Good article about the current state of NIL in WBB

[enigma]

NIL Is paying for Aliyah Boston to stay at SC for another year!

 

[Raebo]

Why bother recruiting high school prospects if you are a school with access to top NIL money???

The top schools with NIL access will still recruit the 5 star and maybe 4 star players but with easy transfer rules and NIL money they will just poach the top players that have proven themselves from mid major or lower tiered power 5 schools that don’t have as much emphasis on WBB.

Saw this about South Carolina and Aliyah Boston and I assume there is something similar here.

“Through NIL deals, Boston has partnered with companies ranging from OrangeTheory Fitness to Crocs footwear. Team sponsor Slate Milk is paying every player on the women’s basketball team $25,000 this seasonto promote the protein drink.”

I don’t blame a player for trying to cash in but I will admit that it lessens my enthusiasm. Oh well.

 

[Rooster1]

How much has NIL impacted women’s college basketball recruiting?

Editor’s note: Over the past month, The Athletic has spoken with more than 30 women’s college basketball coaches about an array of topics, from tournament expansion to athletic directors to X’s and O’s. These coaches, who hail from power conferences and high mid-majors, were granted anonymity to allow them to speak openly without fear of retribution from their programs or the NCAA. Throughout the week, we’re sharing coaches’ thoughts on the most pressing issues in their sport. Though not every response is included, answers represent all opinions expressed.

When the NCAA approved its first landmark national NIL policy in July 2021, everyone pondered what the college sports landscape would look like after this seismic shift: How much would athletes make? How would it transform sports? Would college sports still be amateur?

Nearly two years later, most of those questions persist.

How much are athletes making? It’s hard to say unless the athlete is open to disclosing financial details, and most are not. Some women’s basketball players have signed major brand partnerships, like Iowa’s Caitlin Clark (Nike, Hy-Vee, Topps), Stanford’s Haley Jones (Nike, The Players Tribune, SoFi), LSU’s Flau’jae Johnson (Puma, Meta), UCLA’s Kiki Rice (Jordan Brand, Dove), UConn’s Paige Bueckers (Gatorade, Crocs, Bose), South Carolina’s Aliyah Boston (Bose, Crocs, Orangetheory), Miami’s Haley and Hanna Cavinder (Under Armour, Victoria’s Secret) and UConn’s Azzi Fudd (NBPA, Nerf). But the majority of women’s college basketball players aren’t raking in those kinds of deals.

Though those top athletes have secured deals worth upwards of six figures, the average women’s basketball player earns significantly less. Per data gathered by INFLCR, during the first year of NIL, the average deal for a women’s basketball guard was $1,441, while the average deals for centers ($503) and forwards ($390) were even less.

Some schools also have collectives — registered groups of donors — that have deals with revenue teams or hope to have deals with those teams. This season, South Carolina’s collective — Garnet Trust — signed women’s basketball players to deals of at least $25,000 and Iowa’s Swarm collective signed players to $15,000 NIL deals. UCLA coach Cori Close has said her goal is to have $50,000 NIL deals in place for each of her women’s basketball players next season.

How has NIL transformed sports? For some athletes and sports, very little. For others, significantly. For the NCAA, entirely.

Is college sports still amateur? This seems to differ from athlete to athlete, even within each sport, and probably depends more on one’s definition of amateur. For sports with less exposure, not a lot has changed. But for high-visibility athletes who are signing agents and inking brand partnerships, it certainly feels a lot more like the professional ranks. For most women’s basketball players, it’s somewhere in between.

But talk long enough with women’s college basketball coaches and NIL always comes up — their questions, frustrations and fears. As coaches search for and break down every advantage available to their competitors, NIL is now a part of the equation.

So for the fourth question of our anonymous coaches’ poll, we asked not how much NIL has impacted their jobs but how much, less than two years into the NIL era, it has impacted recruiting.

How much has NIL changed recruiting?

HOW MUCH? PERCENT
Not at all
9
Somewhat
34
A lot
44
Completely
13
NOT AT ALL

• “It’s been tough because we have not capitalized on it with a collective yet that is really feeding into our program. And I don’t think that our local companies and alumni companies have stepped up for women’s basketball for us. … I think that you need a game plan with a collective for sports like women’s basketball. Schools that don’t have that game plan for a collective where every kid is capitalizing on a collective, it is going to hurt you in the recruiting process.”

• “For us, as of now, it hasn’t changed a lot. It hasn’t been as big a deal. But I don’t think we’ll know where we are for another two or three years when we say, ‘Oh, yeah, we didn’t get that kid because we don’t have as robust an NIL program.’ I don’t think you want to compromise who you are, but we’re not going to beat some of the football schools, so if that’s what a kid wants and it’s their No. 1 priority, we’re probably not the school for them.”

