AL QB Bryce Austin $1M in endorsements

[MilwaukeeBoilerFan]

How can you compete against programs dangling money like that? Without a MLB revenue share model or some other type of controls, numerous teams minus a top 10 market will fall by the wayside.
I.E. Philthy Knight and Oregon must love this new deal. Word has it that Miami players who join a specific fitness center will earn $500/Mo for their signing to the fitness center. Since the cat is out of the bag, what chaos string theory will result?
Edit-correction Miami scholarship players get $600/Mo.

American Top Team head offers Miami Hurricane players $600 a month under NIL deal

Lambert's marketing company, “Bring Back the U,” offered every scholarship player at the University of Miami a $600 a month contract to endorse his company.

amp.palmbeachpost.com

 

[nat100]

Which teams that dont have those resources have been competitive in the championship era?

Bama and OSU will continue to pull away from the field.

 

[KentuckyBoiler]

The funny thing is how colleges like Alabama say that this will not affect college athletes and athletics. Say the colleges with unlimited booster funds.

 

[MilwaukeeBoilerFan]

Which teams that dont have those resources have been competitive in the championship era?

Bama and OSU will continue to pull away from the field.

The rich get more rich.
I can see a dark horse I.E. say Rutgers emerge when a Billionaire alumnus wants to buy a championship. Just pay all the new recruits on signing day.
This will become an Arms Race for talent that will become slimy soon enough.

 

[nat100]

The rich get more rich.
I can see a dark horse I.E. say Rutgers emerge when a Billionaire alumnus wants to buy a championship. Just pay all the new recruits on signing day.
This will become an Arms Race for talent that will become slimy soon enough.

It likely will. Recruiting was already slimy, it was just behind closed doors.

 

[Purdue85]

It likely will. Recruiting was already slimy, it was just behind closed doors.

it wasn't just behind closed doors. It was somewhat limited, AND, there were potential penalties for the most egregious (although, the 'powers that be' had turned into nothing more than a paper tiger).

Complete failure of the enforcement idiots is hardly justification for outright multi-million $$ payoffs.

This has become a complete joke, and is making a mockery of collegiate athletics.

 

[nat100]

it wasn't just behind closed doors. It was somewhat limited, AND, there were potential penalties for the most egregious (although, the 'powers that be' had turned into nothing more than a paper tiger).

Complete failure of the enforcement idiots is hardly justification for outright multi-million $$ payoffs.

This has become a complete joke, and is making a mockery of collegiate athletics.

Schools were making millions off the stars. Giving them the right to make money on their own Name, Image or Likeness is not a mockery. Could it have been implemented better? Sure. But the NCAA balked at this for so long that the states forced the issue.

 

[KingofJersey]

I believe you meant Bryce Young. Would be cool if our redshirt freshman DTs could get a million before playing a snap lol

 

[Purdue85]

Schools were making millions off the stars. Giving them the right to make money on their own Name, Image or Likeness is not a mockery. Could it have been implemented better? Sure. But the NCAA balked at this for so long that the states forced the issue.

Well, they had millions in revenue, for sure. That's no reason to pay amateur (student) athletes.

What's more, a lot of those "millions" were funneled to the academic side. Still no reason to pay amateur athletes.

Paying off amateur athletes under the guise of "NIL" is a mockery. Always will be.

The NCAA didn't balk, they simply didn't allow it. The only reason they caved was the unrelated ruling by the Supreme Court. The appropriateness of that decision (by the Court) can be debated, but there's very little chance we're going to look back at this and consider it a really good thing.

 

[nat100]

Well, they had millions in revenue, for sure. That's no reason to pay amateur (student) athletes.

What's more, a lot of those "millions" were funneled to the academic side. Still no reason to pay amateur athletes.

Paying off amateur athletes under the guise of "NIL" is a mockery. Always will be.

The NCAA didn't balk, they simply didn't allow it. The only reason they caved was the unrelated ruling by the Supreme Court. The appropriateness of that decision (by the Court) can be debated, but there's very little chance we're going to look back at this and consider it a really good thing.

Flawed take. If a kid wants to sell his art or a t shirt or whatever, he couldnt do it before, which was horseshit. Additionally, if a kid can strike a deal with a company wanting them for advertisements, more power to them.

Where are the direct payments from ADs to players?

 

[Purdue85]

Flawed take. If a kid wants to sell his art or a t shirt or whatever, he couldnt do it before, which was horseshit. Additionally, if a kid can strike a deal with a company wanting them for advertisements, more power to them.

Where are the direct payments from ADs to players?

Not flawed at all.

the reason the kid couldn't do that is because that would make enforcement impossible. No way this system is sustainable, if there's to be any semblance of the prevention of paying off players. The shoe companies (e.g.) are sitting back, rubbing their hands.

