Will college athletics look like this in the near future?

NCAA Div 1 FBS (no P5 and G5)
NCAA Div 1 FCS
NCAA Div 2
NCAA Div 3
NAIA

The main assumption is that the G5's will become either FBS or FCS due to smaller budgets for athletics.

So your anticipated change is that FBS power schools will voluntarily relinquish their autonomy?
No other change?
Then no, that is not what college athletics will look like in the near future.

Since he omitted the D1 non-FB schools, he could also be saying that if a school lacks football, they can't be in D1. But yeah, I don't know what to divine from the OP.

(03-27-2021 09:47 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  Will college athletics look like this in the near future?

NCAA Div 1 FBS (no P5 and G5)
NCAA Div 1 FCS
NCAA Div 2
NCAA Div 3
NAIA

The main assumption is that the G5's will become either FBS or FCS due to smaller budgets for athletics.

G5s are already FBS

(03-27-2021 10:33 AM)BatonRougeEscapee Wrote:  

(03-27-2021 09:47 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  Will college athletics look like this in the near future?

NCAA Div 1 FBS (no P5 and G5)
NCAA Div 1 FCS
NCAA Div 2
NCAA Div 3
NAIA

The main assumption is that the G5's will become either FBS or FCS due to smaller budgets for athletics.

G5s are already FBS

Either one or the other that's the question

(03-27-2021 09:47 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  Will college athletics look like this in the near future?

NCAA Div 1 FBS (no P5 and G5)
NCAA Div 1 FCS
NCAA Div 2
NCAA Div 3
NAIA

The main assumption is that the G5's will become either FBS or FCS due to smaller budgets for athletics.

I'd say more likely is a 3rd subdivision of Div 1 football. The P5 break off, maybe a few of the higher G5 tag along. The G5 and top FCS in the second division. Then the FCS schools that are either nonscholarship or partial that don't want to or can't afford to really invest in FB but want to stay Div I. There's a big difference Between Alabama and ODU football but there's also a big difference between ODU and Duquesne football but All 3 belong in Div I for all other sports.

The only way the Autonomy group relinquishes that advantage is if they leave the NCAA.
The G5 - P5 distinction is not going to disappear. Schools may move individually, I suppose.
Things will remain as is until certain schools decide they are better off on their own.
I don't think that will happen in the near future, but who really knows.
There will eventually be a breaking point.

(03-27-2021 10:10 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  Since he omitted the D1 non-FB schools, he could also be saying that if a school lacks football, they can't be in D1. But yeah, I don't know what to divine from the OP.

Right - I don’t agree with that at all.

The Big East is much more likely to be in whatever level that the P5 conferences are in than the G5 leagues. FBS football isn’t in and of itself the separator here at all. The Big East and schools like Gonzaga make more money from the system than they take, so they’ll be welcome regardless of football.

Probably would be something like the "National Collegiate League" (NCL) comprised of 80/100 football and basketball schools that people have talked about in the past. Then from there the you see a shift up of some teams from each division. Some from FCS go up to the FBS and so on.

(03-27-2021 04:55 PM)Alanda Wrote:  Probably would be something like the "National Collegiate League" (NCL) comprised of 80/100 football and basketball schools that people have talked about in the past. Then from there the you see a shift up of some teams from each division. Some from FCS go up to the FBS and so on.

I’m a pretty firm believer that if there’s a split, it’s going to be the P5 (plus maybe the Big East) and then everyone else. I think the notion that there is a group of “top 100 schools” is wishful thinking among the non-power schools. The P5 aren’t going to split and decide to take a couple of G5 leagues with them - that serves no purpose and just effectively elevates those G5 leagues to the same power level as them. The current system works just fine for the P5 - they’re the top 5 conferences lording over dozens of other leagues. If there’s a split, it’s because they want a *total* separation. They’re not going to split to create a system where they’re just the top 5 conferences out of a total 7 or 8 leagues - that actually *decreases* the relative power of the P5.

(03-27-2021 05:09 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-27-2021 04:55 PM)Alanda Wrote:  Probably would be something like the "National Collegiate League" (NCL) comprised of 80/100 football and basketball schools that people have talked about in the past. Then from there the you see a shift up of some teams from each division. Some from FCS go up to the FBS and so on.