• “Some players will literally come out and say, ‘NIL doesn’t matter to me.’ But it’s becoming such a part of what other schools sell: ‘I know we can offer this or we can help you get this.’ It’s definitely a part of it.”

Considering the ways NIL has been described — a seismic shift, a landmark move, a new era of college sports — it’s wild that some coaches say it hasn’t changed recruiting at all.

However, perhaps that’s not as surprising as one would think. The haves and have-nots exist historically in college basketball, and the have-nots are accustomed to the disparity. Now collectives and NIL deals are just a part of that reality. Throughout time, some players have opted to go against the grain, choosing a lesser-known school or picking a conference that might not have as much to offer, so it also shouldn’t be surprising that in the NIL era some athletes will choose a school/conference without a robust NIL offering.

SOMEWHAT

• “When I talk to my colleagues in men’s basketball and football, we’re certainly not seeing the level of impact that it has had on the men’s side. I am keeping my eyes open about the future. I suspect it will become more impactful.”

• “We don’t even have a shot with kids who are getting mysterious $300,000 payouts from (a school). Where does that money come from? I don’t know. Is it legal? It’s supposed to be. But I don’t know. And what are the rules, really? So, it’s hard to know. Everyone’s so tight-lipped about it. Every state has different rules. There’s no federal legislation. It feels like the wild, Wild West. So, to me, it can only get worse.”

• “It’s part of the discussion sometimes with some players, but I don’t think it is the most important part of the discussion in the women’s game right now.”

• “It depends on the type of kid you’re recruiting. So it starts there. Some kids are not driven by that, and others are. The school I’m at, we’re not really an NIL-sexy school. We use NIL more for retention of players rather than the recruitment of.”

About one-third of coaches said they felt NIL had impacted recruiting somewhat, with many of them citing how much more impactful it is elsewhere — either at other schools or in other sports at their universities. That level of comparison can be helpful for some coaches. After all, while those top players are signing big brand partnerships, the majority of players aren’t, and the majority of high school recruits understand they’re not going to be signing the same kinds of deals Bueckers and Jones have.

Coaches mentioned it has been more of a player-by-player situation, and like the coaches who said “not at all,” players who are opting to attend a school that’s not “NIL sexy” likely are less driven by the NIL deals than players who might be opting for a program that has an active collective.

A LOT

• “NIL was supposed to be Paige Bueckers being able to market herself, not the school giving you $25,000 to show up someplace three times at some event.”

• “You hear rumors that this person is offering this, this school is offering that, but no one really knows because there’s no transparency. Before, you knew, ‘This is a full scholarship,’ and you knew what that was. But now it’s a full scholarship plus what? And you’re relying on AAU coaches and kids to tell you the truth, which isn’t always realistic.”

• “There’s an expectation during the recruiting process from a lot of players, not all. As much as that, it’s the AAU coaches and the people who are guiding these young kids. They’re telling them that they need to get money.”

• “Now players are expecting money in addition to their scholarships. … If you can’t offer money, then you really can’t be in a conversation with some of these kids.”

• “When you’re talking about top-tier talent, we’re not getting many questions about majors or even facilities. It’s become probably the first topic on the list, in terms of: Are you gonna be in the (NIL) game or are you not gonna be in the (NIL) game?”

Perhaps it’s no surprise that these are the coaches who are going after top recruits or players on top AAU teams who are expecting NIL or collective deals.

That’s clear because if AAU coaches, parents and athletes are asking the coach about NIL deals, that’s collective money. College coaches aren’t supposed to be part of the NIL world, and when it comes to players who sign the largest deals, that’s done by a player and their representation and agent. Where coaches might have a better understanding is when a collective has signed deals with an entire team or when a school’s collective has been especially active in signing deals with the star players in the athletic department.

In the “somewhat” and “a lot” categories, we heard from several coaches who still feel they are in the dark about the rules and regulations around NIL. With the lack of transparency — because the larger deals are usually brokered by agents and the collective deals aren’t supposed to go through coaches — college coaches are left to find out information secondhand through players or their parents.

COMPLETELY

• “The transfer portal and NIL have intersected at a time so that it has legalized tampering.”

• “Every recruit, coach and parent is asking about it in recruiting. It used to be: ‘How will I fit in? What’s my opportunity? What are the academics? What’s the social life?’ Now NIL, for some kids, trumps all.”

• “It’s pay for play. … NIL is certainly a question that every parent is asking: ‘How much will my child make if she comes here?’ Ultimately, the coaches aren’t supposed to have any bearing in terms of what these kids are making. We’re not supposed to help in getting them deals or the relationships (to make deals). We’re not supposed to touch this stuff, and yet, there are places out there that are setting these deals up.”

