Does NIL and Transfer Portal equal Parity in CFB

[S.C. OrangeMan]

Manning getting payed by the TX collective means he's not playing for anyone else. Manning may have some NIL market value because of his name but I haven't seen him in any TV commercials so, is it really worth what they're paying him?

Can you explain why players are getting payed based upon position and athletic ability or star rating rather than their NIL market value?

Also, please enlighten us with your definition of pay for play.

What you haven't seen isn't pertinent. He's getting more NIL than their starter, last I heard. No NIL collective is going to pay a bench warmer that kind of $$ just to keep him from transferring. They aren't that stupid.

They sell tons of Manning endorsed merch, too. Like this.

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

Manning getting payed by the TX collective means he's not playing for anyone else. Manning may have some NIL market value because of his name but I haven't seen him in any TV commercials so, is it really worth what they're paying him?

Can you explain why players are getting payed based upon position and athletic ability or star rating rather than their NIL market value?

Also, please enlighten us with your definition of pay for play.

Manning is worth whatever his NIL collectives think he's worth. Period.

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

Manning getting payed by the TX collective means he's not playing for anyone else. Manning may have some NIL market value because of his name but I haven't seen him in any TV commercials so, is it really worth what they're paying him?

Can you explain why players are getting payed based upon position and athletic ability or star rating rather than their NIL market value?

Also, please enlighten us with your definition of pay for play.

Players are getting paid based on their NIL contracts. Position doesn't matter. Marketability doses matter. You are arguing a false dilemma. Star power is marketability power.

A pertinent example is Patrick Mahomes.
He gets paid to play for the Chiefs. That's pay for play.

He also makes a ton of money for his State Farm Insurance ads and other endorsements. Not a penny if his NIL money is pay for play.

Since college athletes don't get paid by the schools, (yet) there is no college pay for play.
If you don't get paid by the organization for which you perform work, it is, by definition, not pay, let alone pay for play.

And again, college athletes don't get paid by their NIL sponsors, so they aren't getting paid to play. That requires a direct employee-employer relationship, which doesn't exist at this point.

 

[unfrozencvmanvol]

Manning is worth whatever his NIL collectives think he's worth. Period.

It's pay for play or they wouldn't be seeking capital from fans if they were independently good deals where both sides make money. No, they are soliciting capital from fans because they know the fans expect to lose money. Nothing wrong with that, but 99% of these deals are not financially viable on their own.

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

It's pay for play or they wouldn't be seeking capital from fans if they were independently good deals where both sides make money. No, they are soliciting capital from fans because they know the fans expect to lose money. Nothing wrong with that, but 99% of these deals are not financially viable on their own.

Prove it.

 

[OrangeBeachVol]

Its all just semantics whether you want to call it pay for play or not. Paying players to come to your school to play a sport, especially FB, has been going on for decades. Just because a player getting a car from a booster that owned a dealership instead of cash was still paying them something to play for that university.

The NCAA definition of it was just an excuse for them to show they were in charge of something. TN is apparently going to be the last university ever charged with illegal pay for play under the archaic NCAA rules. And that's a good thing

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

Prove it.

Sure. Is Nico our starting QB without the millions in NIL ===UT facilitated=== for him? The immediate answer is no.

The NCAA came after UT for being "too involved" in using our NIL to recruit Nico. It's an obvious "tit for tat"....... you come to UT, we'll make sure your NIL is this.

That's pay for play.

 

[LWSVOL]

I’ve been thinking for a while, Since Saban’s retirement, that Bama’s dynasty is officially over; had it not already been. If Smart at Georgia doesn’t win it all this year, I think they tread down; may tread down regardless due to potential player playing time elsewhere plus potential money. CFB is becoming more like the NFL, will there be any long term dynasties, such as what Bama had? I know Brady and the Pats had their long standing run but, can that be in college with players only playing for four years?

I see Bama going back to the Perkins/Curry eras and another revolving door. With NIL and easy transfer rules, to me, it seems that many CFB teams could have one offs and win the NC. However, do you guys think the expanded playoffs will work more for the traditional blue bloods of CFB. Do you guys think the traditional power houses will always get the premier players, regardless?

