Given that Justice Kavanaugh's concurring opinion I personally just can not see how football and basketball players will not be paid directly from the schools, I think it will absolutely happen.
Let's assume that universities paying players directly happens. First beneficiary is obviously the basketball and football players. Of slightly more interest to me is what schools stand to benefit the most and I would argue the rich northern schools stand to gain the most. Why? Let's take a school like Nebraska. Nebraska has EVERYTHING: Money, Facilities, fan support, administrative support, tradition, etc. The one thing that Nebraska lacks is a reliable supply of top end talent like the southern schools enjoy. In fact apart from the DMV most if not all B1G states don't produce as much talent as they did 30 or 40 years ago as the vast majority of population growth has occurred in the South and West.
College football has changed dramatically in the last few seasons and the changes revolve around transfer rules and the ability of players to be paid above board.
Let's go back to Nebraska or any Random Old school Big 8 or Big 10 school. They should save a quarter to half of their scholarships for transfers because if a talented kid is unhappy or is looking for a paycheck... Nebraska may not have talent, but they have money. I dare say more money than most southern teams not in the SEC.
In conclusion, I think that obviously teams that generate the most revenue have an advantage but have not necessarily been able to directly pull athletes because of that financial dominance. NIL, transfer rules, and universities directly paying players will change that and I speculate that rich schools without a lot of local talent will benefit most.
(07-13-2021 07:53 PM)Big Ron Buckeye Wrote: [ -> ]Given that Justice Kavanaugh's concurring opinion I personally just can not see how football and basketball players will not be paid directly from the schools, I think it will absolutely happen.
Let's assume that universities paying players directly happens. First beneficiary is obviously the basketball and football players. Of slightly more interest to me is what schools stand to benefit the most and I would argue the rich northern schools stand to gain the most. Why? Let's take a school like Nebraska. Nebraska has EVERYTHING: Money, Facilities, fan support, administrative support, tradition, etc. The one thing that Nebraska lacks is a reliable supply of top end talent like the southern schools enjoy. In fact apart from the DMV most if not all B1G states don't produce as much talent as they did 30 or 40 years ago as the vast majority of population growth has occurred in the South and West.
College football has changed dramatically in the last few seasons and the changes revolve around transfer rules and the ability of players to be paid above board.
Let's go back to Nebraska or any Random Old school Big 8 or Big 10 school. They should save a quarter to half of their scholarships for transfers because if a talented kid is unhappy or is looking for a paycheck... Nebraska may not have talent, but they have money. I dare say more money than most southern teams not in the SEC.
In conclusion, I think that obviously teams that generate the most revenue have an advantage but have not necessarily been able to directly pull athletes because of that financial dominance. NIL, transfer rules, and universities directly paying players will change that and I speculate that rich schools without a lot of local talent will benefit most.
Schools in states where there no pro franchises, or where college sports are the biggest game around, will benefit the most from NIL. Schools like Alabama and Auburn come to mind, as no state loves college football more than Alabama. Clemson and South Carolina also fall into this boat.
Along those lines, you're absolutely right about Nebraska and NIL. Runza, the local fast food chain, already has a deal with all of Nebraska's players. The Huskers are the biggest thing in the state, even after 20 years of football mediocrity. A college athlete is already a local celebrity. If they can handle NIL correctly, they have a road back to respectability. Next door, Iowa and Iowa State also have a huge opportunity with NIL.
NIL will benefit schools with little or no pro competition. Big fish, small pond.
Agree that rich schools should benefit the most from NIL and pay-for-play. But there are high revenue schools in all parts of the country. A school like Nebraska (high revenue & low nearby talent) may better exploit the changes if they are first-movers in creating the new paradigm. Long-term, the traditional financial powers are best positioned: Texas, Ohio State, Alabama, Oklahoma, Michigan, Georgia, Notre Dame. The lower revenue schools in the P5 will pressured to keep up.
(07-13-2021 08:22 PM)johnintx Wrote: [ -> ]Schools in states where there no pro franchises, or where college sports are the biggest game around, will benefit the most from NIL. Schools like Alabama and Auburn come to mind, as no state loves college football more than Alabama. Clemson and South Carolina also fall into this boat.
Along those lines, you're absolutely right about Nebraska and NIL. Runza, the local fast food chain, already has a deal with all of Nebraska's players. The Huskers are the biggest thing in the state, even after 20 years of football mediocrity. A college athlete is already a local celebrity. If they can handle NIL correctly, they have a road back to respectability. Next door, Iowa and Iowa State also have a huge opportunity with NIL.
NIL will benefit schools with little or no pro competition. Big fish, small pond.