Several of the quotes that landed in the “a lot” category certainly could fall into this one as well, given any coach’s interpretation.

However, the coaches who chose the “completely” category used some key words that separated them from coaches in the other categories: “tampering” and “pay to play.” NIL proponents often said because deals were meant to be player-driven, it would never lead to those things. But some coaches now will push back by saying it wouldn’t be like this if guardrails were in place, but that hasn’t really happened because so much of the NCAA’s NIL legislation has been reactionary.

Coaches in this group also said every parent and every player was asking about NIL. That likely speaks to the caliber of player they’re recruiting and the expectations that exist for top players, as well as the understanding that most top athletic departments have collectives setting up team deals.

A consistent thought among coaches who landed in all four categories, even for those who said NIL was impacting recruiting “not at all” or “somewhat,” was that NIL is going to become more of a factor as time goes on. Though it’s often thought that changes in college sports happen slowly, two years into the NIL era, it’s fair to say this was a shift that came in suddenly, has an impact and is only going to become more prominent.

Earl, thx for that article, was a good read.

 

[Rooster1]

Again, not mutually exclusive alternatives. The $ in the women's is not that great so I think the majority of women's players do care about the degree. At the UG level, when you are talking D1 schools, they’re honestly not all that much difference in programs. A degree in business, or nursing, or communications is pretty much the same at UT or Virginia or even Stanford. So, there is no pressing reason for a recruit to make their intended major, the #1 priority in making their decision.

The Stanford degree carries heavy weight for a graduates lifetime, it is a truly elite academic institution about equal to an Ivy League degree. It makes a difference for those who are looking down the road.

 

[Rooster1]

NIL Is paying for Aliyah Boston to stay at SC for another year!

That is putting the cart in front of the horse, Boston has not said she is returning, and as a SC fan I would be shocked if she returns, she is a great and humble young lady, but I believe she has aspirations to play pro, either way she has never indicated she is staying so it’s just conjecture.

I kind of understand Jax’s wanting to come back for another year of college ball in spite of being a projected top 1-3 pick, she has unfinished business left in WCBB and her time away from the game makes her appreciate what she has at UT. Boston has nothing left to prove at the collegiate level, can’t see her coming back.

 

[Volfaninfl2]

Why bother recruiting high school prospects if you are a school with access to top NIL money???

The top schools with NIL access will still recruit the 5 star and maybe 4 star players but with easy transfer rules and NIL money they will just poach the top players that have proven themselves from mid major or lower tiered power 5 schools that don’t have as much emphasis on WBB.

Saw this about South Carolina and Aliyah Boston and I assume there is something similar here.

“Through NIL deals, Boston has partnered with companies ranging from OrangeTheory Fitness to Crocs footwear. Team sponsor Slate Milk is paying every player on the women’s basketball team $25,000 this seasonto promote the protein drink.”

I don’t blame a player for trying to cash in but I will admit that it lessens my enthusiasm. Oh well.

True, it is really no longer about the right of a top player to earn money on their name, image likeness. It is about wealthy boosters (using their businesses), able and willing to buy entire teams. Currently, there are no guidelines, and no limits.

 

[37620VOL]

So the question is; Are you here for the education and team or yourself and the money?

Yes, that is the answer, yes to all of that

I go to work for my family, for money, and to help others with my talents. Why should I expect others to be okay getting screwed while others make big $ off their talents?

 

[Amb3096]

Actually, another thing that is being ignored is that for most if not all players, playing in college is what has enabled them to even have a “brand”, an NIL income. So, college is providing the free degree, free medical, free housing and food, free Coaching, free exposure, free fame, and fans to provide NIL income, as well as the opportunities to showcase the players’ talent for a future in pro sports.

Not all of them, especially female sports. The Cavinder Twins had a huge following that had nothing to do with basketball. Olivia Dunne’s fame has little to do with her gymnastics skills.

 

[MadMaxSC]

So the question is; Are you here for the education and team or yourself and the money?

Let's stir up the pot a little.

Why is it necessary for schools to even have sports teams? The only reason is tradition.

What happens if we use the European model? Schools do not field sports teams. The teams belong to the towns and cities. Students go to school for the education, not to play a sport or grab a NIL deal. I cringe every time I hear the term "student-athlete" used by Coaches and school administrators in the USA.

I'm not saying the Euro model would work in the USA but, I'm also not saying it wouldn't. I am fearful that NIL will destroy collegiate sports, as we know it. Deep pocketed alumni and shadow corporations will buy athletes for their favored schools and the schools without those crooks will be left behind. Occasionally, the NCAA will issue the "death penalty" for a NIL violation but it won't be to a major contributor to their coffers.

