NCAA Portal Talk

[B1GTide]

I have heard that the Mannings, for example, are not that impressed with the front end dollars being offered. They are looking down the road, not only to the NFL, but beyond, post football. Of course, they have the assets to be able to do that...

That is a great point - the best athletes make far more outside of the sport than they do in the sport. They leverage their sports image into far more income.

 

[MILEHIGHTIDE]

This is my opinion but I voiced several concerns the minute they were made legal. More than likely it will create internal team dissension, less parity and greater divide in talent, and finally removing the illusion that college football is not a business and is about scholar athletes, possibly dissolving the ncaa in the process etc.. If the cfp was created and talk of playoff expansion was directed towards more parity then this is the polar opposite of that.

Pay for play occurred when it was illegal so now you are opening the door to having multiple boosters willing to participate who may have excluded themselves previously due to legal constraints. To them this just makes the money a tax write off open, above board and legal. Most high level boosters want success and some need it for validation so primarily just to now have to throw money at a perceived problem without legal concerns, is probable a welcome addition for them. Just look at all of the current multi million dollar payouts to have coaches they want replaced bought out. Money is not an issue to these people especially if they get a high return.

When Coach Saban was first hired all of the uproar was in regards to his salary and how would Alabama justify this. Then assistant coaches and their salaries, team facilities etc. ROI. Well need I say more in that it is arguably the best investment the university has ever made. Many universities also followed suit. While the money may start out smaller the only practical way is upward from their as the value is more transparent and competition heightens.

For some of the older board members I will simply reference t boone pickens and roy adams.

RTR

 

[NoNC4Tubs]

I think these kids' performances will suffer because of it. Why bust your butt if you already have the money at 18-19 years old. No reason to improve to go to the NFL.

Excellent point!

 

[NoNC4Tubs]

If they get paid many millions of dollars - maybe. But remember, those who get paid that much have a whole lot more money waiting for them in the NFL - a whole lot more. Think Kyler Murray. He had a huge MLB check that he returned to play football.

For the average player, the amount that they will get paid will not even come close to the potential payday that the NFL offers.

It could have an impact with some kids, but I suspect that those are the ones who would have been distracted by other things anyway.

Well, that is how a mature person would view it, BUT we are talking about kids (some with an over-inflated ego) that may see it as that they are THE BEST thing to hit the field and loaf it. (Similar to a recent TE transfer out that we discussed recently.)

 

[NoNC4Tubs]

You keep bringing up Phil Knight as this boogeyman but you never acknowledge how little his money into the school really amounts to in terms of talent and success. Oregon is not really dominant in any sport even by PAC 12 standards. Their boost as an athletic department more coincides with USC’s probation. They have always been a high second tier program. They were occasionally elevated in the Belotti era, and that was far before anyone started making the Phil Knight’s connection to Oregon.

If there are any potential boogeymen in the NIL then they are the LA schools. Everyone wants to say Texas and aTm, but everyone keeps missing the point that Texas and aTm have always had these boosters with big cash. LA has actually been caught paying for top talent for NCs.

Money doesn’t decide championships but it can help under the right conditions. There is no cap in the MLB and it’s widely known that the Yankees and Dodgers are 2 of the programs with the biggest payrolls. But when we ask “who has more WS and WS in the last 30 years between the Dodgers and Braves?” What do we come up with? Or “in the last 10 years who has been to more WSs between the Yankees and Royals?”

The problem with money in CFB is that there are only a limited amount of spots in each draft class that many boosters are going to disagree with who deserves to be there. That’s why I don’t fear Texas. It’s a bunch of morons with money who know very little about football let alone what makes a good football player. So trusting them to make a strong recruiting class is like trusting an arsonist with a box of matches.

Precisely why Lincoln Riley has hit the motherload and will be the dominant program in the PAC 12...

 

[B1GTide]

Well, that is how a mature person would view it, BUT we are talking about kids (some with an over-inflated ego) that may see it as that they are THE BEST thing to hit the field and loaf it. (Similar to a recent TE transfer out that we discussed recently.)

You are right, but my point is that some kids will get it and some kids won't. They are the same kids who get it, or don't, today. Schools like Alabama or Ohio State will not suffer from this as we have leadership to wash out those who don't get it.

