There are no unintended consequences for this rule.

The unintended consequence of NIL is that donors are going to be less likely to pay up for coaches when they need to spend on the players to keep them.

(07-03-2021 05:32 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-03-2021 11:13 AM)CoastalVANDAL Wrote:  Say I own a local car dealership and donate to school X's athletic fund every year. Now I can pay the star QB to endorse my business keep him from transferring .I feel like I am helping the school but not directly. This will cause a drop in athletic donations hurting mid level programs the most.

It absolutely will. Same thing when pay for play comes. The unintended consequences is players will be paid more and coaches will be paid less. Buying a good coach will be less important than buying good players.

Paying for better players as opposed to coaches seems to be a feature instead of a bug here. That’s where the real talent is at the end of the day.

(07-05-2021 10:46 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(07-03-2021 05:32 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-03-2021 11:13 AM)CoastalVANDAL Wrote:  Say I own a local car dealership and donate to school X's athletic fund every year. Now I can pay the star QB to endorse my business keep him from transferring .I feel like I am helping the school but not directly. This will cause a drop in athletic donations hurting mid level programs the most.

It absolutely will. Same thing when pay for play comes. The unintended consequences is players will be paid more and coaches will be paid less. Buying a good coach will be less important than buying good players.

Paying for better players as opposed to coaches seems to be a feature instead of a bug here. That’s where the real talent is at the end of the day.

The Jimmys and the Joe’s > then the X’s and O’s....

(07-03-2021 11:13 AM)CoastalVANDAL Wrote:  Say I own a local car dealership and donate to school X's athletic fund every year. Now I can pay the star QB to endorse my business keep him from transferring .I feel like I am helping the school but not directly. This will cause a drop in athletic donations hurting mid level programs the most.

Say, instead, that a 55-year-old man was in the market for a new car or truck. Would he choose a particular make because the dealer pays some 19-year-old quarterback who plays at his Alma Mater to make an endorsement? What if the man had been driving Toyotas with complete satisfaction for years and the kid, who knows how to throw a football but nothing about cars or trucks, was endorsing Fords? Would that motivate a potential customer to change brands? What if that kid who endorses Toyotas didn't play at the man's Alma Mater but starred instead at a hated rival school? Would that motivate a buyer to quit buying a brand he's always liked? What if the dealer payed athletes from a variety of schools in an effort to please everyone?

What if the automobile dealer realizes, after a season or two, that paying ephemeral athletes to appear in his commercials is just a big waste of money?

(07-03-2021 06:14 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  So are colleges expecting to pay $50m to the roster so they can make $20m from TV, etc? That doesn't seem like good business sense.
Like I've mentioned before, I don't know why anyone would pay the OU QB anything. He's just a stop gap, the OU brand is the driver of $$$.

Disagree. There’s a symbiotic relationship between the talent level at OU (or other top schools) and the brand of the school itself. That’s why Ivy League sports (all of which have national brand names that destroy a place like OU) aren’t worth much at all.

It’s a classic 1 + 1 = 3 situation. The talent level PLUS the brand name is what creates unique value. Take one away from the other and that value is totally destroyed. It would be completely foolish to think that OU and other P5 schools in general can just take Division III athletes (or even non-scholarships Division I athletes like the Ivies), slap on a uniform, and expect the same level of interest and revenue. Likewise, that talent isn’t going to maximize their value in a minor league without the college branding, either. It’s all intertwined.

(07-05-2021 10:50 AM)colohank Wrote:  

(07-03-2021 11:13 AM)CoastalVANDAL Wrote:  Say I own a local car dealership and donate to school X's athletic fund every year. Now I can pay the star QB to endorse my business keep him from transferring .I feel like I am helping the school but not directly. This will cause a drop in athletic donations hurting mid level programs the most.

Say, instead, that a 55-year-old man was in the market for a new car or truck. Would he choose a particular make because the dealer pays some 19-year-old quarterback who plays at his Alma Mater to make an endorsement? What if the man had been driving Toyotas with complete satisfaction for years and the kid, who knows how to throw a football but nothing about cars or trucks, was endorsing Fords? Would that motivate a potential customer to change brands? What if that kid who endorses Toyotas didn't play at the man's Alma Mater but starred instead at a hated rival school? Would that motivate a buyer to quit buying a brand he's always liked? What if the dealer payed athletes from a variety of schools in an effort to please everyone?

