Resurrecting this thread for this post on NIL...
This recent article connects the growth in popularity of womens hoops to NIL deals. Here's an excerpt:
"NIL Deals Skyrocket in Women's Basketball: NIL deals for women's college basketball athletes grew 186% in 2022 – clocking in with the second highest percentage of new deals behind football, fueled in part by surging viewership (+11% YoY on ESPN) – compared to a 67% increase in deals for men's basketball athletes. The average female basketball player partners with three brands, versus two for men."
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases...78009.html
There are lots of NIL opportunities for popular female hoopers, and the players are realizing there's brobdingnagian money in increasing their followers. Angel Reese has picked up 100's of thousands of followers for being on the big stage and one-upping Caitlin Clark. Would that have happened if she had stayed at Maryland? The money is out there for Haley Van Lith - she just has to make the move and grab it. She already has 800K followers and Paige Bueckers doubles that number. It's possible all these players (Bueckers, Clark, Reece, Brink, Van Lith...) use their extra year of eligibility to stay in college where they'll make way more than the WNBA.
And why would the schools pay them even more through their own NIL collective? Brand exposure. If you don't think the UConn womens team or the Gonzaga mens team has increased the popularity of those universities you're smoking something. It's hugely valuable what Caitlin Clark does for the University of Iowa. And this doesn't even count the schools share of TV money, which down the road will be renegotiated big time. Didn't used to be this way in women's hoops but it is now. Follow the money folks! And yes, our mighty Card will be the big loser in the equation. Just ask Lauren Betts and Harrison Ingram.