Top programs have always required that kids buy into the program/plan. Money won't change that dynamic, IMO. But for other programs, this could be a problem.

 

[NoNC4Tubs]

This is my opinion but I voiced several concerns the minute they were made legal. More than likely it will create internal team dissension, less parity and greater divide in talent, and finally removing the illusion that college football is not a business and is about scholar athletes, possibly dissolving the ncaa in the process etc.. If the cfp was created and talk of playoff expansion was directed towards more parity then this is the polar opposite of that.

Pay for play occurred when it was illegal so now you are opening the door to having multiple boosters willing to participate who may have excluded themselves previously due to legal constraints. To them this just makes the money a tax write off open, above board and legal. Most high level boosters want success and some need it for validation so primarily just to now have to throw money at a perceived problem without legal concerns, is probable a welcome addition for them. Just look at all of the current multi million dollar payouts to have coaches they want replaced bought out. Money is not an issue to these people especially if they get a high return.

When Coach Saban was first hired all of the uproar was in regards to his salary and how would Alabama justify this. Then assistant coaches and their salaries, team facilities etc. ROI. Well need I say more in that it is arguably the best investment the university has ever made. Many universities also followed suit. While the money may start out smaller the only practical way is upward from their as the value is more transparent and competition heightens.

For some of the older board member I will simply reference t boone pickens and roy adams.

RTR

The Pandora's Box has been opened and can not ever be closed again...

 

[NoNC4Tubs]

You are right, but my point is that some kids will get it and some kids won't. They are the same kids who get it, or don't, today. Schools like Alabama or Ohio State will not suffer from this as we have leadership to wash out those who don't get it.

Top programs have always required that kids buy into the program/plan. Money won't change that dynamic, IMO. But for other programs, this could be a problem.

I'm thinking that this is why Coach Saban returned to CFB. You can't tell a profeesional what to do unless its "in their contract" (in a nutshell). CFB may be heading that way in that regard...

 

[TiderJack]

Lots of fear from Texas I see… I half expected to someone to continue to lump the myth of Oregon and Miami in there is well.

You still need coaches and evaluators to make it work. Without them, Texas money is no better than board game money.

Like Gene Chizik and the Ogre? If you get the Jimmy's and the Joe's your odds get a whole bunch better.

 

[81usaf92]

Like Gene Chizik and the Ogre? If you get the Jimmy's and the Joe's your odds get a whole bunch better.

Yeah and the part you left off is that they chose the right players and had a bunch of great coaches behind a moron head. Making teams like those are very rare without consistent recruiting.

 

[RollTide_HTTR]

We could have a lengthy discussion about the notion of amateur athletics. I have had discussions where I had to explain to people that were baffled by the popularity of college football, that it wasn't a lower level of football so much as it was the top level of amateur sport. College football as we knew it was the peak of something that started with little kids running around at their local municipal park or what ever, where no one was getting paid, in fact everything was being paid for by supporters (namely parents). This advanced all the way up to college football which took this bake sale mentality and alumni support to an extreme.

What college football now has to do is find its place. The Olympics used to be amateur, now they are not (it's also been shown to be incredibly corrupt but that's another story). It wasn't destroyed in the process. However, there are sports which have become funded by the super wealthy to the point that that only the super wealthy can even compete in them. Larry Ellison spent hundreds of millions on the America's Cup, which while insane sounds a bit familiar to what I showed Phil Knight doing for Oregon. So part of the risk there is a sport that becomes too expensive for most to even compete in.

Now, what does that have to do with caps and free markets and so on. I guess you might be able to substitute the word capitalism to better explain what I'm getting at, which infers "for profit" which what we're discussing clearly isn't. On the other hand, you can bring up laissez-faire which is basically what you are alluding to, the notion that you shouldn't interfere. The thing is there is interference! There's a lot of interference and that's a big part of the issue. The first NIL laws came from the government, which is the precise entity that's supposed not to interfere according to laissez-faire! The schools are completely powerless in all of this really, they can't do anything. They can't pay the players and they can't forbid the players from being paid either.