What if the automobile dealer realizes, after a season or two, that paying ephemeral athletes to appear in his commercials is just a big waste of money?

That’s called the free market. All or none of those things could happen. That happens in every other type of business everywhere everyday.

(07-03-2021 12:58 PM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  

(07-03-2021 11:13 AM)CoastalVANDAL Wrote:  Say I own a local car dealership and donate to school X's athletic fund every year. Now I can pay the star QB to endorse my business keep him from transferring .I feel like I am helping the school but not directly. This will cause a drop in athletic donations hurting mid level programs the most.

I think this will be more of a problem for smaller G5 programs located in smaller markets, where there are fewer businesses opportunities. Large G5 programs in higher populated areas should not only have more businesses to partner with, but their athletes will probably be able to command higher prices. It will be an interesting story to follow over the next few years.

That logic seems to follow but its probably more a direct function of the marketing income.

Marshall for example has good income streams for a G5 because of its local popularity but by no means to they exist in a market flush with cash like San Jose but the program has good support.

It could make the G5 more top heavy, which I believe is good for creating more Boise St type programs.

(07-03-2021 09:37 PM)pvk75 Wrote:  Non-athlete students and their parents/families are going to have duck fits if pay-for-play comes in -- and may even with NIL -- when publicity shows how much student-athletes make. This will be especially true at G5 and lower-level programs where mandatory athletic fees fund 20-70% of the athletic budgets. At the very least, they could demand that fees not be mandatory. Then what?

Too many articles done on how hard it is to find out exactly what individual schools charge; just Google the topic. Most media studies have been incomplete. Many schools "hide" athletic fees in with "general fees" or "activity fees." Why do you think?

Also, a ton of articles on the high and rising cost of higher education, student loans, etc. Fees are usually included in loans, meaning interest is also paid.

The student activity fees include all campus programing. The band, concert series, student formals, money to invite a comedian to campus and...money to support student athletics. I doubt that model is going to be impacted by NIL.

What I see for the G5 programs is that while statehouse politics might limit how far a MAC school for example would go with coaching compensation they don't have that constraint when it comes to their players signing NIL deals. Of course most of those schools are small market but all it takes is a few key NIL signings at the right positions to turn a programs fortunes around.

This neutralizes straight conference level recruiting where the P5 will naturally have better overall recruits. I see the G5 trying to do it more with transfers and seniors rather than banking more on incoming freshman. The endorsements of the players then add to the marketing profile of the program.

Who wins?

In basketball...

UCLA, St Johns and other historic big city programs.

There is a lot more money floating around LA and NY for endorsements than Lawrence and Lexington. Those programs still have a big enough fan base they will continue, but playing in Madison Square Garden or next door to Hollywood is gonna mean if players wanna get rich quick, those are the places to be.

Likewise, the Kansas States are gonna have trouble generating enough booster $ to attract top players.

That's an interesting argument, but the big media markets like NY and LA are quite over-saturated already, and it's even tough for many pro athletes to make money in local endorsements...

I'd argue that being a star in a market without pro sports may provide all kinds of NIL opportunities that may not come from an over-saturated market.

Those markets with high level college sports but no high level pro sports, with less competition for media visibility, may be end up being more lucrative ones for the NCAA athletes -- big fish in a small pond -- Looking' at you, Alabama/Nebraksa, etc.

(07-05-2021 10:57 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(07-05-2021 10:50 AM)colohank Wrote:  

(07-03-2021 11:13 AM)CoastalVANDAL Wrote:  Say I own a local car dealership and donate to school X's athletic fund every year. Now I can pay the star QB to endorse my business keep him from transferring .I feel like I am helping the school but not directly. This will cause a drop in athletic donations hurting mid level programs the most.

Say, instead, that a 55-year-old man was in the market for a new car or truck. Would he choose a particular make because the dealer pays some 19-year-old quarterback who plays at his Alma Mater to make an endorsement? What if the man had been driving Toyotas with complete satisfaction for years and the kid, who knows how to throw a football but nothing about cars or trucks, was endorsing Fords? Would that motivate a potential customer to change brands? What if that kid who endorses Toyotas didn't play at the man's Alma Mater but starred instead at a hated rival school? Would that motivate a buyer to quit buying a brand he's always liked? What if the dealer payed athletes from a variety of schools in an effort to please everyone?

