklahoma with LSU and Georgia playing the next-man-up roles every year.
The ones on top now will be the ones on top when they start paying players. There will be no shake up.
Imagine how much coin Notre Dame could dial up. Send out the collection plate and pass it around. God wants it so.
Maybe they could pay their own way in this new world and ticket prices for fans could go way down.
For fans it'll be exactly the same if you're right. So may as well let the players make some coin.
