(08-13-2021 12:00 AM)chester Wrote:  

(08-12-2021 11:28 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  This ESPN article says the BYU athletic department helped broker the deal:

https://www.espn.co.uk/college-football/...tball-team

This CBS sports article says the NIL deal with the football players is part of a larger deal between Built and the BYU athletic department:

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...olarships/

But neither article says that BYU asked Built to make that offer and that's the only possible way that Title IX could apply. The only thing the school did that we know of is facilitate the way in which the offer was presented. Schools facilitate employment opportunities for students all the time with job listings and career fairs and whatnot.

Doesn't matter who asked who

(08-13-2021 11:06 AM)chester Wrote:  

(08-13-2021 07:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Seem to me that if BYU "helped broker" this football NIL deal (as per ESPN) and the NIL deal is "part of a larger sponsorship package between Built and BYU" (as per CBS) then that means BYU is imbricated in a deal that is paying football players NIL but not its female athletes, and that could very well be viewed askewly by a judge. It would IMO be hard to argue that "hey, this is just the free market at work, a deal between Built and our athletes, we had nothing to do with it", when the reports say they did have something to do with it (granted, the reports may be wrong, which is why I said "if BYU .."). Because ESPN says BYU didn't merely announce and publicize the deal, they "helped broker" it.

Not saying that is the way it should be, but I am saying it would not surprise me at all if BYU encounters T9 trouble over this - unless some kind of similar arrangement is 'brokered' for female athletes.

Well, BYU's sponsorship of of this company's products does evoke T9 since, as you know, schools are beholden to that law (or the OCR's interpretation of that law) when they spend money on athletics. But the "packaged" coincidence of that sponsorship deal and the sponsorship deal between the players and the co. is neither here nor there if the idea of it was the company's.

One of those articles says that there will be a press conference today, so we should get clarification soon. I'm kinda hoping that BYU did ask the co. to make an offer to the players or did ask that the co. offer $X amount. Then we might sooner get an opinion from the OCR or the Courts as to how exactly T9 might apply to additional non-education related benefits from the schools to the athletes. That's going to have to happen eventually because, 3rd party NIL aside, the schools are going to start offering athletes more of that type of compensation. IMO, T9 shouldn't really apply to player pay at all if it is legal for schools to pay the collective coaches of one sex more than the collective coaches of another when there are an equal number of them.

IMO, this situation is likely to rise up pretty frequently. The thing is, universities have a clear interest in having their athletes sign NIL deals. I would guess that's why Nick Saban mentioned the $800,000 in NIL that his quarterback has signed so far. Universities want to be able to tout to recruits that you CAN make big NIL dollars at our school!

Because if a school gains a reputation for its athletes lagging behind in NIL compared to other schools, that will surely be used against that school in recruiting.

So there's going to be a strong temptation for schools not just to publicize NIL deals their athletes sign, but to seek out such deals for them. And IMO, once that happens, there are Title IX implications.

Not that MO matters, LOL.

FWIW, BYU was pretty adamant when I spoke to them today that they didn't broker the deal. Built came to them, and the entire walk-on deal was the brand's idea. BYU simply provided compliance help.

I've paid a BYU athlete for an NIL deal before. I brokered the terms with her specifically, without the compliance team, but they did help make the introduction and made sure the deal passed the NCAA and Church clearingshouses.

(08-13-2021 11:13 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-13-2021 10:49 AM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  

(08-13-2021 10:25 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-12-2021 03:59 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(08-12-2021 03:44 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  Almost seems a way to skirt scholarship limits...


I wonder if they get to count these NIL expenses as part of their tithe?

Skirt them? This is effectively blowing up the scholarship limit. I’m just surprised no SEC school thought to do this first.

At this rate there will be only one remaining obstacle to teams with deep-pocket boosters monopolizing not only the top football talent but also the less proven players with high upside: the inability to give everyone playing time.

Yup. It’s back to the unlimited scholarship days when you started with two or three hundred in camp and weeded out the recruiting misses from the hits right there on the late summer practice field.