What if the automobile dealer realizes, after a season or two, that paying ephemeral athletes to appear in his commercials is just a big waste of money?

That’s called the free market. All or none of those things could happen. That happens in every other type of business everywhere everyday.

Yep, the free market. I must be one of those rare individuals who thinks for himself and tunes out or runs to the fridge during TV commercials, and I sure as hell wouldn't be swayed by the exhortations of some athletically gifted teenager to buy this or that. Neither do I respond favorably to unsolicited calls or emails regarding my lapsed automobile warranty, offers of window or gutter replacement, threats from Mumbai regarding the status of my Social Security benefits, or warnings about bogus charges to my Amazon account.

At the end of the day, the free market will likely realize that there isn't all that much incremental value to a business in paying college athletes for NIL. It will become a thinly veiled method of succeeding in recruiting new athletes or retaining existing ones for one's favorite school. It just takes what's always existed sub rosa and makes it legal.

It won't be about helping the payer sell his product. It will just be about helping his team win more games.

(07-03-2021 11:13 AM)CoastalVANDAL Wrote:  Say I own a local car dealership and donate to school X's athletic fund every year. Now I can pay the star QB to endorse my business keep him from transferring .I feel like I am helping the school but not directly. This will cause a drop in athletic donations hurting mid level programs the most.

If you own a local car dealership that donates to school X’s athletic fund, then today your money is being indirectly invested via wasteful systems. You’re dealing with a middle man (athletic director) that chooses how to spend your money…to upgrade the university’s facilities or hire/fire a new head coach or give more bonuses to administrative staff or have more meetings at exclusive resorts or fund a squash squad. The usefulness of your donation is dependent on the skills of the athletic director.

In the future, your donation can go directly to someone who actually competes for your school’s team. Your money may still be wasted, but you will know exactly how it is being used (because donors can make the direct decision). This change should make the entire system more efficient. Total money spent by boosters may actually increase in the future, but the power & wealth of administrators (e.g., athletic directors, coaches and staff) will decrease. Athletes will get a greater share of the money being generated.

(07-05-2021 03:48 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(07-03-2021 11:13 AM)CoastalVANDAL Wrote:  Say I own a local car dealership and donate to school X's athletic fund every year. Now I can pay the star QB to endorse my business keep him from transferring .I feel like I am helping the school but not directly. This will cause a drop in athletic donations hurting mid level programs the most.

If you own a local car dealership that donates to school X’s athletic fund, then today your money is being indirectly invested via wasteful systems. You’re dealing with a middle man (athletic director) that chooses how to spend your money…to upgrade the university’s facilities or hire/fire a new head coach or give more bonuses to administrative staff or have more meetings at exclusive resorts or fund a squash squad. The usefulness of your donation is dependent on the skills of the athletic director.

In the future, your donation can go directly to someone who actually competes for your school’s team. Your money may still be wasted, but you will know exactly how it is being used (because donors can make the direct decision). This change should make the entire system more efficient. Total money spent by boosters may actually increase in the future, but the power & wealth of administrators (e.g., athletic directors, coaches and staff) will decrease. Athletes will get a greater share of the money being generated.

To be sure, NIL compensation isn’t a donation, whereas a donation to an athletic department is generally going to be a tax deductible contribution. So, an athletic department donation is always going to have that tax advantage compared to NIL compensation.

I don’t see this as any different than sponsoring a pro team (or league) versus paying endorsement money to pro players. Both coexist very well as there are advantages and disadvantages to either mechanism.

Once again, I think people are overrating the “large payment from a car dealer booster” while underrating the more frequent smaller payments for Instagram posts and Tweets. Many of these athletes were the popular kids all of their lives and have large social media followings, so the larger market is for smaller businesses paying a couple of hundred dollars for an Instagram post from a player showing him/her eating at a near campus restaurant or shopping at a local store. That’s where a lot of athletes (not just star football and basketball players) can get some spending money (even if it’s not life-changing money).

(07-05-2021 10:50 AM)colohank Wrote:  What if the automobile dealer realizes, after a season or two, that paying ephemeral athletes to appear in his commercials is just a big waste of money?

its no more or less a waste of money than what the big boosters pay to be in the Presidents Platinum Club. that doesn't sell any extra undercoating either, but people cut the checks.