Since we've gone this far, I want to further explain where I think people some people might not appreciate the nature of voluntarism as it pertains to college sports. College sport was always voluntary, not compulsory. This means once you agreed to go to a college, and participate in their sports, you were obligated to their rules. That's how laissez-faire actually works. You get to do what you want by having a choice, but those choices are not homogeneous. In this case the choice was to participate in a sport that was funded well beyond what it actually earned, and you got a host of things in return including an education, but you were not paid in cash.

What we are witnessing is someone coming into this completely voluntary thing, and saying you have to do this and you have to do that. That's not free anything. So now we have the amateur model that's being twisted into something it wasn't built to be. From a libertarian perspective, and I am a libertarian, it's actually pretty offensive to tell an entity it has to do something in particular, in this case they have to allow compensated professionals.

This is a whole can of worms, but it's just an incompatibility that's resulting in what we are witnessing. Remember though, this is something that loses money! This has to be emphasized heavily. College athletics lose money! College football as a whole also loses money! It's funded well beyond what it earns because people have grown accustomed to supporting this amateur model financially. It's now this bizarre hybrid and it just doesn't make any sense in the current state but I'm not even sure how one goes about allowing it to make sense. It's a square peg being told it has to go into a round hole.

To be clear, I'm not advocating or arguing for anything. I'm more thinking out loud which is typically how I work (sometimes to my detriment). But it also helps me come to conclusions on issues like this where there is a lot to think through.

I'm actually normally pro regulation in a lot of ways and think there probably needs to be some change when it comes to NIL, I'm just trying to figure out what changes I think are necessary.

 

[81usaf92]

Precisely why Lincoln Riley has hit the motherload and will be the dominant program in the PAC 12...

We shall see, but it totally improves his and their chances of winning a national championship.

 

[KrAzY3]

You keep bringing up Phil Knight as this boogeyman but you never acknowledge how little his money into the school really amounts to in terms of talent and success.

I bought up Phil Knight because I pasted something earlier that showed Oregon as having twice the revenue of any other school in relation to being asked about boosters. Obviously he's relevant because he dumped hundreds of millions in one year into Oregon athletic. This by the way came after the discussions about how supposedly boosters were only willing to spend so much and supposedly Phil Knight would only do so much to support a particular school.

Dude has spent a billion on Oregon athletics and there's no sign of him slowing down. Now will he jump on the NIL train? Well he already has Nike doing NIL specific things for Oregon athletics but it remains to be seen if he's going to pump the kind of money we're seeing from elsewhere into NIL. But we're way past you pretending that this isn't millions upon million of dollars being spent to steer athletes. It's happening.

Also Oregon football was nothing until Phil Knight. They won 5 conference titles from 1916-1999. Since then they have won 7. I'm not completely sure when his donations started but I know things started to heat up in the 90s. The first big Oregon donation I see is 1994 but let's drawn the line at 1995.

Prior to 1995 Oregon went to 10 bowl games. Since then they've been to 26. Now, one reason their football success isn't as remarkable is his funds have rarely gone directly to the program. They've gone to Oregon in general, or Oregon athletics in general. I should note that he was a track and field athlete at Oregon so he isn't necessarily as affectionate towards football as you and I are. It's not like he's been putting money directly into the player's pockets... yet.

However, they've become relevant on the national landscape as a football program nevertheless, not through some sort of grass roots effort but through the largess of a single booster. Without Phil Knight this program was completely irrelevant, this is a team that was ranked as high as #3 in the playoff rankings and very much in the hunt for a championship in this past season. That's a long way for Oregon football to have come. It does take hundreds of millions of dollars to build a contender, it's just not usually primarily from one guy.

In either case he's still just one guy, and as much largess as he's shown it still pales in comparison to the total money in play from boosters. He's just the top booster in college athletics, it doesn't mean he'll be the top NIL guy. The money Oregon gets from Knight is far more limited in terms of what they can do than someone using it as a direct enticement.

I'm actually normally pro regulation in a lot of ways and think there probably needs to be some change when it comes to NIL, I'm just trying to figure out what changes I think are necessary.