I am in agreement that schools that lack direct professional competition in the same market (not necessarily the same state: Ohio State, Penn State, Texas, Texas A&M, LSU, Florida, etc) will gain hugely, But that's not my argument. The states that you mention, Alabama & South Carolina, have far more talent than Nebraska. Moreover within 2 states, a decent proxy for regional talent, look at the difference. Within 2 states Nebraska has Missouri and Illinois. Both Alabama and South Carolina are near Georgia and Florida while Alabama can draw from Louisiana and Tennessee & Clemson and pull from North Carolina, Virginia, and the DMV.
I said all of that to say, southern schools are by comparison awash in talent. So they are not going to benefit as much as schools with a dirth of talent regionally. Basically, the SEC and select ACC schools already have talent so the differential won't be that big for those schools, the differential for Kansas, Colorado, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, and Wisconsin stand to be much greater especially after Pay For Play hits. I think pay for play basically turns college ball into professional teams, the major difference being the NFL shares revenue while colleges don't, so there are wide and growing variances in college revenue.
Nebraska could offer 500,000 per year for the roughly 100 scholarship athletes that make up football and basketball and yeah 50 million per year in payroll would hurt, but they could manage. But with that in mind, riddle me this, would a four star that was heading to Miami or UCF or Fresno State or SMU give more consideration to Big Red or would they want to stay local? NIL is nice, Pay for Play is a Nuclear Bomb!!!
(07-13-2021 07:53 PM)Big Ron Buckeye Wrote: [ -> ]Given that Justice Kavanaugh's concurring opinion I personally just can not see how football and basketball players will not be paid directly from the schools, I think it will absolutely happen.
Let's assume that universities paying players directly happens. First beneficiary is obviously the basketball and football players. Of slightly more interest to me is what schools stand to benefit the most and I would argue the rich northern schools stand to gain the most. Why? Let's take a school like Nebraska. Nebraska has EVERYTHING: Money, Facilities, fan support, administrative support, tradition, etc. The one thing that Nebraska lacks is a reliable supply of top end talent like the southern schools enjoy. In fact apart from the DMV most if not all B1G states don't produce as much talent as they did 30 or 40 years ago as the vast majority of population growth has occurred in the South and West.
College football has changed dramatically in the last few seasons and the changes revolve around transfer rules and the ability of players to be paid above board.
Let's go back to Nebraska or any Random Old school Big 8 or Big 10 school. They should save a quarter to half of their scholarships for transfers because if a talented kid is unhappy or is looking for a paycheck... Nebraska may not have talent, but they have money. I dare say more money than most southern teams not in the SEC.
In conclusion, I think that obviously teams that generate the most revenue have an advantage but have not necessarily been able to directly pull athletes because of that financial dominance. NIL, transfer rules, and universities directly paying players will change that and I speculate that rich schools without a lot of local talent will benefit most.
There's truth here, but IMO you also have to consider motivation. Vanderbilt has more money than LSU, Alabama and Auburn put together. But it lacks motivation to invest massively in football. Harvard could dump more money in to football than anyone if it wanted, but it lacks the desire to do so.
I think NIL will end up being a giant mess. We’re not just talking about massive disparity between P5 and G5–we are talking massive disparity within the P5.
(07-14-2021 06:27 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ]I think NIL will end up being a giant mess. We’re not just talking about massive disparity between P5 and G5–we are talking massive disparity within the P5.
I think NIL could help some G5 that currently have P5-level fan interest but are stuck in the G5.
(07-14-2021 07:04 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (07-14-2021 06:27 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ]I think NIL will end up being a giant mess. We’re not just talking about massive disparity between P5 and G5–we are talking massive disparity within the P5.
I think NIL could help some G5 that currently have P5-level fan interest but are stuck in the G5.
^^^^
Boise State, Memphis, Houston, SMU, BYU, Gonzaga-(Basketball).....
(07-14-2021 05:45 AM)Big Ron Buckeye Wrote: [ -> ] (07-13-2021 08:22 PM)johnintx Wrote: [ -> ]Schools in states where there no pro franchises, or where college sports are the biggest game around, will benefit the most from NIL. Schools like Alabama and Auburn come to mind, as no state loves college football more than Alabama. Clemson and South Carolina also fall into this boat.
Along those lines, you're absolutely right about Nebraska and NIL. Runza, the local fast food chain, already has a deal with all of Nebraska's players. The Huskers are the biggest thing in the state, even after 20 years of football mediocrity. A college athlete is already a local celebrity. If they can handle NIL correctly, they have a road back to respectability. Next door, Iowa and Iowa State also have a huge opportunity with NIL.
NIL will benefit schools with little or no pro competition. Big fish, small pond.