(07-05-2021 12:20 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(07-03-2021 09:37 PM)pvk75 Wrote:  Non-athlete students and their parents/families are going to have duck fits if pay-for-play comes in -- and may even with NIL -- when publicity shows how much student-athletes make. This will be especially true at G5 and lower-level programs where mandatory athletic fees fund 20-70% of the athletic budgets. At the very least, they could demand that fees not be mandatory. Then what?

Too many articles done on how hard it is to find out exactly what individual schools charge; just Google the topic. Most media studies have been incomplete. Many schools "hide" athletic fees in with "general fees" or "activity fees." Why do you think?

Also, a ton of articles on the high and rising cost of higher education, student loans, etc. Fees are usually included in loans, meaning interest is also paid.

The student activity fees include all campus programing. The band, concert series, student formals, money to invite a comedian to campus and...money to support student athletics. I doubt that model is going to be impacted by NIL.

What I see for the G5 programs is that while statehouse politics might limit how far a MAC school for example would go with coaching compensation they don't have that constraint when it comes to their players signing NIL deals. Of course most of those schools are small market but all it takes is a few key NIL signings at the right positions to turn a programs fortunes around.

This neutralizes straight conference level recruiting where the P5 will naturally have better overall recruits. I see the G5 trying to do it more with transfers and seniors rather than banking more on incoming freshman. The endorsements of the players then add to the marketing profile of the program.

I think some are reading over posts a little too fast, and missing some of what is said. I specifically referred to "athletic" fees, not "activity" fees. As to the rest of your comments, I can agree as much as with anyone else on this speculative topic. We all will have to wait to see how it plays out.

I like the car brand /car dealer examples just above. There are as many of those examples of possibilities as there are people doing business and weighing options.

(07-05-2021 04:23 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(07-05-2021 10:50 AM)colohank Wrote:  What if the automobile dealer realizes, after a season or two, that paying ephemeral athletes to appear in his commercials is just a big waste of money?

its no more or less a waste of money than what the big boosters pay to be in the Presidents Platinum Club. that doesn't sell any extra undercoating either, but people cut the checks.

For sure. Whether it’s for better seats, access to coaches, or just plain ego, I think people are way overstating the shift in balances here. Let’s not forget how much people across the income spectrum simply love seeing things named after themselves - buildings, scholarships, fields, etc. That’s something that athletic departments continue to provide (and all on a tax deductible basis).

(07-05-2021 04:32 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(07-05-2021 04:23 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(07-05-2021 10:50 AM)colohank Wrote:  What if the automobile dealer realizes, after a season or two, that paying ephemeral athletes to appear in his commercials is just a big waste of money?

its no more or less a waste of money than what the big boosters pay to be in the Presidents Platinum Club. that doesn't sell any extra undercoating either, but people cut the checks.

For sure. Whether it’s for better seats, access to coaches, or just plain ego, I think people are way overstating the shift in balances here. Let’s not forget how much people across the income spectrum simply love seeing things named after themselves - buildings, scholarships, fields, etc. That’s something that athletic departments continue to provide (and all on a tax deductible basis).

Good point. Some big donors end up on athletic boards, advisory councils, etc., where they feel really close to the center of power. It's similar to why a wealthy person buys a Jaguar and the rest of us buy Hondas. Those motives are unlikely to change.

(07-05-2021 02:35 PM)puck swami Wrote:  That's an interesting argument, but the big media markets like NY and LA are quite over-saturated already, and it's even tough for many pro athletes to make money in local endorsements...

I'd argue that being a star in a market without pro sports may provide all kinds of NIL opportunities that may not come from an over-saturated market.

Those markets with high level college sports but no high level pro sports, with less competition for media visibility, may be end up being more lucrative ones for the NCAA athletes -- big fish in a small pond -- Looking' at you, Alabama/Nebraksa, etc.

Yeah, I’m thinking the areas where college teams have more pull and exposure over a region will see more action than those with saturated pro markets. Like, in Philly, even as good as Villanova and Temple basketball are, they are kinda invisible outside of March or so with local media (radio and tv). Those kids going up against Sixers, Eagles, Phillies, etc. talent? Forget it.

But out in the sticks of Happy Valley, it could rain cash out there for some in the football program. And, who knows, maybe there’s an advantage out there for hoops? Oh, nevermind...30 years in the Big Ten and Nits’ bball is just as irrelevant as they’ve always been...

But, regardless, other than the select few who might get onto an athletic brand’s payroll, it’s just local businesses who will be shelling out.