NIL and Portal are likely to be altered once player revenue sharing begins. Hard to predict impacts at this juncture until revenue sharing is in place. Even then, it will take time for the impact to be felt for that while it settles in.

Basically, that will lead to even more free agency of players.

Prior to the portal and NIL, around 40% of signing classes would not complete their eligibility with the school that they signed with. This is something I've tracked since the early 2000.

Since the portal and NIL, those numbers are trending toward 60% of the signing classes not finishing with the school they signed with. Will revenue sharing cause that number to increase even more? Its very possible.

So the dynamics make it impossible to measure the impacts on football programs IMO

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

Sure. Is Nico our starting QB without the millions in NIL ===UT facilitated=== for him? The immediate answer is no.

The NCAA came after UT for being "too involved" in using our NIL to recruit Nico. It's an obvious "tit for tat"....... you come to UT, we'll make sure your NIL is this.

That's pay for play.

Your speculation isn't proof.

The NCAA rules were always illegal. The state, the University, and Chancellor Plowman handed the NCAA their butts in court about their bogus rules.

And...bring involved in recruiting isn't pay for play. Your are trying to connect dots that legally don't exist.

When the new NCAA rules allowing schools to pay athletes take effect, then and only then will there be pay for play.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

NIL and Portal are likely to be altered once player revenue sharing begins. Hard to predict impacts at this juncture until revenue sharing is in place. Even then, it will take time for the impact to be felt for that while it settles in.

Basically, that will lead to even more free agency of players.

Prior to the portal and NIL, around 40% of signing classes would not complete their eligibility with the school that they signed with. This is something I've tracked since the early 2000.

Since the portal and NIL, those numbers are trending toward 60% of the signing classes not finishing with the school they signed with. Will revenue sharing cause that number to increase even more? Its very possible.

So the dynamics make it impossible to measure the impacts on football programs IMO

Possibly, but the NCAA has lost every case regarding controlling transfers to the point where they've withdrawn all objections to wholesale transfers at this point. They might shorten the "window of eligibility" to get in/out of the portal, but that's just condensing the transfers like they condense home visits, but it doesn't stop contact and recruiting those prospects.

It's a huge stretch at this point to believe teams aren't "tampering" to try to get guys to transfer. So just limiting the "window of eligibility" of the portal is pretty useless.

The NCAA is definitely not controlling NIL much at all. I predict any "team cap" amount they put on schools is quickly challenged. The heart of the Alston decision was the Supreme Court telling the NCAA they couldn't cap educational benefits to players legally and I predict it will be the same with NIL benefits. It's pretty crazy to think the Supreme Court will allow the NCAA to be openly anticompetitive given how they reacted in Alston.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

Your speculation isn't proof.

The NCAA rules were always illegal. The state, the University, and Chancellor Plowman handed the NCAA their butts in court about their bogus rules.

And...bring involved in recruiting isn't pay for play. Your are trying to connect dots that legally don't exist.

When the new NCAA rules allowing schools to pay athletes take effect, then and only then will there be pay for play.

I get that you just want to be obtuse, so have it your way.

Players were never paid under the table, either, except when teams were caught. See...... I can do that too. Prove it otherwise.

You're just being weird about it for no reason.

 

[LWSVOL]

Possibly, but the NCAA has lost every case regarding controlling transfers to the point where they've withdrawn all objections to wholesale transfers at this point. They might shorten the "window of eligibility" to get in/out of the portal, but that's just condensing the transfers like they condense home visits, but it doesn't stop contact and recruiting those prospects.

It's a huge stretch at this point to believe teams aren't "tampering" to try to get guys to transfer. So just limiting the "window of eligibility" of the portal is pretty useless.

The NCAA is definitely not controlling NIL much at all. I predict any "team cap" amount they put on schools is quickly challenged. The heart of the Alston decision was the Supreme Court telling the NCAA they couldn't cap educational benefits to players legally and I predict it will be the same with NIL benefits. It's pretty crazy to think the Supreme Court will allow the NCAA to be openly anticompetitive given how they reacted in Alston.

