(Yesterday 12:25 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: (Yesterday 09:43 AM)Kayjay Wrote: In contrast, The Athletic just reported that Mississippi State has a new agreement with their Quarterback Kamario Taylor for an estimated $7.5 million. Regardless of whether Rice players collectively receive $2 million or the reported $4.85 million, there is no way they can compete for top talent to be competitive with major conferences. The real conversation is not about offensive schemes or whether Coach Abell is the Right Coach for the Owls, it is about the huge disparity in the ability to attract talent because the Owls are under-resourced compared to most D-1 football programs.
The Rice alumni/fandom is just not constituted to raise tons of NIL money. Besides our relatively small alumni base, most of our alumni are doctors, lawyers, engineers, and professors. Good incomes, but not many vast fortunes. Not the group to usually generate the tons of wealth that is the source of most other school's NIL contributors. If every alumnus contributed $100K/year to NIL, we would still be mid-pack.
By contrast, a lot of TCU (the school I am most familiar with) students are heir apparents to large commercial ventures - chains of auto part stores, multiple auto dealerships, oil money. TCU has a single donor who can do more NIL than our entire school. Lot of big wealth in their alumni base. Not so much at Rice.
I fear that the Age of NIL has doomed us as a D-1 school.
Tweak:
I fear that the Age of NIL has doomed us as a
relevant and competitive D-1 school.
John Doerr is funding leadership.
Brian Armstrong hasn't publicly given large amounts to Rice.
Patterson, Trauber, Tudor, Kraft, Waltrip, Rendon, Reckling, and O'Connor have given very large amounts.
(Please excuse omissions, there are donor plaques all over the facilities, and I can't keep up with them.)
They all got their name on something.
Who is going to endow player salaries through NIL?
Is there enough room on players' jerseys for sponsorship patches?
Rice is not alone in this funding/relevance quandary in D-1.
There will eventually be a correction to the imbalance.
As I see it, ESPN - who rules them all - will demand a path forward that maintains and increases revenue.
Providing coverage for 60+ games per week, where 20% generate little revenue will push them to push the schools to fix things.
They'll either have leverage, or that 20% will return to the era of little to no TV coverage.
And with no coverage comes no lucrative conference TV contract.
The NCAA has long since abdicated any meaningful control.
ESPN is in charge.
If there is no reining in of unlimited NIL there will be a significant reorganization of college athletics.
Please, show me how I have misinterpreted.