 

[Volfaninfl2]

Not all of them, especially female sports. The Cavinder Twins had a huge following that had nothing to do with basketball. Olivia Dunne’s fame has little to do with her gymnastics skills.

I said “most if not all”. Was talking specifically about womens basketball teams. There are schools working on getting large amounts of money to give every player on their team. This is about buying a team.

 

[Majors]

Not all of them, especially female sports. The Cavinder Twins had a huge following that had nothing to do with basketball. Olivia Dunne’s fame has little to do with her gymnastics skills.

Good thing for Dunne she was on US national team before TicTok was established. Helped her brand competing and proving she’s not just a pretty face.

 

[madtownvol]

The Stanford degree carries heavy weight for a graduates lifetime, it is a truly elite academic institution about equal to an Ivy League degree. It makes a difference for those who are looking down the road.

There are a lot of intangibles in these comparisions. Private schools have better alumni networks but the real advantages kick in when you go for a graduate degree. The NPV on UG degrees actually favors state universities. Here is one such comparison for Ivy League and I would assume Stanford has a similar profile:

Is an Ivy League Degree Worthwhile?

Honestly, the equation is different for elite athletes because they build other kind of capital. Would Kara Lawson have been better off playing at Harvard or UT? Harvard would have given her a more prestigious UG degree but the national exposure from the LV program opened up other kinds of doors.

But my original point was simply that the curriculum and skills you gain from an UG degree in say communications at Stanford is not going to be much different from Tennessee. UG programs are really quite standardized.

 

[Amb3096]

I said “most if not all”. Was talking specifically about womens basketball teams. There are schools working on getting large amounts of money to give every player on their team. This is about buying a team.

The question is whether or not the women players are getting exposure from the sport, or is the sport getting exposure from the player. The Cavinder Twins are the perfect example. They played for some mid major and they had millions of social media followers. Now they head to Miami and program most definitely got a boost because of them, not vice versa.

The girls making big money are doing so in spite of sports (including basketball), not because of it. They already had a brand. The rest of the player deals are small potatoes compared to some of the national deals these social media darlings are getting. If programs need to buy players, they'll find that the cost to get most of the players is gonna be pretty affordable. Only a select few players will really hit it big with NIL deals, and it's not because of basketball.

Good thing for Dunne she was on US national team before TicTok was established. Helped her brand competing and proving she’s not just a pretty face.

Did it? Because I don't think she has a closet full of medals. And I don't think the girls who beat her in all of those competitions have the TikTok/IG recognition that Olivia does. If Olivia didn't look the way she did, she wouldn't be the richest NIL player in women's sports.

 

[Majors]

The question is whether or not the women players are getting exposure from the sport, or is the sport getting exposure from the player. The Cavinder Twins are the perfect example. They played for some mid major and they had millions of social media followers. Now they head to Miami and program most definitely got a boost because of them, not vice versa.

The girls making big money are doing so in spite of sports (including basketball), not because of it. They already had a brand. The rest of the player deals are small potatoes compared to some of the national deals these social media darlings are getting. If programs need to buy players, they'll find that the cost to get most of the players is gonna be pretty affordable. Only a select few players will really hit it big with NIL deals, and it's not because of basketball.



Did it? Because I don't think she has a closet full of medals. And I don't think the girls who beat her in all of those competitions have the TikTok/IG recognition that Olivia does. If Olivia didn't look the way she did, she wouldn't be the richest NIL player in women's sports.

Read she got 6th in all around in her first international competition. Numerous other top 10 finishes all-around in the same year. Not 6th alternate on the team, those are earned like tryouts for basketball, baseball, softball national teams. Just stating she had her national/international brand well before NIL….earned in the sport. Not disputing she is marketable, but I’m not selling her athletic accomplishments short.

 

[madtownvol]

Let's stir up the pot a little.

Why is it necessary for schools to even have sports teams? The only reason is tradition.

What happens if we use the European model? Schools do not field sports teams. The teams belong to the towns and cities. Students go to school for the education, not to play a sport or grab a NIL deal. I cringe every time I hear the term "student-athlete" used by Coaches and school administrators in the USA.

I'm not saying the Euro model would work in the USA but, I'm also not saying it wouldn't. I am fearful that NIL will destroy collegiate sports, as we know it. Deep pocketed alumni and shadow corporations will buy athletes for their favored schools and the schools without those crooks will be left behind. Occasionally, the NCAA will issue the "death penalty" for a NIL violation but it won't be to a major contributor to their coffers.