All the prior accusations of shoe deals (true or not) is now a reality. Yeah... that's what we wanted, and NEEDED, in college athletics.

For years, many ethical ADs have been highly concerned about rogue boosters. Welcome to NIL.

"Flawed take..."

 

[nat100]

Not flawed at all.

the reason the kid couldn't do that is because that would make enforcement impossible. No way this system is sustainable, if there's to be any semblance of the prevention of paying off players. The shoe companies (e.g.) are sitting back, rubbing their hands.

All the prior accusations of shoe deals (true or not) is now a reality. Yeah... that's what we wanted, and NEEDED, in college athletics.

For years, many ethical ADs have been highly concerned about rogue boosters. Welcome to NIL.

"Flawed take..."

Shoe deals have been rampant in basketball recruiting for years. If you think otherwise I have some beachfront property in Wyoming house might like.

If the ncaa had an ounce of perspective, this would have been implemented years ago and proper protocols would have been developed to alleviate any concerns about abuse. Of course it didn’t so there aren’t.

 

[Purdue85]

Shoe deals have been rampant in basketball recruiting for years. If you think otherwise I have some beachfront property in Wyoming house might like.

If the ncaa had an ounce of perspective, this would have been implemented years ago and proper protocols would have been developed to alleviate any concerns about abuse. Of course it didn’t so there aren’t.

uh.... that's exactly what I posted.
???

For years, the NCAA (to their limited credit) has tried to stem the tide of rampant cheating via those "shoe deals".

Not sure what you're trying to argue... it's okay now to cheat, because people cheated for years... or, it's okay now to put the money in amateur sports because people cheated for years... or, it's okay to have all this ca$h influencing players because it was already under the table... or, it's okay for amateur players to get cash because universities had revenue... or ....

This clown show wasn't "implemented years ago" because it is, was, and will always be a recipe for corruption.

If you're happy with the current state of affairs, .... baby, just wait... you ain't seen nothin' yet.

 

[nat100]

uh.... that's exactly what I posted.
???

For years, the NCAA (to their limited credit) has tried to stem the tide of rampant cheating via those "shoe deals".

Not sure what you're trying to argue... it's okay now to cheat, because people cheated for years... or, it's okay now to put the money in amateur sports because people cheated for years... or, it's okay to have all this ca$h influencing players because it was already under the table... or, it's okay for amateur players to get cash because universities had revenue... or ....

This clown show wasn't "implemented years ago" because it is, was, and will always be a recipe for corruption.

If you're happy with the current state of affairs, .... baby, just wait... you ain't seen nothin' yet.

the ncaa went overboard in the 70s when it tried to stop players from earning money. Scholarship money plus a small stipend is ridiculous. I worked 40+ hours a week in college to pay bills but these kids can’t.
The system was flawed for decades and this is the result.

 

[FirstDownB]

What would a non flawed system look like?

 

[Purdue85]

the ncaa went overboard in the 70s when it tried to stop players from earning money. Scholarship money plus a small stipend is ridiculous. I worked 40+ hours a week in college to pay bills but these kids can’t.
The system was flawed for decades and this is the result.

Holy chit. All of life is flawed.

Players can earn money... always have. Have numerous family members who did, as student athletes.

Scholarship and stipend is not, and never has been, ... "ridiculous". (See: current student loan situations for the 'typical' student)

You're baying at the moon if your argument now has shifted to, "yeah, but, current student athletes can't afford to go to school".

Dude...

(why does the phrase "flawed take" suddenly come to mind)

 

[nat100]

Holy chit. All of life is flawed.

Players can earn money... always have. Had numerous family members who did.

Scholarship and stipend is not, and never has been, ... "ridiculous". (See: current student loan situations)

You're baying at the moon if your argument now has shifted to, "yeah, but, current student athletes can't afford to go to school".

Dude...

(why does the phrase "flawed take" suddenly come to mind)

1) not about affordability. It’s about maximizing earning potential. That’s what college is about, right?
2) I knew players in secondary sports that had eligibility issues because they picked up lawnscaping jobs l. The ncaa clamped down (too much so) on income creation. This was lifted.
3) if schools can profit off a players likeness, so should the player

easy concepts.

 

[Purdue85]

1) not about affordability. It’s about maximizing earning potential. That’s what college is about, right?
2) I knew players in secondary sports that had eligibility issues because they picked up lawnscaping jobs l. The ncaa clamped down (too much so) on income creation. This was lifted.
3) if schools can profit off a players likeness, so should the player

easy concepts.

Wow.

Now I think you're just putting me on. (Trolling me?!)

