dbackjon
Hall of Famer
Posts: 12,076
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 667
I Root For: NAU/Illini
Location:
|
RE: While the players benifit most methinks rich northern schools are #2 from NIL
(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.
|
|