I’m a pretty firm believer that if there’s a split, it’s going to be the P5 (plus maybe the Big East) and then everyone else. I think the notion that there is a group of “top 100 schools” is wishful thinking among the non-power schools. The P5 aren’t going to split and decide to take a couple of G5 leagues with them - that serves no purpose and just effectively elevates those G5 leagues to the same power level as them. The current system works just fine for the P5 - they’re the top 5 conferences lording over dozens of other leagues. If there’s a split, it’s because they want a *total* separation. They’re not going to split to create a system where they’re just the top 5 conferences out of a total 7 or 8 leagues - that actually *decreases* the relative power of the P5.

Maybe so. But I thought (and maybe I'm wrong) I saw either JRsec or Dennis Dodd mention it first. I know JRsec talks about a similar scenario to what you believe will happen. But what if this future also includes pay for play? I believe he has said that schools would not participate in that type of league so that would also affect things.

(03-27-2021 06:19 PM)Alanda Wrote:  

(03-27-2021 05:09 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-27-2021 04:55 PM)Alanda Wrote:  Probably would be something like the "National Collegiate League" (NCL) comprised of 80/100 football and basketball schools that people have talked about in the past. Then from there the you see a shift up of some teams from each division. Some from FCS go up to the FBS and so on.

I’m a pretty firm believer that if there’s a split, it’s going to be the P5 (plus maybe the Big East) and then everyone else. I think the notion that there is a group of “top 100 schools” is wishful thinking among the non-power schools. The P5 aren’t going to split and decide to take a couple of G5 leagues with them - that serves no purpose and just effectively elevates those G5 leagues to the same power level as them. The current system works just fine for the P5 - they’re the top 5 conferences lording over dozens of other leagues. If there’s a split, it’s because they want a *total* separation. They’re not going to split to create a system where they’re just the top 5 conferences out of a total 7 or 8 leagues - that actually *decreases* the relative power of the P5.

Maybe so. But I thought (and maybe I'm wrong) I saw either JRsec or Dennis Dodd mention it first. I know JRsec talks about a similar scenario to what you believe will happen. But what if this future also includes pay for play? I believe he has said that schools would not participate in that type of league so that would also affect things.

Thats where I think you could actually see a split that in ideological and has little to do with the P5-G5 chasm we always discuss. You might see the Alabama's, LSU's, and Clemson's of the world fully embrace the "pay for play" model while many of the Big-10 and Pac-12 reject that path for something that looks much more like the traditional student athlete amateur model of college sports. Such a split might (or might not) cause there to be some realignment where G5's find themselves getting an opportunity to play in a league that would never have been possible within the current landscape. In my opinion it would require something like that to create a split because the P5 pretty much have most everything they want with the current autonomy set up. There is not much reason to leave as things current sit.

(03-27-2021 02:00 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-27-2021 10:10 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  Since he omitted the D1 non-FB schools, he could also be saying that if a school lacks football, they can't be in D1. But yeah, I don't know what to divine from the OP.

Right - I don’t agree with that at all.

The Big East is much more likely to be in whatever level that the P5 conferences are in than the G5 leagues. FBS football isn’t in and of itself the separator here at all. The Big East and schools like Gonzaga make more money from the system than they take, so they’ll be welcome regardless of football.

Good point. And as a long-time supporter/fan of DePaul University and a semi-fan of Georgetown ... I would be pleased. And that is why, as a major fan of Memphis and Cincinnati, I would hope those two universities would find a way to be a part of any "breakaway" college sports division, as those two athletic programs have put a lot of energy and focus into being competitive on a national level.

My thoughts is a united D1. The NCAA only mandates a 85 scholarship cap in D1 football. Conferences are allowed to determine its football scholarship limit as long it's not over 85. It's going to open the current FCS teams to make money on payday games (hopefully lowering the costs) the change also opens the Pioneer and Ivy league to play current FBS teams. It also could help D2 by allowing D1 schools to schedule them as their lower team opponent.

