ADVERTISEMENT

The Athletic on NIL deals

amarcott

All-American
Sep 11, 2011
9,879
20,447
113

Some highlights:

The Athletic reviewed three recruits’ recently signed NIL contracts, each with a different school-specific collective. The Athletic agreed to preserve the anonymity of all parties in order to get a better sense of the current market rates for top recruits. A four-star receiver landed a deal that will pay him more than $1 million over the next four years in exchange for his exclusive NIL rights. A defensive lineman ranked among the top 10 at his position received a three-year deal worth $1 million. And a three-star defensive lineman signed for $500,000 over four years. The latter two are non-exclusive.

The Athletic didn't go into details over these contracts, but I wonder if the exclusive rights would make it more difficult for a player to transfer.

Boosters at a small handful of programs — Texas A&M, Texas, Tennessee, Oregon and Miami chief among them — mobilized the quickest when the NCAA allowed NIL compensation for the first time last July. But they are far outnumbered by exasperated coaches and administrators who fear their programs getting left behind. Many have lost recruits simply because another school’s collective offered an NIL package it couldn’t match.

“We lost a kid (on signing day) over that. That hurt,” a Power 5 head coach told The Athletic. “Two hours before, the mom is telling me he’s coming here. And then she said, ‘Coach, how can we turn down $300,000?’ You can’t. Take it, I get it.”

I don't see Purdue generally being on the beneficial end here.

Beyond the legality, there’s also the question of whether throwing seven-figure deals at unproven high school players or inexperienced portal transfers is a sensible investment. Saban called it an “unsustainable model.” Riley predicted an eventual “market correction.”

“You’re really guessing that this 18-year-old guy who has proven zero is worth a million dollars from somebody, somehow, however that money is getting there,” said the Power 5 head coach. “Like … what the **** are we talking about? Why even want to be associated with this? We’re ruining kids.”

The 2023 class could turn out to be a fascinating case study. Will the players who cashed in be less likely to transfer because they risk blowing up their deal — or perhaps more likely because they picked a school solely for financial reasons? If a lot of the top recruits become busts, will donors be less likely to pitch in going forward? Or will 2024 kids get even richer as more schools’ collectives become better funded?

“A lot of people tell me hey, don’t worry, this isn’t here to stay, these numbers you’re seeing out there, people can’t keep that up. I disagree,” said Kiffin. “(Schools) always find a way to keep up. They find money.”

Saban and Lincoln Riley think this bubble will burst. Kiffin doesn't. Every coach seems to hate it regardless.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

Go Big.
Get Premium.

Join Rivals to access this premium section.

  • Say your piece in exclusive fan communities.
  • Unlock Premium news from the largest network of experts.
  • Dominate with stats, athlete data, Rivals250 rankings, and more.
Log in or subscribe today Go Back