There is a big reason beyond tradition. High profile sports teams are major marketing tools. Successful football and basketball programs attract students and their tuition dollars. It has been that way for a long but more so now than ever. Universities and colleges everywhere are very nervous about the long term threat posed by lower cost and more convenient on-line options for higher education. In response, they are selling the "college experience" and athletics is a big part of that.

I am quite confident that the university and college system we know is going to look very different in the next twenty. The current model is just not sustainable in this new technological environment with on-line alternatives multiplying rapidly. At minimum, there will be a huge consolidation of schools. I could envision a world where most people get their education through lower cost on-line means and the remaining universities and private colleges go back to their original mission of catering to the rich. I don't think it will be NILs that end college sports as we know them but the bigger disruptions in higher ed. College sports may spin off into feeder leagues for the pros, without the direct tie to universities.

 

[Volfaninfl2]

The question is whether or not the women players are getting exposure from the sport, or is the sport getting exposure from the player. The Cavinder Twins are the perfect example. They played for some mid major and they had millions of social media followers. Now they head to Miami and program most definitely got a boost because of them, not vice versa.

The girls making big money are doing so in spite of sports (including basketball), not because of it. They already had a brand. The rest of the player deals are small potatoes compared to some of the national deals these social media darlings are getting. If programs need to buy players, they'll find that the cost to get most of the players is gonna be pretty affordable. Only a select few players will really hit it big with NIL deals, and it's not because of basketball.



Did it? Because I don't think she has a closet full of medals. And I don't think the girls who beat her in all of those competitions have the TikTok/IG recognition that Olivia does. If Olivia didn't look the way she did, she wouldn't be the richest NIL player in women's sports.

The question put forth was: How much has NIL impacted women’s college basketball recruiting?

You want to talk about something else, such as exceptions to the rule, girls who had a social media following before getting to college, fine.

Players come and go. College fans generally stay loyal to their school, even after popular “star” players leave.

With NIL as the cover, boosters are finding ways to “persuade” top talent to come to their favorite school. By offering money to every player on the team, they are essentially buying the basketball team. They’ll be in competition with the boosters who can afford to do the same, for another team.

 

[Raebo]

The question is whether or not the women players are getting exposure from the sport, or is the sport getting exposure from the player. The Cavinder Twins are the perfect example. They played for some mid major and they had millions of social media followers. Now they head to Miami and program most definitely got a boost because of them, not vice versa.

The girls making big money are doing so in spite of sports (including basketball), not because of it. They already had a brand. The rest of the player deals are small potatoes compared to some of the national deals these social media darlings are getting. If programs need to buy players, they'll find that the cost to get most of the players is gonna be pretty affordable. Only a select few players will really hit it big with NIL deals, and it's not because of basketball.



Did it? Because I don't think she has a closet full of medals. And I don't think the girls who beat her in all of those competitions have the TikTok/IG recognition that Olivia does. If Olivia didn't look the way she did, she wouldn't be the richest NIL player in women's sports.

I guess it depends on your definition of big money. IMO a 20 year old college student on scholarship anything north of 50,000 is pretty big and players like Bueckers, Fudd, Boston, etc (maybe RJ) are probably getting double that, maybe more. Most of them (not all) are getting this money for basketball, not for something they did outside of basketball.
This is the bad thing about the lack of transparency. Although I don’t think fans have a right to know what a player makes, excellent basketball programs will always be accused of buying their players, and they very well may be now and in the future.

 

[Majors]

The question put forth was: How much has NIL impacted women’s college basketball recruiting?

You want to talk about something else, such as exceptions to the rule, girls who had a social media following before getting to college, fine.

Players come and go. College fans generally stay loyal to their school, even after popular “star” players leave.

With NIL as the cover, boosters are finding ways to “persuade” top talent to come to their favorite school. By offering money to every player on the team, they are essentially buying the basketball team. They’ll be in competition with the boosters who can afford to do the same, for another team.

Money > legacy/tradition for todays players

 

[1reVOLver]

How has NIL affected recruiting?

It's early days, so we don't know how it will shake out, but here's some speculation.

Group A, the superstars, like Clark, Bueckers, Boston and a very few others-
They will get agents, and sign pretty big contracts with Gatorade and other national commercial entities. This will happen no matter where they choose to study and play sports, so their college choices will be based on whatever matters to them, such as a combination of academics, coaching quality, weather, distance from home, etc.
In short, it will be just like before NIL, but they will also earn some serious money.

Group B, Other Top 100 recruits- I don't know if we can generalize, but I would guess that mostly local, college-affiliated NIL opportunities will be added to the mix of factors to consider. The bigger the numbers, the more likely NIL will influence school choice.

Group C- everyone else. The dollars will be significant at few schools, and the competition for these players will likely come from places without a load of NIL funding, so the effects will not be great.