I'm not implying anything you suggest will happen. I truly don't know what changes or how those processes impact the future which was my point. Revenue sharing is an additional unknown at this juncture from an impact standpoint. If anything, I lean more toward unfettered free agency occurring which further impacts the future rosters.

from the 2020 signing classes (Its worse than my perception since Portal / NIL implementation)

Alabama has lost 60% of that signing class before eligibility expired.
Arkansas lost 100%
Auburn lost 70%
Florida lost 75%
Georgia has lost 48%
Kentucky lost 70%
LSU lost 77%
Ole Miss lost 79%
Miss State lost 70%
Missouri lost 77%
Oklahoma lost 83%
S Carolina lost 67%
Tennessee lost 65%
Texas lost 70%
Texas A&M lost 69%
Vanderbilt lost 79%

My additional point in my OP is that recruiting high school players has already become meaningless due to "free agency".

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

I'm not implying anything you suggest will happen. I truly don't know what changes or how those processes impact the future which was my point. Revenue sharing is an additional unknown at this juncture from an impact standpoint. If anything, I lean more toward unfettered free agency occurring which further impacts the future rosters.

from the 2020 signing classes (Its worse than my perception since Portal / NIL implementation)

Alabama has lost 60% of that signing class before eligibility expired.
Arkansas lost 100%
Auburn lost 70%
Florida lost 75%
Georgia has lost 48%
Kentucky lost 70%
LSU lost 77%
Ole Miss lost 79%
Miss State lost 70%
Missouri lost 77%
Oklahoma lost 83%
S Carolina lost 67%
Tennessee lost 65%
Texas lost 70%
Texas A&M lost 69%
Vanderbilt lost 79%

My additional point in my OP is that recruiting high school players has already become meaningless due to "free agency".

I totally agree and I'd like to see what the transfer percentages have done to the graduation rates of those athletes.

After all, these schools are for education, right?

It's all just the pro game now at the elite level and the sooner those schools get the heck out of the educational system, the better.

 

[Firebirdparts]

So it must not be parity, but I do think Tennessee is advantaged. People may say "Alabama always paid players" but they paid them back when they cost 1/100 of what they cost now. I think the number of schools that can't keep up is going to be the majority of P5's (or whatever you want to call that someday) not keeping up and all of everybody else not keeping up.

 

[LWSVOL]

Players are getting paid based on their NIL contracts. Position doesn't matter. Marketability doses matter. You are arguing a false dilemma. Star power is marketability power.

A pertinent example is Patrick Mahomes.
He gets paid to play for the Chiefs. That's pay for play.

He also makes a ton of money for his State Farm Insurance ads and other endorsements. Not a penny if his NIL money is pay for play.

Since college athletes don't get paid by the schools, (yet) there is no college pay for play.
If you don't get paid by the organization for which you perform work, it is, by definition, not pay, let alone pay for play.

And again, college athletes don't get paid by their NIL sponsors, so they aren't getting paid to play. That requires a direct employee-employer relationship, which doesn't exist at this point.

you're arguing the the technical view of it but you have your head in the sand if you don't NIL payments are not being discussed at recruiting time. Players in many instances are choosing which school they will play for based on NIL negotiations. That has been stated by media members for the last couple of years that players have been lost to other schools based on NIL opportunities. Technically, not pay for play but reality is, pay for play.

 

[LWSVOL]

I totally agree and I'd like to see what the transfer percentages have done to the graduation rates of those athletes.

After all, these schools are for education, right?

It's all just the pro game now at the elite level and the sooner those schools get the heck out of the educational system, the better.

the reality there has not been the case for many years now. The assistance players get to stay eligible is far beyond what a normal student can get IMO

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

the reality there has not been the case for many years now. The assistance players get to stay eligible is far beyond what a normal student can get IMO

Absolutely. The game is only "school based" in the barest sense and compensation makes it even less connected to the schools.

Before they destroy it for countless lesser skilled athletes who appreciate the "leg up" an athletic scholarship gives them, the high revenue schools...... if they cared anything about student-athlete education anymore...... would split away from the schools and take the pro game elsewhere.

They don't care except for the money. Until someone comes up with a way fool the fans into believing it's still "rah rah for the old school" while it's actually a pro league separate from most actual student-athletes, we're screwed.

 

[LWSVOL]

Absolutely. The game is only "school based" in the barest sense and compensation makes it even less connected to the schools.

