NIL has lessened the influence of major shoe companies on college basketball

[madtownvol]

I hate to start a new thread but whenever discussion of NIL arise on this board, there are a few who lament the good ole days when $ did not influence college recruiting. Most of us recognized that sentiment as nostalgia for a past that existed only in myth. However, this story connects the dots between Nike and other major athletic companies, coaches at top ranked schools, and under the table payments to families of recruits--many of whom did not have great pro prospects but were solid college players. The clear conclusion is that NIL has resulted in a more level playing field.

March Madness: How the shoe company influence has been neutralized

 

[Savannahbayvol]

Apparently it did Kellie in according to Basilio:

I'll own this one too. I was on the air recently with the take that Danny White didn't want to fool with finding a new women's coach. I'm still of that opinion as I think back on this one. My belief is that White was left with no alternative to moving on from Harper when it became apparent to him that his head coach had lost the confidence of key boosters who are the key funders of that program in an NIL sense. When you lose big $$$ these days you've got a foot out the door. In the case of Kellie Harper, it was two feet.

 

[turbovol]

This piece is very vague. It has only one solid fact about the amount of money that one player received from one of the shoe
companies. It doesn't say how many schools had deals with Nike and Adidas. Of course, it stands to reason that if the schools
are now handing out cash willy nilly, the influence of the shoe companies will diminish.

More to the point, I disagree with the writer's premise that NIL will boost parity in college basketball or football. The blue blood BB majors, by virtue
of their past success, have the craziest and most demanding of fans. And they are not going to let lesser brands/programs out-spend them for players. It's absurd to think they will. I've made this point with respect to football, and when Vol fans got all cocky and triumphant after a judge put
a stay on the NCAA's ban on NIL in recruiting. This notion that NIL is going to help UT buy a better team than Alabama or Georgia or Ohio State or Texas is foolhardy nonsense. You think Ohio State fans are going to let their team become a .500 football team because they've not ponied up enough NIL money? Not a chance. And we, UT, are a big boy ourselves. You think Kansas or Tulane or Iowa State is going to become competitive with the big dogs because of NIL? No way. And the same in basketball. All NIL will do--as the writer points out--is drive up the price for a lot of players who are not worth all the stupid money being thrown at them by schools desperate to win, like us and many others. This is precisely what is stupid about NIL in recruiting.

In BB, two of the No. 1 seeds on the men's side were UNC and UConn--blue bloods. Arizona could have been a 1 seed--another blue blood. The blue bloods will remain so--NIL is not going to change that. All it will do, as I said, is create a lot of insane overbidding for players.

 

[turbovol]

This piece is very vague. It has only one solid fact about the amount of money that one player received from one of the shoe
companies. It doesn't say how many schools had deals with Nike and Adidas. Of course, it stands to reason that if the schools
are now handing out cash willy nilly, the influence of the shoe companies will diminish.

More to the point, I disagree with the writer's premise that NIL will boost parity in college basketball or football. The blue blood BB majors, by virtue
of their past success, have the craziest and most demanding of fans. And they are not going to let lesser brands/programs out-spend them for players. It's absurd to think they will. I've made this point with respect to football, and when Vol fans got all cocky and triumphant after a judge put
a stay on the NCAA's ban on NIL in recruiting. This notion that NIL is going to help UT buy a better team than Alabama or Georgia or Ohio State or Texas is foolhardy nonsense. You think Ohio State fans are going to let their team become a .500 football team because they've not ponied up enough NIL money? Not a chance. And we, UT, are a big boy ourselves. You think Kansas or Tulane or Iowa State is going to become competitive with the big dogs because of NIL? No way. And the same in basketball. All NIL will do--as the writer points out--is drive up the price for a lot of players who are not worth all the stupid money being thrown at them by schools desperate to win, like us and many others. This is precisely what is stupid about NIL in recruiting.

In BB, two of the No. 1 seeds on the men's side were UNC and UConn--blue bloods. Arizona could have been a 1 seed--another blue blood. The blue bloods will remain so--NIL is not going to change that. All it will do, as I said, is create a lot of insane overbidding for players.