I'm just not sure how to put the genie back in the bottle. I'm ok and really always have been ok with lifting some of the old restrictions and looking out for athletes more. But this is a tale of two extremes, and I'm not sure if it's possible to get them to meet in the middle. Schools can't pay a dime, and NILs are completely unfettered.

 

[81usaf92]

I bought up Phil Knight because I pasted something earlier that showed Oregon as having twice the revenue of any other school in relation to being asked about boosters. Obviously he's relevant because he dumped hundreds of millions in one year into Oregon athletic. This by the way came after the discussions about how supposedly boosters were only willing to spend so much and supposedly Phil Knight would only do so much to support a particular school.

Dude has spent a billion on Oregon athletics and there's no sign of him slowing down. Now will he jump on the NIL train? Well he already has Nike doing NIL specific things for Oregon athletics but it remains to be seen if he's going to pump the kind of money we're seeing from elsewhere into NIL. But we're way past you pretending that this isn't millions upon million of dollars being spent to steer athletes. It's happening.

Also Oregon football was nothing until Phil Knight. They won 5 conference titles from 1916-1999. Since then they have won 7. I'm not completely sure when his donations started but I know things started to heat up in the 90s. The first big Oregon donation I see is 1994 but let's drawn the line at 1995.

Prior to 1995 Oregon went to 10 bowl games. Since then they've been to 26. Now, one reason their football success isn't as remarkable is his funds have rarely gone directly to the program. They've gone to Oregon in general, or Oregon athletics in general. I should note that he was a track and field athlete at Oregon so he isn't necessarily as affectionate towards football as you and I are. It's not like he's been putting money directly into the player's pockets... yet.

However, they've become relevant on the national landscape as a football program nevertheless, not through some sort of grass roots effort but through the largess of a single booster. Without Phil Knight this program was completely irrelevant, this is a team that was ranked as high as #3 in the playoff rankings and very much in the hunt for a championship in this past season. That's a long way for Oregon football to have come. It does take hundreds of millions of dollars to build a contender, it's just not usually primarily from one guy.

In either case he's still just one guy, and as much largess as he's shown it still pales in comparison to the total money in play from boosters. He's just the top booster in college athletics, it doesn't mean he'll be the top NIL guy. The money Oregon gets from Knight is far more limited in terms of what they can do than someone using it as a direct enticement.

Okay how many championships has Oregon won under Knight’s money…

could be wrong but I think it’s on their helmets

 

[MILEHIGHTIDE]

Also 100% no offence intended, but to me the mannings are not a real good representation of the typical recruit and their family. They do not need the money per se or exposure, with it just being legal they can exploit the system. They will be a good representation as to the higher initial end of the starting offers and pay but again that will adapt and change over time.

 

[B1GTide]

I'm thinking that this is why Coach Saban returned to CFB. You can't tell a profeesional what to do unless its "in their contract" (in a nutshell). CFB may be heading that way in that regard...

When they implement a college football player's union (a real possibility at some point), I will worry about that. But I agree that the sport is changing.

 

[TiderJack]

Yeah and the part you left off is that they chose the right players and had a bunch of great coaches behind a moron head. Making teams like those are very rare without consistent recruiting.

You can't lump Ogre's team in with Chizik's team. LSU had a ton of talent and they always recruit well. If you don't think Texas and A&M will be highly competitive with the NIL as it currently stands you are wrong. A&M finishing #1 and Texas #5 in recruiting after the year they just had is proof that you can pay players a lot of money just to get them to sign and no telling what they get if they become starters, all-conference, all-american.

 

[MILEHIGHTIDE]

Anything is only worth what someone is willing to pay. If a bidding war ensues those with the deepest pocket books tend to fair the best. Like a poster said earlier and as I have said before it is sort of pandora’s box that has been opened. Regulation in some sort of form or fashion will be coming and soon, just like the transfer portal.

The real question is how long until the football system itself breaks away like baseball? Do they have official minor league nfl or quit the scholastic side all together and withdraw from the ncaa? Do they do a combo?

I am not debating the validity of any of this, just making some generalized opinions, etc. Heck if I were a player, player’s family I would want to get paid too.

Combine the unknown injury risks with the fact that most players do not make it to the nfl, this may be their only real earning potential off of their athletic abilities for themselves and to help support their families etc, who knows.