Before they destroy it for countless lesser skilled athletes who appreciate the "leg up" an athletic scholarship gives them, the high revenue schools...... if they cared anything about student-athlete education anymore...... would split away from the schools and take the pro game elsewhere.

They don't care except for the money. Until someone comes up with a way fool the fans into believing it's still "rah rah for the old school" while it's actually a pro league separate from most actual student-athletes, we're screwed.

that might happen at some point in time, but it is going to be very difficult for college administrators to arrive at that decision. Once they make that decision, they have cut off the funding for their other athletic programs. No more baseball, softball, basketball, etc. Those sports cannot survive at the level they are without the revenue generated from football.

With only 25 or so athletic departments that turn a "profit", most schools have a hard time keeping programs going anyway.

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

Possibly, but the NCAA has lost every case regarding controlling transfers to the point where they've withdrawn all objections to wholesale transfers at this point. They might shorten the "window of eligibility" to get in/out of the portal, but that's just condensing the transfers like they condense home visits, but it doesn't stop contact and recruiting those prospects.

It's a huge stretch at this point to believe teams aren't "tampering" to try to get guys to transfer. So just limiting the "window of eligibility" of the portal is pretty useless.

The NCAA is definitely not controlling NIL much at all. I predict any "team cap" amount they put on schools is quickly challenged. The heart of the Alston decision was the Supreme Court telling the NCAA they couldn't cap educational benefits to players legally and I predict it will be the same with NIL benefits. It's pretty crazy to think the Supreme Court will allow the NCAA to be openly anticompetitive given how they reacted in Alston.

"Tampering" is an obsolete term based on illegal NCAA rules that no longer exist.

It's simply recruiting from other teams now.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

that might happen at some point in time, but it is going to be very difficult for college administrators to arrive at that decision. Once they make that decision, they have cut off the funding for their other athletic programs. No more baseball, softball, basketball, etc. Those sports cannot survive at the level they are without the revenue generated from football.

With only 25 or so athletic departments that turn a "profit", most schools have a hard time keeping programs going anyway.

One asks how the schools had these programs, and many did, before basketball and football became the big revenue cows?

Or how schools without big revenue programs manage to have diverse athletic programs?

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

you're arguing the the technical view of it but you have your head in the sand if you don't NIL payments are not being discussed at recruiting time. Players in many instances are choosing which school they will play for based on NIL negotiations. That has been stated by media members for the last couple of years that players have been lost to other schools based on NIL opportunities. Technically, not pay for play but reality is, pay for play.

You're pretty good at throwing out zero evidence claims that defy the facts and the legal definitions.

I've challenged you to prove your claims. You can't. Your opinion isn't proof. Your conflating NIL with salaries is ludicrous.
Unsourced statements about what unnamed third or fourth paries supposedly said or did isn't proof. It's not even legit evidence.

Then you made two claims that are mutually exclusive. Something that isn't pay for play can't simultaneously be pay for play.

 

[GoodTimeVol]

you're arguing the the technical view of it but you have your head in the sand if you don't NIL payments are not being discussed at recruiting time. Players in many instances are choosing which school they will play for based on NIL negotiations. That has been stated by media members for the last couple of years that players have been lost to other schools based on NIL opportunities. Technically, not pay for play but reality is, pay for play.

Recruiting has for the most part always been pay for play, it’s just now it’s taxed

 

[GoodTimeVol]

Sure. Is Nico our starting QB without the millions in NIL ===UT facilitated=== for him? The immediate answer is no.

The NCAA came after UT for being "too involved" in using our NIL to recruit Nico. It's an obvious "tit for tat"....... you come to UT, we'll make sure your NIL is this.

That's pay for play.

Okay? That’s legal though, pay for play under the guise of NIL is not an illegal thing lol it’s just a term to label recruiting as “dirty” but it’s been going on for decades, now it’s taxed. The only ppl who have problem with it is the NCAA and they deserve no sympathy

 

[JRich]

Until there is a "salary cap" the richer programs will continue to be dominant. No changes in the near future, however it does make schools with large investments into football more relevant and competitive, like Tennessee, Texas, Michigan, etc.

No more dynasties, IMO. As talented as UGA and UA are, they are still losing games especially when they matter.

 

[JRich]

Amazing to see so many fans still don't understand NIL.