I think so many people are overreacting to this.
I've got something coming out on Monday, but there are so many factors unique to BYU that 1) make this financially possible for a brand and 2) make it really worth it for BYU.

Giving a few thousand bucks to a few dozen PWOs is a way bigger deal for BYU than it would be for anybody in the SEC, and WAY less expensive. This sort of deal, as others have mentioned, is also currently state law in many other places.

It might catch on in baseball or a few other non-headcount sports. But if a brand is willing to drop $400K on a campaign, everybody is gonna get a better ROI on spending it somewhere other than walk-ons.

The second bolded part is right for football, I think, because football boosters are going to want to brag about associating with players that fans recognize. Baseball, in contrast, won't take nearly as much NIL money from boosters to have an impact. A very successful team with strong booster support might find it easy to get enough NIL money to effectively raise the team's 11.7 scholarships to 20, which would be a significant advantage over teams whose baseball players don't get NIL money.

So the first bolded part above might be right for college baseball rather than football.

I was thinking the same thing - FBS already offers 85 scholarships, far more than will play most years.

A baseball teams at minimum needs 8 position starters, 3 pitching starters and several relievers - and that says nothing about depth or subs.

I dont see how you can subject NIL deals to Title IX. If a sponsor only wants to sponsor M Basketball atheltes but not W Basketball, how can you stop them?

(08-13-2021 02:46 AM)Todor Wrote:  

(08-13-2021 12:22 AM)EagleNationRising Wrote:  Did I read somewhere that the walk ons have to join the church in order to get the deal?

No, you didn't read that. They wouldn't make the university open to non LDS students if they weren't open to them.

You're either making that up to stir the pot, or can't read very well.

If you watch the intro video, the first guy they are talking to about being "employee #1" with Built who would pay for his tuition is not a church member. The only difference is members of the church pay lower tuition as it is subsidized through tithing money. Full-time semester tuition for a church member is $3,060 for 2021-22 while for others it is $6,120. So the NIL deal would be for double the amount for those who are not members of the church.

(08-12-2021 09:20 PM)Wedge Wrote:  You're avoiding the point. If 36 football walk-ons have their expenses paid via an NIL deal with a longstanding university booster, that's not balanced out by having the two best or most popular women's basketball players make some NIL money on their own with social media. It's not about BYU. The same considerations will apply to any school.

If I'm not mistaken, the point you are making is that it should be balanced between men/women players like Title IX says. But I've never seen anything that says NIL deals have to be balanced or are subject to Title IX rules. NIL deals are direct agreements between the athlete and the third party--the university simply ensures that the agreements meet the requirements outlined so the athlete maintains compliance--no matter how loose or how many loopholes there may be in the official rules.

(08-13-2021 11:24 AM)solohawks Wrote:  I dont see how you can subject NIL deals to Title IX. If a sponsor only wants to sponsor M Basketball atheltes but not W Basketball, how can you stop them?

I agree - so long as the deal is strictly between the sponsor and the athletes.

If the school is involved in "brokering" the deal, then that could change things, IMO.

(08-13-2021 10:49 AM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  

(08-13-2021 10:25 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-12-2021 03:59 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(08-12-2021 03:44 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  Almost seems a way to skirt scholarship limits...


I wonder if they get to count these NIL expenses as part of their tithe?

Skirt them? This is effectively blowing up the scholarship limit. I’m just surprised no SEC school thought to do this first.

At this rate there will be only one remaining obstacle to teams with deep-pocket boosters monopolizing not only the top football talent but also the less proven players with high upside: the inability to give everyone playing time.

Yup. It’s back to the unlimited scholarship days when you started with two or three hundred in camp and weeded out the recruiting misses from the hits right there on the late summer practice field.

I think so many people are overreacting to this.
I've got something coming out on Monday, but there are so many factors unique to BYU that 1) make this financially possible for a brand and 2) make it really worth it for BYU.