I am in agreement that schools that lack direct professional competition in the same market (not necessarily the same state: Ohio State, Penn State, Texas, Texas A&M, LSU, Florida, etc) will gain hugely, But that's not my argument. The states that you mention, Alabama & South Carolina, have far more talent than Nebraska. Moreover within 2 states, a decent proxy for regional talent, look at the difference. Within 2 states Nebraska has Missouri and Illinois. Both Alabama and South Carolina are near Georgia and Florida while Alabama can draw from Louisiana and Tennessee & Clemson and pull from North Carolina, Virginia, and the DMV.
I said all of that to say, southern schools are by comparison awash in talent. So they are not going to benefit as much as schools with a dirth of talent regionally. Basically, the SEC and select ACC schools already have talent so the differential won't be that big for those schools, the differential for Kansas, Colorado, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, and Wisconsin stand to be much greater especially after Pay For Play hits. I think pay for play basically turns college ball into professional teams, the major difference being the NFL shares revenue while colleges don't, so there are wide and growing variances in college revenue.
Nebraska could offer 500,000 per year for the roughly 100 scholarship athletes that make up football and basketball and yeah 50 million per year in payroll would hurt, but they could manage. But with that in mind, riddle me this, would a four star that was heading to Miami or UCF or Fresno State or SMU give more consideration to Big Red or would they want to stay local? NIL is nice, Pay for Play is a Nuclear Bomb!!!
This. It benefits teams in large markets with no pro sports.
Ohio State & Texas are at the top of this list. Same with Louisville & SDSU & Fresno. They are the de-facto pro team for a large, wealthy metropolis.
Alabama & Nebraska & Iowa will also benefit due to having no pro teams in their state.
Schools like Illinois & Purdue & Colorado & Tennessee & Baylor & Kansas State will fall behind. So will Texas A&M. Their local market is tiny, and their statewide market is dominated by pro teams.
(07-19-2021 12:19 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote: [ -> ] (07-14-2021 05:45 AM)Big Ron Buckeye Wrote: [ -> ] (07-13-2021 08:22 PM)johnintx Wrote: [ -> ]Schools in states where there no pro franchises, or where college sports are the biggest game around, will benefit the most from NIL. Schools like Alabama and Auburn come to mind, as no state loves college football more than Alabama. Clemson and South Carolina also fall into this boat.
Along those lines, you're absolutely right about Nebraska and NIL. Runza, the local fast food chain, already has a deal with all of Nebraska's players. The Huskers are the biggest thing in the state, even after 20 years of football mediocrity. A college athlete is already a local celebrity. If they can handle NIL correctly, they have a road back to respectability. Next door, Iowa and Iowa State also have a huge opportunity with NIL.
NIL will benefit schools with little or no pro competition. Big fish, small pond.
I am in agreement that schools that lack direct professional competition in the same market (not necessarily the same state: Ohio State, Penn State, Texas, Texas A&M, LSU, Florida, etc) will gain hugely, But that's not my argument. The states that you mention, Alabama & South Carolina, have far more talent than Nebraska. Moreover within 2 states, a decent proxy for regional talent, look at the difference. Within 2 states Nebraska has Missouri and Illinois. Both Alabama and South Carolina are near Georgia and Florida while Alabama can draw from Louisiana and Tennessee & Clemson and pull from North Carolina, Virginia, and the DMV.
I said all of that to say, southern schools are by comparison awash in talent. So they are not going to benefit as much as schools with a dirth of talent regionally. Basically, the SEC and select ACC schools already have talent so the differential won't be that big for those schools, the differential for Kansas, Colorado, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, and Wisconsin stand to be much greater especially after Pay For Play hits. I think pay for play basically turns college ball into professional teams, the major difference being the NFL shares revenue while colleges don't, so there are wide and growing variances in college revenue.
Nebraska could offer 500,000 per year for the roughly 100 scholarship athletes that make up football and basketball and yeah 50 million per year in payroll would hurt, but they could manage. But with that in mind, riddle me this, would a four star that was heading to Miami or UCF or Fresno State or SMU give more consideration to Big Red or would they want to stay local? NIL is nice, Pay for Play is a Nuclear Bomb!!!
This. It benefits teams in large markets with no pro sports.
Ohio State & Texas are at the top of this list. Same with Louisville & SDSU & Fresno. They are the de-facto pro team for a large, wealthy metropolis.
Alabama & Nebraska & Iowa will also benefit due to having no pro teams in their state.
Schools like Illinois & Purdue & Colorado & Tennessee & Baylor & Kansas State will fall behind. So will Texas A&M. Their local market is tiny, and their statewide market is dominated by pro teams.
A&M has oil money - lots of it. With Alumni used to buying their way to success in life. They will be just fine.
Illinois, Purdue, Tennessee have lots of wealthy business alumni. They will be fine.