Football playoffs go to 12 with 6 autobots. P5 gets 1 each plus 1 best of the rest with 6 at large. The top 4 ranked teams get a first round bye. The 2 remaining autobots get a first round home game. Tournament games are on Saturday starting the week after Army-Navy. Bowl games would be expanded due to the influx of schools. (ESPN gets more bowl games and maybe other stations are given ones ESPN can't air )the tournament games are not played in a bowl. So the New Years 6 gets the best school left. The Rose bowl might get the second of third Big Ten team vs the Second of third Pac 12 team.

Non football schools are unaffected by the D1 changes.

(03-27-2021 07:16 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-27-2021 06:19 PM)Alanda Wrote:  

(03-27-2021 05:09 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-27-2021 04:55 PM)Alanda Wrote:  Probably would be something like the "National Collegiate League" (NCL) comprised of 80/100 football and basketball schools that people have talked about in the past. Then from there the you see a shift up of some teams from each division. Some from FCS go up to the FBS and so on.

I’m a pretty firm believer that if there’s a split, it’s going to be the P5 (plus maybe the Big East) and then everyone else. I think the notion that there is a group of “top 100 schools” is wishful thinking among the non-power schools. The P5 aren’t going to split and decide to take a couple of G5 leagues with them - that serves no purpose and just effectively elevates those G5 leagues to the same power level as them. The current system works just fine for the P5 - they’re the top 5 conferences lording over dozens of other leagues. If there’s a split, it’s because they want a *total* separation. They’re not going to split to create a system where they’re just the top 5 conferences out of a total 7 or 8 leagues - that actually *decreases* the relative power of the P5.

Maybe so. But I thought (and maybe I'm wrong) I saw either JRsec or Dennis Dodd mention it first. I know JRsec talks about a similar scenario to what you believe will happen. But what if this future also includes pay for play? I believe he has said that schools would not participate in that type of league so that would also affect things.

Thats where I think you could actually see a split that in ideological and has little to do with the P5-G5 chasm we always discuss. You might see the Alabama's, LSU's, and Clemson's of the world fully embrace the "pay for play" model while many of the Big-10 and Pac-12 reject that path for something that looks much more like the traditional student athlete amateur model of college sports. Such a split might (or might not) cause there to be some realignment where G5's find themselves getting an opportunity to play in a league that would never have been possible within the current landscape. In my opinion it would require something like that to create a split because the P5 pretty much have most everything they want with the current autonomy set up. There is not much reason to leave as things current sit.

I agree with the overall conclusion. Here’s the thing: I think that’s a false dream that the Big Ten and Pac-12 will unilaterally disarm, too. Northwestern has one huge advantage that gets people to spend $80,000 per year out-of-pocket to go to school there that the Ivy League schools don’t have: P5 sports. Same thing with Stanford (which actually has been the toughest school to get into in the country even over Harvard for the past several years), Duke and Vanderbilt. Putting aside the Ohio States of the world, I absolutely 100% believe they will “pay to play” or do whatever it takes to stay at the top level of college athletics. University presidents may threaten to go down to Division III in order to posture themselves to try to prevent pay for play, but rest assured, those schools aren’t going anywhere when push comes to shove. The university presidents at, say, Florida (SEC) and Michigan (Big Ten) have a whole lot more in common with each other than the rest of academia.

There isn’t any “jumping the line” on the horizon. The most powerful entities will continue to protect their power interests regardless of the cost.

(03-28-2021 11:58 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-27-2021 07:16 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-27-2021 06:19 PM)Alanda Wrote:  

(03-27-2021 05:09 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-27-2021 04:55 PM)Alanda Wrote:  Probably would be something like the "National Collegiate League" (NCL) comprised of 80/100 football and basketball schools that people have talked about in the past. Then from there the you see a shift up of some teams from each division. Some from FCS go up to the FBS and so on.

I’m a pretty firm believer that if there’s a split, it’s going to be the P5 (plus maybe the Big East) and then everyone else. I think the notion that there is a group of “top 100 schools” is wishful thinking among the non-power schools. The P5 aren’t going to split and decide to take a couple of G5 leagues with them - that serves no purpose and just effectively elevates those G5 leagues to the same power level as them. The current system works just fine for the P5 - they’re the top 5 conferences lording over dozens of other leagues. If there’s a split, it’s because they want a *total* separation. They’re not going to split to create a system where they’re just the top 5 conferences out of a total 7 or 8 leagues - that actually *decreases* the relative power of the P5.