 

[Amb3096]

The question put forth was: How much has NIL impacted women’s college basketball recruiting?

You want to talk about something else, such as exceptions to the rule, girls who had a social media following before getting to college, fine.

Players come and go. College fans generally stay loyal to their school, even after popular “star” players leave.

With NIL as the cover, boosters are finding ways to “persuade” top talent to come to their favorite school. By offering money to every player on the team, they are essentially buying the basketball team. They’ll be in competition with the boosters who can afford to do the same, for another team.

To answer your question: I don't think it's affected it that much, if at all. It seems reasonable that the teams that would have good NIL dollars to share are the ones that are already heavily invested in women's basketball, so it's all tablestakes as far as the players are concerned and becomes a wash. It's not like we're seeing some weird stuff where a top player is going to a school that's a head-scratching decision. Since NIL became a thing, I haven't seen any changes in player school choices: still lining up to play for Geno, Kim and other big names, or wanting to play for the big time schools. Where NIL does become a factor is when you get someone like Haley Cavinder who already has a huge brand and decides to play for Miami because that's a market where she can make big bucks and she's not necessarily interested in playing for one of the blue-blood teams. This is an example of a player that is going to get paid no matter where she goes, because the draw is her, not her team.

 

[Amb3096]

How has NIL affected recruiting?

It's early days, so we don't know how it will shake out, but here's some speculation.

Group A, the superstars, like Clark, Bueckers, Boston and a very few others-
They will get agents, and sign pretty big contracts with Gatorade and other national commercial entities. This will happen no matter where they choose to study and play sports, so their college choices will be based on whatever matters to them, such as a combination of academics, coaching quality, weather, distance from home, etc.
In short, it will be just like before NIL, but they will also earn some serious money.

Group B, Other Top 100 recruits- I don't know if we can generalize, but I would guess that mostly local, college-affiliated NIL opportunities will be added to the mix of factors to consider. The bigger the numbers, the more likely NIL will influence school choice.

Group C- everyone else. The dollars will be significant at few schools, and the competition for these players will likely come from places without a load of NIL funding, so the effects will not be great.

I think that there's not much difference (if any at all) between Group B and C, and NIL opportunities will just translate to "the rich getting richer". I don't see it becoming an opportunity for an "outside looking in" school to start hauling top recruits with the promise of NIL dollars. The ones doing that are those already committed to women's basketball.

I agree that Group A (whether because they are marketable as a star player or have their own brand) will get paid no matter what, so they aren't likely to be swayed by the highest offer. I also agree with you that this is a super small subset of players and the probably not just attributed to their HS ranking (Flaujae Johonson comes to mind).

 

[Amb3096]

Read she got 6th in all around in her first international competition. Numerous other top 10 finishes all-around in the same year. Not 6th alternate on the team, those are earned like tryouts for basketball, baseball, softball national teams. Just stating she had her national/international brand well before NIL….earned in the sport. Not disputing she is marketable, but I’m not selling her athletic accomplishments short.

I don't doubt that Olivia is a talented gymnast, but she's the "Anna Kournikova" of her sport: an elite player who's fame transcends her results on the floor. Finishing 6th is an impressive accomplishment, but she's more famous than whoever finished 1-5, and it's not because of her proficiency in the sport.

 

[Volwonder1]

How much has NIL impacted women’s college basketball recruiting?

Editor’s note: Over the past month, The Athletic has spoken with more than 30 women’s college basketball coaches about an array of topics, from tournament expansion to athletic directors to X’s and O’s. These coaches, who hail from power conferences and high mid-majors, were granted anonymity to allow them to speak openly without fear of retribution from their programs or the NCAA. Throughout the week, we’re sharing coaches’ thoughts on the most pressing issues in their sport. Though not every response is included, answers represent all opinions expressed.

When the NCAA approved its first landmark national NIL policy in July 2021, everyone pondered what the college sports landscape would look like after this seismic shift: How much would athletes make? How would it transform sports? Would college sports still be amateur?

Nearly two years later, most of those questions persist.

How much are athletes making? It’s hard to say unless the athlete is open to disclosing financial details, and most are not. Some women’s basketball players have signed major brand partnerships, like Iowa’s Caitlin Clark (Nike, Hy-Vee, Topps), Stanford’s Haley Jones (Nike, The Players Tribune, SoFi), LSU’s Flau’jae Johnson (Puma, Meta), UCLA’s Kiki Rice (Jordan Brand, Dove), UConn’s Paige Bueckers (Gatorade, Crocs, Bose), South Carolina’s Aliyah Boston (Bose, Crocs, Orangetheory), Miami’s Haley and Hanna Cavinder (Under Armour, Victoria’s Secret) and UConn’s Azzi Fudd (NBPA, Nerf). But the majority of women’s college basketball players aren’t raking in those kinds of deals.