Just like the legalization of sports betting, it’s all about the money, from the player to the family, to the team, to the league and to the tax man. Everyone is going to want a piece of the pie. Justly deserved or not that is up to your own opinion. RTR

 

[KrAzY3]

Okay how many championships has Oregon won under Knight’s money…

could be wrong but I think it’s on their helmets

It's easy enough for an Alabama fan to judge success only by championships. The program has been in the playoffs, they also were within a touchdown of winning a BCS championship. His efforts have hardly been fruitless. Having said that, never, anywhere at any point in time can I recall saying that Knight can, or Knight will buy Oregon a championship. Please remind me if I have.

What Knight can do though, is drive up the price on certain things. Really, he's already done that. Another poster alluded to the game rooms and such. Due to Knight's donations Oregon became a leader in facilities and in that sort of over the top accommodations. This drove other schools to spend more in that regard as well. So if you want my take on Knight, which you seem to be concerned with, it's simply that he's one of the people that is capable of driving spending up.

Having said that, in the past I said something along the lines of "Knight could pay each Oregon football player a million dollars if he wanted to" which was just using him as an example. Thing is, reportedly that's already the per recruit cost of A&M's class. I know this board has rules on rumors but I am in this case just using this as an example, we really might already be on that level and there's no telling what comes next:
Texas A&M Boosters Spent Unfathomable Amount Of Money To Land No. 1 Recruiting Class

Even if that particular report isn't accurate, it's consistent with what we're trending towards and various reports that show how far things are going. Anyone can look and see that A&M went out and bought a recruiting class, it's obvious.

 

[AlexanderFan]

I bought up Phil Knight because I pasted something earlier that showed Oregon as having twice the revenue of any other school in relation to being asked about boosters. Obviously he's relevant because he dumped hundreds of millions in one year into Oregon athletic. This by the way came after the discussions about how supposedly boosters were only willing to spend so much and supposedly Phil Knight would only do so much to support a particular school.

Dude has spent a billion on Oregon athletics and there's no sign of him slowing down. Now will he jump on the NIL train? Well he already has Nike doing NIL specific things for Oregon athletics but it remains to be seen if he's going to pump the kind of money we're seeing from elsewhere into NIL. But we're way past you pretending that this isn't millions upon million of dollars being spent to steer athletes. It's happening.

Also Oregon football was nothing until Phil Knight. They won 5 conference titles from 1916-1999. Since then they have won 7. I'm not completely sure when his donations started but I know things started to heat up in the 90s. The first big Oregon donation I see is 1994 but let's drawn the line at 1995.

Prior to 1995 Oregon went to 10 bowl games. Since then they've been to 26. Now, one reason their football success isn't as remarkable is his funds have rarely gone directly to the program. They've gone to Oregon in general, or Oregon athletics in general. I should note that he was a track and field athlete at Oregon so he isn't necessarily as affectionate towards football as you and I are. It's not like he's been putting money directly into the player's pockets... yet.

However, they've become relevant on the national landscape as a football program nevertheless, not through some sort of grass roots effort but through the largess of a single booster. Without Phil Knight this program was completely irrelevant, this is a team that was ranked as high as #3 in the playoff rankings and very much in the hunt for a championship in this past season. That's a long way for Oregon football to have come. It does take hundreds of millions of dollars to build a contender, it's just not usually primarily from one guy.

In either case he's still just one guy, and as much largess as he's shown it still pales in comparison to the total money in play from boosters. He's just the top booster in college athletics, it doesn't mean he'll be the top NIL guy. The money Oregon gets from Knight is far more limited in terms of what they can do than someone using it as a direct enticement.


I'm just not sure how to put the genie back in the bottle. I'm ok and really always have been ok with lifting some of the old restrictions and looking out for athletes more. But this is a tale of two extremes, and I'm not sure if it's possible to get them to meet in the middle. Schools can't pay a dime, and NILs are completely unfettered.

You won’t convince him, even with statistics. Knight gave Oregon enough money in one year to fully fund the athletic program for over two years. He’s not worried about taking that money with him.

I would think the Nike BoD would keep him from putting too much into Oregon at the expense of their other national brands.