1. no, college is about an education. Playing sports in college is about the ability to continue playing your chosen sport(s) while earning a scholarship. It is not, was not, and should not be about "maximizing earning potential". That's absurd.
2. Every student athlete I've ever known has carried off-season jobs. Every one.
3. Schools aren't profiting. Do they have revenue from said sports? Yes. They are offering tremendous opportunities.

your "easy concepts" seem to keep changing. Pick an argument. So far, none of them work. The student athlete has been provided an environment they didn't create, and now they want to profit from it. As "amateurs". If they want to profit, go pro.

There. Easy concept.

 

[Tommaker]

Schools were making millions off the stars. Giving them the right to make money on their own Name, Image or Likeness is not a mockery. Could it have been implemented better? Sure. But the NCAA balked at this for so long that the states forced the issue.

New NCAA Study Shows 23 Athletic Departments In The Black | Athnet

The NCAA's most recent Revenues and Expenses of Division I Athletic Departments report was released today. The document is a comprehensive look at athletic

www.athleticscholarships.net

From 2013, I have no idea what the numbers are now. Point being that even if they make millions, they're still spending millions more. The counter argument is successful programs draw in donor dollars. Yesterday, yes. Today, possibly. Tomorrow? Who knows. With seemingly less and less grads caring if their alma mater makes the playoffs (and more concerned about paying off debt or getting a job that allows them to) that may not be the draw it once was. Bama has used a lot of that exposure (and influx of dollars) to literally "buy" world class students for their campus and attempted to build up their academic cred. Maybe they see the writing on the wall. Long term this will end a lot or most of the lesser NCAA sports, and the lawyers are already lining up for the "equal NIL for female athlete" lawsuits, which in turn can only negatively impact collegiate athletics.

 

[FirstDownB]

Wow.

Now I think you're just putting me on. (Trolling me?!)

1. no, college is about an education. Playing sports in college is about the ability to continue playing your chosen sport(s) while earning a scholarship. It is not, was not, and should not be about "maximizing earning potential". That's absurd.
2. Every student athlete I've ever known has carried off-season jobs. Every one.
3. Schools aren't profiting. Do they have revenue from said sports? Yes. They are offering tremendous opportunities.

your "easy concepts" seem to keep changing. Pick an argument. So far, none of them work. The student athlete has been provided an environment they didn't create, and now they want to profit from it. As "amateurs". If they want to profit, go pro.

There. Easy concept.

And the average student athlete is going to be hurt by these rules. Instead of making million dollar donations to improve facilities, like the Rohrman’s did, that money is going into the pockets of a select few. Some of the people advocating for these changes are going to find out the unintended consequences the hard way.

 

[Purdue85]

New NCAA Study Shows 23 Athletic Departments In The Black | Athnet

The NCAA's most recent Revenues and Expenses of Division I Athletic Departments report was released today. The document is a comprehensive look at athletic

www.athleticscholarships.net

From 2013, I have no idea what the numbers are now. Point being that even if they make millions, they're still spending millions more. The counter argument is successful programs draw in donor dollars. Yesterday, yes. Today, possibly. Tomorrow? Who knows. With seemingly less and less grads caring if their alma mater makes the playoffs (and more concerned about paying off debt or getting a job that allows them to) that may not be the draw it once was. Bama has used a lot of that exposure (and influx of dollars) to literally "buy" world class students for their campus and attempted to build up their academic cred. Maybe they see the writing on the wall. Long term this will end a lot or most of the lesser NCAA sports, and the lawyers are already lining up for the "equal NIL for female athlete" lawsuits, which in turn can only negatively impact collegiate athletics.

Outstanding post.

Most universities do NOT "make millions". Revenue does not = income. Massive amounts of money are being used to provide said student athletes with palatial arenas, stadiums, facilities, etc. This cannot, and will not, continue, when the dollars go elsewhere.

What's more, NIL is a seismic shift in what will be the future of college athletics. Most people do not (or cannot, or will not) see the implications. It doesn't look good.

It's conceivable that many non-revenue sports will be shuttered. Donors are likely to go straight to the source (the student athlete), and bypass entities like the John Purdue Club.

But, hey... at least they "got theirs".

EDIT:

For those who have not done so, take a trip out west of campus, and look at the incredible facilities. A fabulous baseball stadium. Ditto, softball. And soccer. And tennis.

This is what these "profitable" schools have provided the average student athlete.

These "profits" are not going into the pockets of rich administrators, or elite donors. It's going right back into facilities for the average student athlete.

Well... it did.

 

[New Coach Time]

Flawed take. If a kid wants to sell his art or a t shirt or whatever, he couldnt do it before, which was horseshit. Additionally, if a kid can strike a deal with a company wanting them for advertisements, more power to them.