Maybe so. But I thought (and maybe I'm wrong) I saw either JRsec or Dennis Dodd mention it first. I know JRsec talks about a similar scenario to what you believe will happen. But what if this future also includes pay for play? I believe he has said that schools would not participate in that type of league so that would also affect things.

Thats where I think you could actually see a split that in ideological and has little to do with the P5-G5 chasm we always discuss. You might see the Alabama's, LSU's, and Clemson's of the world fully embrace the "pay for play" model while many of the Big-10 and Pac-12 reject that path for something that looks much more like the traditional student athlete amateur model of college sports. Such a split might (or might not) cause there to be some realignment where G5's find themselves getting an opportunity to play in a league that would never have been possible within the current landscape. In my opinion it would require something like that to create a split because the P5 pretty much have most everything they want with the current autonomy set up. There is not much reason to leave as things current sit.

I agree with the overall conclusion. Here’s the thing: I think that’s a false dream that the Big Ten and Pac-12 will unilaterally disarm, too. Northwestern has one huge advantage that gets people to spend $80,000 per year out-of-pocket to go to school there that the Ivy League schools don’t have: P5 sports. Same thing with Stanford (which actually has been the toughest school to get into in the country even over Harvard for the past several years), Duke and Vanderbilt. Putting aside the Ohio States of the world, I absolutely 100% believe they will “pay to play” or do whatever it takes to stay at the top level of college athletics. University presidents may threaten to go down to Division III in order to posture themselves to try to prevent pay for play, but rest assured, those schools aren’t going anywhere when push comes to shove. The university presidents at, say, Florida (SEC) and Michigan (Big Ten) have a whole lot more in common with each other than the rest of academia.

There isn’t any “jumping the line” on the horizon. The most powerful entities will continue to protect their power interests regardless of the cost.

To be sure there will be a lot of arguing about how best to adapt to the change, but adapt they all will.

(03-28-2021 11:58 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-27-2021 07:16 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-27-2021 06:19 PM)Alanda Wrote:  

(03-27-2021 05:09 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-27-2021 04:55 PM)Alanda Wrote:  Probably would be something like the "National Collegiate League" (NCL) comprised of 80/100 football and basketball schools that people have talked about in the past. Then from there the you see a shift up of some teams from each division. Some from FCS go up to the FBS and so on.

I’m a pretty firm believer that if there’s a split, it’s going to be the P5 (plus maybe the Big East) and then everyone else. I think the notion that there is a group of “top 100 schools” is wishful thinking among the non-power schools. The P5 aren’t going to split and decide to take a couple of G5 leagues with them - that serves no purpose and just effectively elevates those G5 leagues to the same power level as them. The current system works just fine for the P5 - they’re the top 5 conferences lording over dozens of other leagues. If there’s a split, it’s because they want a *total* separation. They’re not going to split to create a system where they’re just the top 5 conferences out of a total 7 or 8 leagues - that actually *decreases* the relative power of the P5.

Maybe so. But I thought (and maybe I'm wrong) I saw either JRsec or Dennis Dodd mention it first. I know JRsec talks about a similar scenario to what you believe will happen. But what if this future also includes pay for play? I believe he has said that schools would not participate in that type of league so that would also affect things.

Thats where I think you could actually see a split that in ideological and has little to do with the P5-G5 chasm we always discuss. You might see the Alabama's, LSU's, and Clemson's of the world fully embrace the "pay for play" model while many of the Big-10 and Pac-12 reject that path for something that looks much more like the traditional student athlete amateur model of college sports. Such a split might (or might not) cause there to be some realignment where G5's find themselves getting an opportunity to play in a league that would never have been possible within the current landscape. In my opinion it would require something like that to create a split because the P5 pretty much have most everything they want with the current autonomy set up. There is not much reason to leave as things current sit.

