(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).

As an aside, I've never understood why donations to college athletics is tax deductible. Athletics is entertainment, not a social good. Sooner or later, public policy needs to be corrected.

(07-05-2021 07:12 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(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).

As an aside, I've never understood why donations to college athletics is tax deductible. Athletics is entertainment, not a social good. Sooner or later, public policy needs to be corrected.

A key aspect was changed. In Trump's 2017 tax cut act, a previous tax code provision that allowed boosters to deduct 80% of the cost of a contribution made for the right to purchase college athletics tickets (e.g., personal seat licenses, not buying tickets themselves, that was never tax deductible) was eliminated.

This has probably been an under-recognized cause of recent attendance decline at major P5 programs that were getting thousands and thousands of bigwigs to buy PSLs.

(07-05-2021 06:49 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(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.

Depends on the kind of athlete. For the QB at State U., where the appeal is mostly local, sure.

But at LSU, there apparently is a gymnast who has a big social media following, about 5 million followers on Tik-Tok and Instagram. Until stories about her now being able to leverage that for NIL began making the rounds last week, even most people in the Baton Rouge area had never heard of her. Her following is much less local, much more national or even maybe international, so her NIL endorsements will likely have a much farther reach than the local auto dealership.

Will the NIL make DI, DII, and DIII irrelevant? If I am a strong athlete, smart, but want a small school not too far from home, I could in theory make more money than a scholarship at a DI while getting essentially a free ride at a DIII school. Might we see the rise of some very strong DIII teams?

(07-05-2021 07:31 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-05-2021 06:49 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(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.

Depends on the kind of athlete. For the QB at State U., where the appeal is mostly local, sure.

But at LSU, there apparently is a gymnast who has a big social media following, about 5 million followers on Tik-Tok and Instagram. Until stories about her now being able to leverage that for NIL began making the rounds last week, even most people in the Baton Rouge area had never heard of her. Her following is much less local, much more national or even maybe international, so her NIL endorsements will likely have a much farther reach than the local auto dealership.

Yeah, there are the international kids, too.

Still, I am more concerned about recruitment moving forward being heavily influenced by some of this money. Like, businesses going in on donations to the schools and then endorsing a kid. Creating a new backdoor to access. It’s who the donors and sponsors want at a school that gets them there. And, yes, I am most afraid of the Nike’s out there who might assist with schools funneling select talent.

But, then also, what of the kids like you reference above who may not get what they want out of LSU and decide to bounce because of impact to side deals? How you have to manage that...like a pro-level but overseen by colleges? I don’t see this going well...

(07-06-2021 06:40 AM)RobtheAggie Wrote:  Will the NIL make DI, DII, and DIII irrelevant? If I am a strong athlete, smart, but want a small school not too far from home, I could in theory make more money than a scholarship at a DI while getting essentially a free ride at a DIII school. Might we see the rise of some very strong DIII teams?

The vast majority of athletes getting NIL money are going to be getting it because boosters are basically paying them to pay for Big State U, in the form of "appearance fees" or paying them to be in ads or whatever. Ain't no boosters handing out sweetheart NIL deals to play at Northwest Lutheran Pentecostal College of Vandalia.

(07-03-2021 12:12 PM)ken d 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.

Not just the local car dealership. What happens when Nike and Adidas realize they don't have to subsidize entire athletic programs when they can just cherry pick the athletes they want instead?

My guess is there is still plenty of value to have a Nike or Adidas logo on every UNC or Louisville or Alabama jersey sold.

(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?

Celebrity endorsements mean zero to me - more likely to be a turn off than a reason to patronize that business.

But, if joe Blow auto doesn't care about return at the car lot, only the return on the football field, he won't care if he doesn't sell an additional vehicle because of the NIL payment.

Bounty Hunters

I'll donate X number to anyone's Twitch account if you injure player Y before the conference title game.

Tell me some FCS kid wont think twice...

(07-05-2021 12:05 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(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.

Among the G5, I think Marshall is more of the exception than the rule. Looking at the latest three year ranking for licensing revenue by each C-USA program, you can see that the larger metro universities hold 4 of the top 5 spots. With the exception of Marshall, the other small market programs are sprinkled from 6th through 13th place. Populations over 750,000 are listed in bold.

3 Year licensing Revenue Rankings (2017-2019)
1. Marshall
2. North Texas
3. UTSA
3. UTEP
5. ODU
6. Southern Miss
7. MTSU
8. FAU
9. WKU
9. FIU
11. Charlotte
12. UAB
13. LA Tech
Rice not reported

I believe the new NIL ruling might serve as a catalyst for further growth for the larger universities. For instance, not every business in DFW can sign Ezekiel Elliott to be their spokesperson. For one of the thousands of small local businesses in the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex, a college football player would be a bargain, now that it's an option. These types of opportunities just won't be possible for players at the smaller market G5 programs. There just aren't enough businesses in those communities.

At this moment UNT's athletic department has 4 car dealerships, 6 hotels, and 21 restaurants that are signed on as official corporate sponsors. Some of the smaller G5 programs around the country may not even have a 10 restaurants in their entire community.