Though those top athletes have secured deals worth upwards of six figures, the average women’s basketball player earns significantly less. Per data gathered by INFLCR, during the first year of NIL, the average deal for a women’s basketball guard was $1,441, while the average deals for centers ($503) and forwards ($390) were even less.

Some schools also have collectives — registered groups of donors — that have deals with revenue teams or hope to have deals with those teams. This season, South Carolina’s collective — Garnet Trust — signed women’s basketball players to deals of at least $25,000 and Iowa’s Swarm collective signed players to $15,000 NIL deals. UCLA coach Cori Close has said her goal is to have $50,000 NIL deals in place for each of her women’s basketball players next season.

How has NIL transformed sports? For some athletes and sports, very little. For others, significantly. For the NCAA, entirely.

Is college sports still amateur? This seems to differ from athlete to athlete, even within each sport, and probably depends more on one’s definition of amateur. For sports with less exposure, not a lot has changed. But for high-visibility athletes who are signing agents and inking brand partnerships, it certainly feels a lot more like the professional ranks. For most women’s basketball players, it’s somewhere in between.

But talk long enough with women’s college basketball coaches and NIL always comes up — their questions, frustrations and fears. As coaches search for and break down every advantage available to their competitors, NIL is now a part of the equation.

So for the fourth question of our anonymous coaches’ poll, we asked not how much NIL has impacted their jobs but how much, less than two years into the NIL era, it has impacted recruiting.

How much has NIL changed recruiting?

HOW MUCH? PERCENT
Not at all
9
Somewhat
34
A lot
44
Completely
13
NOT AT ALL

• “It’s been tough because we have not capitalized on it with a collective yet that is really feeding into our program. And I don’t think that our local companies and alumni companies have stepped up for women’s basketball for us. … I think that you need a game plan with a collective for sports like women’s basketball. Schools that don’t have that game plan for a collective where every kid is capitalizing on a collective, it is going to hurt you in the recruiting process.”

• “For us, as of now, it hasn’t changed a lot. It hasn’t been as big a deal. But I don’t think we’ll know where we are for another two or three years when we say, ‘Oh, yeah, we didn’t get that kid because we don’t have as robust an NIL program.’ I don’t think you want to compromise who you are, but we’re not going to beat some of the football schools, so if that’s what a kid wants and it’s their No. 1 priority, we’re probably not the school for them.”

• “Some players will literally come out and say, ‘NIL doesn’t matter to me.’ But it’s becoming such a part of what other schools sell: ‘I know we can offer this or we can help you get this.’ It’s definitely a part of it.”

Considering the ways NIL has been described — a seismic shift, a landmark move, a new era of college sports — it’s wild that some coaches say it hasn’t changed recruiting at all.

However, perhaps that’s not as surprising as one would think. The haves and have-nots exist historically in college basketball, and the have-nots are accustomed to the disparity. Now collectives and NIL deals are just a part of that reality. Throughout time, some players have opted to go against the grain, choosing a lesser-known school or picking a conference that might not have as much to offer, so it also shouldn’t be surprising that in the NIL era some athletes will choose a school/conference without a robust NIL offering.

SOMEWHAT

• “When I talk to my colleagues in men’s basketball and football, we’re certainly not seeing the level of impact that it has had on the men’s side. I am keeping my eyes open about the future. I suspect it will become more impactful.”

• “We don’t even have a shot with kids who are getting mysterious $300,000 payouts from (a school). Where does that money come from? I don’t know. Is it legal? It’s supposed to be. But I don’t know. And what are the rules, really? So, it’s hard to know. Everyone’s so tight-lipped about it. Every state has different rules. There’s no federal legislation. It feels like the wild, Wild West. So, to me, it can only get worse.”

• “It’s part of the discussion sometimes with some players, but I don’t think it is the most important part of the discussion in the women’s game right now.”

• “It depends on the type of kid you’re recruiting. So it starts there. Some kids are not driven by that, and others are. The school I’m at, we’re not really an NIL-sexy school. We use NIL more for retention of players rather than the recruitment of.”

About one-third of coaches said they felt NIL had impacted recruiting somewhat, with many of them citing how much more impactful it is elsewhere — either at other schools or in other sports at their universities. That level of comparison can be helpful for some coaches. After all, while those top players are signing big brand partnerships, the majority of players aren’t, and the majority of high school recruits understand they’re not going to be signing the same kinds of deals Bueckers and Jones have.

Coaches mentioned it has been more of a player-by-player situation, and like the coaches who said “not at all,” players who are opting to attend a school that’s not “NIL sexy” likely are less driven by the NIL deals than players who might be opting for a program that has an active collective.