I agree with the overall conclusion. Here’s the thing: I think that’s a false dream that the Big Ten and Pac-12 will unilaterally disarm, too. Northwestern has one huge advantage that gets people to spend $80,000 per year out-of-pocket to go to school there that the Ivy League schools don’t have: P5 sports. Same thing with Stanford (which actually has been the toughest school to get into in the country even over Harvard for the past several years), Duke and Vanderbilt. Putting aside the Ohio States of the world, I absolutely 100% believe they will “pay to play” or do whatever it takes to stay at the top level of college athletics. University presidents may threaten to go down to Division III in order to posture themselves to try to prevent pay for play, but rest assured, those schools aren’t going anywhere when push comes to shove. The university presidents at, say, Florida (SEC) and Michigan (Big Ten) have a whole lot more in common with each other than the rest of academia.

There isn’t any “jumping the line” on the horizon. The most powerful entities will continue to protect their power interests regardless of the cost.

Agree that “pay for play” will not cause unilateral disarmament. All the power schools invest too much on athletics...it’s a huge differentiator.

But “pay for play” may be the breaking point that further separates FBS competition. In other words, football may need to breakaway from other sports. The money in football is no longer consistent with the sports that the NCAA regulates.

(03-28-2021 03:03 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(03-28-2021 11:58 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-27-2021 07:16 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-27-2021 06:19 PM)Alanda Wrote:  

(03-27-2021 05:09 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I’m a pretty firm believer that if there’s a split, it’s going to be the P5 (plus maybe the Big East) and then everyone else. I think the notion that there is a group of “top 100 schools” is wishful thinking among the non-power schools. The P5 aren’t going to split and decide to take a couple of G5 leagues with them - that serves no purpose and just effectively elevates those G5 leagues to the same power level as them. The current system works just fine for the P5 - they’re the top 5 conferences lording over dozens of other leagues. If there’s a split, it’s because they want a *total* separation. They’re not going to split to create a system where they’re just the top 5 conferences out of a total 7 or 8 leagues - that actually *decreases* the relative power of the P5.

Maybe so. But I thought (and maybe I'm wrong) I saw either JRsec or Dennis Dodd mention it first. I know JRsec talks about a similar scenario to what you believe will happen. But what if this future also includes pay for play? I believe he has said that schools would not participate in that type of league so that would also affect things.

Thats where I think you could actually see a split that in ideological and has little to do with the P5-G5 chasm we always discuss. You might see the Alabama's, LSU's, and Clemson's of the world fully embrace the "pay for play" model while many of the Big-10 and Pac-12 reject that path for something that looks much more like the traditional student athlete amateur model of college sports. Such a split might (or might not) cause there to be some realignment where G5's find themselves getting an opportunity to play in a league that would never have been possible within the current landscape. In my opinion it would require something like that to create a split because the P5 pretty much have most everything they want with the current autonomy set up. There is not much reason to leave as things current sit.

I agree with the overall conclusion. Here’s the thing: I think that’s a false dream that the Big Ten and Pac-12 will unilaterally disarm, too. Northwestern has one huge advantage that gets people to spend $80,000 per year out-of-pocket to go to school there that the Ivy League schools don’t have: P5 sports. Same thing with Stanford (which actually has been the toughest school to get into in the country even over Harvard for the past several years), Duke and Vanderbilt. Putting aside the Ohio States of the world, I absolutely 100% believe they will “pay to play” or do whatever it takes to stay at the top level of college athletics. University presidents may threaten to go down to Division III in order to posture themselves to try to prevent pay for play, but rest assured, those schools aren’t going anywhere when push comes to shove. The university presidents at, say, Florida (SEC) and Michigan (Big Ten) have a whole lot more in common with each other than the rest of academia.

There isn’t any “jumping the line” on the horizon. The most powerful entities will continue to protect their power interests regardless of the cost.

Agree that “pay for play” will not cause unilateral disarmament. All the power schools invest too much on athletics...it’s a huge differentiator.

But “pay for play” may be the breaking point that further separates FBS competition. In other words, football may need to breakaway from other sports. The money in football is no longer consistent with the sports that the NCAA regulates.

I actually think that’s a bit of a misconception. When all is said and done, I think we’ll find that basketball will end up being much more greatly impacted by a more open market for athlete compensation, whether it’s through an Olympic model or direct pay for play.