Giving a few thousand bucks to a few dozen PWOs is a way bigger deal for BYU than it would be for anybody in the SEC, and WAY less expensive. This sort of deal, as others have mentioned, is also currently state law in many other places.

It might catch on in baseball or a few other non-headcount sports. But if a brand is willing to drop $400K on a campaign, everybody is gonna get a better ROI on spending it somewhere other than walk-ons.

With all due respect---thats hopelessly naive. Boosters get accused of cheating on a regular basis. We now know there was a wide spread pay-for-play scandal involving shoe company money. Honestly---when have NCAA rules NOT been pushed to edge with respect to practice or student athlete limitations on hours spent on athletics? Here we are just a few weeks into NIL and already a school has figured out how to use it to skirt the NCAA scholarship limits.

The idea that boosters will not abuse the virtually uncontrolled and ungovernable NIL system is hopelessly naive---and just like coaches and administrators were aware of the shoe money sloshing around---the idea this just fell into BYU's lap with absolutely no coordination or cooperaration on BYU's seems fairly unlikely in light of what we have seen in the shoe money scandal. Maybe it did---maybe it didnt just fall into their lap--without the FBI looking into it--we'll never know anyway. NIL laregly will live in an uncontrolled and ungoverned vacuum of power. What I can tell you is that within the year---similar deals are going to be "falling into the laps" of more and more schools....and we are literally scratching the early surface of what NIL will eventually become---think straight up pay-for-play with a third party payer (kinda like insurance). There is a reason the schools and NCAA never wanted to open this Pandora's Box.

(08-13-2021 12:12 PM)f1do Wrote:  

(08-12-2021 09:20 PM)Wedge Wrote:  You're avoiding the point. If 36 football walk-ons have their expenses paid via an NIL deal with a longstanding university booster, that's not balanced out by having the two best or most popular women's basketball players make some NIL money on their own with social media. It's not about BYU. The same considerations will apply to any school.

If I'm not mistaken, the point you are making is that it should be balanced between men/women players like Title IX says. But I've never seen anything that says NIL deals have to be balanced or are subject to Title IX rules. NIL deals are direct agreements between the athlete and the third party--the university simply ensures that the agreements meet the requirements outlined so the athlete maintains compliance--no matter how loose or how many loopholes there may be in the official rules.

The point is that if the university is involved in the deal, then Title IX is possibly implicated. Many schools have started some kind of program that tries to connect athletes with NIL opportunities. The question at any school is going to be whether boosters offering NIL are directed to certain athletes or certain groups.

People can look into what they choose to look into, but IMO it's not suspicious at all when star athletes in any sport get the lion's share of NIL money. But if it's used to effectively increase the number of scholarship athletes in a sport by a significant number, whether it's football or baseball or whatever, and especially if that effective increase only benefits male athletes, then the school, coaches, and athletic department really ought to be far away from any involvement.

Also, though the NCAA is apparently going to turn a blind eye to this aspect of it, any NIL deal is supposed to reflect the fair market value of the endorsement, rather than looking like those no-work fake jobs that boosters used to give to athletes. That part of it doesn't directly impact Title IX, though.

(08-13-2021 12:17 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The idea that boosters will not abuse the virtually uncontrolled and ungovernable NIL system is hopelessly naive---and just like coaches and administrators were aware of the shoe money sloshing around---the idea this just fell into BYU's lap with absolutely no coordination or cooperaration on BYU's seems fairly unlikely in light of what we have seen in the shoe money scandal. Maybe it did---maybe it didnt just fall into their lap--without the FBI looking into it--we'll never know anyway. NIL laregly will live in an uncontrolled and ungoverned vacuum of power. What I can tell you is that within the year---similar deals are going to be "falling into the laps" of more and more schools....and we are literally scratching the early surface of what NIL will eventually become---think straight up pay-for-play with a third party payer (kinda like insurance). There is a reason the schools and NCAA never wanted to open this Pandora's Box.

This deal fell into BYU's lap just like Texas and OU fell into the SEC's lap

Good for all the athletes on the BYU Football Team....