A LOT

• “NIL was supposed to be Paige Bueckers being able to market herself, not the school giving you $25,000 to show up someplace three times at some event.”

• “You hear rumors that this person is offering this, this school is offering that, but no one really knows because there’s no transparency. Before, you knew, ‘This is a full scholarship,’ and you knew what that was. But now it’s a full scholarship plus what? And you’re relying on AAU coaches and kids to tell you the truth, which isn’t always realistic.”

• “There’s an expectation during the recruiting process from a lot of players, not all. As much as that, it’s the AAU coaches and the people who are guiding these young kids. They’re telling them that they need to get money.”

• “Now players are expecting money in addition to their scholarships. … If you can’t offer money, then you really can’t be in a conversation with some of these kids.”

• “When you’re talking about top-tier talent, we’re not getting many questions about majors or even facilities. It’s become probably the first topic on the list, in terms of: Are you gonna be in the (NIL) game or are you not gonna be in the (NIL) game?”

Perhaps it’s no surprise that these are the coaches who are going after top recruits or players on top AAU teams who are expecting NIL or collective deals.

That’s clear because if AAU coaches, parents and athletes are asking the coach about NIL deals, that’s collective money. College coaches aren’t supposed to be part of the NIL world, and when it comes to players who sign the largest deals, that’s done by a player and their representation and agent. Where coaches might have a better understanding is when a collective has signed deals with an entire team or when a school’s collective has been especially active in signing deals with the star players in the athletic department.

In the “somewhat” and “a lot” categories, we heard from several coaches who still feel they are in the dark about the rules and regulations around NIL. With the lack of transparency — because the larger deals are usually brokered by agents and the collective deals aren’t supposed to go through coaches — college coaches are left to find out information secondhand through players or their parents.

COMPLETELY

• “The transfer portal and NIL have intersected at a time so that it has legalized tampering.”

• “Every recruit, coach and parent is asking about it in recruiting. It used to be: ‘How will I fit in? What’s my opportunity? What are the academics? What’s the social life?’ Now NIL, for some kids, trumps all.”

• “It’s pay for play. … NIL is certainly a question that every parent is asking: ‘How much will my child make if she comes here?’ Ultimately, the coaches aren’t supposed to have any bearing in terms of what these kids are making. We’re not supposed to help in getting them deals or the relationships (to make deals). We’re not supposed to touch this stuff, and yet, there are places out there that are setting these deals up.”

Several of the quotes that landed in the “a lot” category certainly could fall into this one as well, given any coach’s interpretation.

However, the coaches who chose the “completely” category used some key words that separated them from coaches in the other categories: “tampering” and “pay to play.” NIL proponents often said because deals were meant to be player-driven, it would never lead to those things. But some coaches now will push back by saying it wouldn’t be like this if guardrails were in place, but that hasn’t really happened because so much of the NCAA’s NIL legislation has been reactionary.

Coaches in this group also said every parent and every player was asking about NIL. That likely speaks to the caliber of player they’re recruiting and the expectations that exist for top players, as well as the understanding that most top athletic departments have collectives setting up team deals.

A consistent thought among coaches who landed in all four categories, even for those who said NIL was impacting recruiting “not at all” or “somewhat,” was that NIL is going to become more of a factor as time goes on. Though it’s often thought that changes in college sports happen slowly, two years into the NIL era, it’s fair to say this was a shift that came in suddenly, has an impact and is only going to become more prominent.

Because no coach or employee have EVER asked about their pay or salary while interviewing.

 

[Volwonder1]

I think that there's not much difference (if any at all) between Group B and C, and NIL opportunities will just translate to "the rich getting richer". I don't see it becoming an opportunity for an "outside looking in" school to start hauling top recruits with the promise of NIL dollars. The ones doing that are those already committed to women's basketball.

I agree that Group A (whether because they are marketable as a star player or have their own brand) will get paid no matter what, so they aren't likely to be swayed by the highest offer. I also agree with you that this is a super small subset of players and the probably not just attributed to their HS ranking (Flaujae Johonson comes to mind).

May help long forgotten Ivy League schools become competitive again by using resources and their graduates to broker some major NIL deals.

 

[Amb3096]

May help long forgotten Ivy League schools become competitive again by using resources and their graduates to broker some major NIL deals.

Ivy Leagues is a different matter because of their admission requirements. I also wonder if a player qualifies academically for the Ivies but decides they want to play for one of the contenders, then would they be swayed back to the Ivies for NIL money?

Princeton aside, I also can't really think of any Ivy Leagues that were relevent in women's basketball in the past. Even Princeton was not such a major player.