Fans seem to be overrating the Alabama car dealer owner that wants to funnel endorsement money to a Crimson Tide player, but the *real* money is in basketball shoe dollars from Nike and Adidas. That’s where there’s already a very clear structure in place with big time national companies running it all (not local boosters). You can see it on the pro level - while the NFL overall makes the most money and a handful of key NFL players certainly make top dollar (mainly quarterbacks), there’s a much deeper bench of individual NBA players making outsized compensation (both directly and via endorsements). The value of one basketball superstar is worth more than anyone else because that one player can completely change an entire program in a way that’s impossible for football.

Pay for play has far too many flaws. Keep college sports clean.

(03-28-2021 08:26 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-28-2021 03:03 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(03-28-2021 11:58 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-27-2021 07:16 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-27-2021 06:19 PM)Alanda Wrote:  Maybe so. But I thought (and maybe I'm wrong) I saw either JRsec or Dennis Dodd mention it first. I know JRsec talks about a similar scenario to what you believe will happen. But what if this future also includes pay for play? I believe he has said that schools would not participate in that type of league so that would also affect things.

Thats where I think you could actually see a split that in ideological and has little to do with the P5-G5 chasm we always discuss. You might see the Alabama's, LSU's, and Clemson's of the world fully embrace the "pay for play" model while many of the Big-10 and Pac-12 reject that path for something that looks much more like the traditional student athlete amateur model of college sports. Such a split might (or might not) cause there to be some realignment where G5's find themselves getting an opportunity to play in a league that would never have been possible within the current landscape. In my opinion it would require something like that to create a split because the P5 pretty much have most everything they want with the current autonomy set up. There is not much reason to leave as things current sit.

I agree with the overall conclusion. Here’s the thing: I think that’s a false dream that the Big Ten and Pac-12 will unilaterally disarm, too. Northwestern has one huge advantage that gets people to spend $80,000 per year out-of-pocket to go to school there that the Ivy League schools don’t have: P5 sports. Same thing with Stanford (which actually has been the toughest school to get into in the country even over Harvard for the past several years), Duke and Vanderbilt. Putting aside the Ohio States of the world, I absolutely 100% believe they will “pay to play” or do whatever it takes to stay at the top level of college athletics. University presidents may threaten to go down to Division III in order to posture themselves to try to prevent pay for play, but rest assured, those schools aren’t going anywhere when push comes to shove. The university presidents at, say, Florida (SEC) and Michigan (Big Ten) have a whole lot more in common with each other than the rest of academia.

There isn’t any “jumping the line” on the horizon. The most powerful entities will continue to protect their power interests regardless of the cost.

Agree that “pay for play” will not cause unilateral disarmament. All the power schools invest too much on athletics...it’s a huge differentiator.

But “pay for play” may be the breaking point that further separates FBS competition. In other words, football may need to breakaway from other sports. The money in football is no longer consistent with the sports that the NCAA regulates.

I actually think that’s a bit of a misconception. When all is said and done, I think we’ll find that basketball will end up being much more greatly impacted by a more open market for athlete compensation, whether it’s through an Olympic model or direct pay for play.

Fans seem to be overrating the Alabama car dealer owner that wants to funnel endorsement money to a Crimson Tide player, but the *real* money is in basketball shoe dollars from Nike and Adidas. That’s where there’s already a very clear structure in place with big time national companies running it all (not local boosters). You can see it on the pro level - while the NFL overall makes the most money and a handful of key NFL players certainly make top dollar (mainly quarterbacks), there’s a much deeper bench of individual NBA players making outsized compensation (both directly and via endorsements). The value of one basketball superstar is worth more than anyone else because that one player can completely change an entire program in a way that’s impossible for football.

Bagmen scandals have been around for years—-this just creates an avenue to legalize the practice. The shoe money is relatively new—however it’s substantial. My sense is the shoe money—while bigger—will be concentrated on just a handful of big stars in college football. It’s the smaller local booster money that will be where most players see NIL money. I just don’t see Nike giving deals to the typical offensive lineman....especially some freshman who won’t even see the field for two or three more years.