Where are the direct payments from ADs to players?

Rich boosters will have bidding wars for players like pro teams do free agents. I feel like this is wrong for collegiate sports but for now it is what it is. If you want a great team get your checkbooks out boys because that’s the only way that it’s going to happen.

 

[New Coach Time]

Outstanding post.

Most universities do NOT "make millions". Revenue does not = income. Massive amounts of money are being used to provide said student athletes with palatial arenas, stadiums, facilities, etc. This cannot, and will not, continue, when the dollars go elsewhere.

What's more, NIL is a seismic shift in what will be the future of college athletics. Most people do not (or cannot, or will not) see the implications. It doesn't look good.

It's conceivable that many non-revenue sports will be shuttered. Donors are likely to go straight to the source (the student athlete), and bypass entities like the John Purdue Club.

But, hey... at least they "got theirs".

EDIT:

For those who have not done so, take a trip out west of campus, and look at the incredible facilities. A fabulous baseball stadium. Ditto, softball. And soccer. And tennis.

This is what these "profitable" schools have provided the average student athlete.

These "profits" are not going into the pockets of rich administrators, or elite donors. It's going right back into facilities for the average student athlete.

Well... it did.

Well said

 

[BCfanatic2020]

The funny thing is how colleges like Alabama say that this will not affect college athletes and athletics. Say the colleges with unlimited booster funds.

Some of you needed to see this to know what was gonna happen?

it’s gonna be like one day when we have a Markus Bailey who decides (“decides on his own” lol “without being contacted like a free agent”) that he can start for O$U and leaves despite no signs that he was unhappy here. Some people will be mystified like “oh you mean that CAN happen.”

im telling you now it WILL happen. It’s what the system was designed to do. Get programs like Purdue to do the painstaking work.. use them as a farm system when you pick up their best player as a junior…

 

[New Coach Time]

Schools were making millions off the stars. Giving them the right to make money on their own Name, Image or Likeness is not a mockery. Could it have been implemented better? Sure. But the NCAA balked at this for so long that the states forced the issue.

If only the star athletes were eligible for nil then things would probably work out well but it’ll never be that way and those that aren’t making big bucks will sue and who knows what happens then?

 

[New Pal Boiler]

If only the star athletes were eligible for nil then things would probably work out well but it’ll never be that way and those that aren’t making big bucks will sue and who knows what happens then?

Who are they going to sue? The schools aren’t paying the NIL money.

 

[SKYDOG]

Who are they going to sue? The schools aren’t paying the NIL money.

I think this will turn out to be wrong.

 

[izakman]

The way I see it, Cash Flow and Concentration are not going to meld well with some of these young men.

 

[Level 42]

And the downfall of college sports has begun.

 

[BCfanatic2020]

And the downfall of college sports has begun.

But I think it’s hilarious that there are people who 1) were surprised by this, 2) didn’t realize that these deals were ready to go on day 1, 3) needed to see this first for it to be real.

just wait until one of our best players for whom we have no backup plan leaves Purdue with no good reason apparent..

AND if I were one of the powers and I wanted to be more powerful, I’d go around telling a Markus Bailey (were we in that same year) “hey come start for us.. bigger money than Purdue,” knowing full well that he wouldn’t start and that it’s a strategy to cripple my opposition. Similar to Pitt signing 100 guys back in the day to keep them away from other schools.

then what you’re gonna have is sophomore versions of Bailey who transferred, realize they were lied to, don’t want to trade their NFL future for $240k, but have exhausted their one time transfer..

And I’m sure nat will say “Ohio state doesn’t need to do that to Purdue..” okay… Wisconsin to iowa and so on. Schools that are closer in stature to one another

NIL is actually going to hurt Purdue a lot. It will benefit schools located in high population centers because of the abundance of potential endorsements OR other schools with a lot of rich guys who care about the football team and are willing to give millions away.

so Stanford and USC will receive a huge shot in the arm. Reggie Bush part 2 can show up and just be what Reggie bush part one allegedly was but unapologetically.

Alabama will still be Alabama. Purdue will have to be as good at being an efficient program as Liberty is right now just to survive. Purdue better get like northwestern now and start spring seasons with 6 linebackers who can play to survive the attrition

 

[New Coach Time]

Who are they going to sue? The schools aren’t paying the NIL money.

Just wait and see…shit will turn completely crazy and eventually regulation will be made on it

 

[BCfanatic2020]

Just wait and see…shit will turn completely crazy and eventually regulation will be made on it

Yeah in 2032 when many have long since tuned it out and the viewership takes a hit similar to domestic nba viewership..

there was a way to do this that could have made it fun and kept parody..