[DaBears17]

Here's a good (and long) article about the effects of NIL on athletics departments, with a focus on North Carolina: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/24/magaz...hlete.html

The tl,dr is that money that once went to the whole department is now going to individual players, and it's not clear how departments are going to make up for that.  It's not an encouraging read if you're a fan of any sport besides basketball and football.

Non paywall link to article: https://archive.ph/lZ7l6

[DaBears17]

Here's a good (and long) article about the effects of NIL on athletics departments, with a focus on North Carolina: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/24/magaz...hlete.html

The tl,dr is that money that once went to the whole department is now going to individual players, and it's not clear how departments are going to make up for that.  It's not an encouraging read if you're a fan of any sport besides basketball and football.

Non paywall link to article: https://archive.ph/lZ7l6

[Farm93]

Here's a good (and long) article about the effects of NIL on athletics departments, with a focus on North Carolina: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/24/magaz...hlete.html

The tl,dr is that money that once went to the whole department is now going to individual players, and it's not clear how departments are going to make up for that.  It's not an encouraging read if you're a fan of any sport besides basketball and football.

Non paywall link to article: https://archive.ph/lZ7l6

The University of North Carolina likely has some alums that believe in the academic mission.  I can imagine that a few schools will discover that not only are the former AD donations going directly to the recruits, but so are most donations that used to go to academic endeavors too.

[Farm93]

Here's a good (and long) article about the effects of NIL on athletics departments, with a focus on North Carolina: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/24/magaz...hlete.html

The tl,dr is that money that once went to the whole department is now going to individual players, and it's not clear how departments are going to make up for that.  It's not an encouraging read if you're a fan of any sport besides basketball and football.

Non paywall link to article: https://archive.ph/lZ7l6

The University of North Carolina likely has some alums that believe in the academic mission.  I can imagine that a few schools will discover that not only are the former AD donations going directly to the recruits, but so are most donations that used to go to academic endeavors too.

[OutsiderFan]

Here's a good (and long) article about the effects of NIL on athletics departments, with a focus on North Carolina: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/24/magaz...hlete.html

The tl,dr is that money that once went to the whole department is now going to individual players, and it's not clear how departments are going to make up for that.  It's not an encouraging read if you're a fan of any sport besides basketball and football.

Non paywall link to article: https://archive.ph/lZ7l6

The University of North Carolina likely has some alums that believe in the academic mission.  I can imagine that a few schools will discover that not only are the former AD donations going directly to the recruits, but so are most donations that used to go to academic endeavors too.

And if it hasn't already, it will also take a bit out of coach salaries.

Really well done article. Even though most of what it addresses was predictable, there were several insightful anecdotes. Thanks for posting it.

[OutsiderFan]

Here's a good (and long) article about the effects of NIL on athletics departments, with a focus on North Carolina: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/24/magaz...hlete.html

The tl,dr is that money that once went to the whole department is now going to individual players, and it's not clear how departments are going to make up for that.  It's not an encouraging read if you're a fan of any sport besides basketball and football.

Non paywall link to article: https://archive.ph/lZ7l6

The University of North Carolina likely has some alums that believe in the academic mission.  I can imagine that a few schools will discover that not only are the former AD donations going directly to the recruits, but so are most donations that used to go to academic endeavors too.

And if it hasn't already, it will also take a bit out of coach salaries.

Really well done article. Even though most of what it addresses was predictable, there were several insightful anecdotes. Thanks for posting it.

[GK3]

Here's a good (and long) article about the effects of NIL on athletics departments, with a focus on North Carolina: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/24/magaz...hlete.html

The tl,dr is that money that once went to the whole department is now going to individual players, and it's not clear how departments are going to make up for that.  It's not an encouraging read if you're a fan of any sport besides basketball and football.

Non paywall link to article: https://archive.ph/lZ7l6

The University of North Carolina likely has some alums that believe in the academic mission.  I can imagine that a few schools will discover that not only are the former AD donations going directly to the recruits, but so are most donations that used to go to academic endeavors too.

This along with the transfer portal pretty much does away with what college sports used to be about.  Stanford's 40 year decision mantra will still affect some, but with the advent of large six figure NIL contracts and the ability to switch schools each year to who ever is the highest bidder pretty much makes a mockery the kind of system I think Stanford supports.  Even though the transfer rules at Stanford seem to have been eased to an extent, it is not enough to offset what our competition is doing.  Pretty disappointing but it is what it is.

[GK3]

Here's a good (and long) article about the effects of NIL on athletics departments, with a focus on North Carolina: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/24/magaz...hlete.html

The tl,dr is that money that once went to the whole department is now going to individual players, and it's not clear how departments are going to make up for that.  It's not an encouraging read if you're a fan of any sport besides basketball and football.

Non paywall link to article: https://archive.ph/lZ7l6

The University of North Carolina likely has some alums that believe in the academic mission.  I can imagine that a few schools will discover that not only are the former AD donations going directly to the recruits, but so are most donations that used to go to academic endeavors too.

This along with the transfer portal pretty much does away with what college sports used to be about.  Stanford's 40 year decision mantra will still affect some, but with the advent of large six figure NIL contracts and the ability to switch schools each year to who ever is the highest bidder pretty much makes a mockery the kind of system I think Stanford supports.  Even though the transfer rules at Stanford seem to have been eased to an extent, it is not enough to offset what our competition is doing.  Pretty disappointing but it is what it is.

[Giants]

Here's a good (and long) article about the effects of NIL on athletics departments, with a focus on North Carolina: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/24/magaz...hlete.html

The tl,dr is that money that once went to the whole department is now going to individual players, and it's not clear how departments are going to make up for that.  It's not an encouraging read if you're a fan of any sport besides basketball and football.

Non paywall link to article: https://archive.ph/lZ7l6

The University of North Carolina likely has some alums that believe in the academic mission.  I can imagine that a few schools will discover that not only are the former AD donations going directly to the recruits, but so are most donations that used to go to academic endeavors too.

This along with the transfer portal pretty much does away with what college sports used to be about.  Stanford's 40 year decision mantra will still affect some, but with the advent of large six figure NIL contracts and the ability to switch schools each year to who ever is the highest bidder pretty much makes a mockery the kind of system I think Stanford supports.  Even though the transfer rules at Stanford seem to have been eased to an extent, it is not enough to offset what our competition is doing.  Pretty disappointing but it is what it is.

Under current rules, undergrad athletes can transfer once with no restrictions.  In addition, those same athletes can transfer again without restrictions upon graduating.  Athletes cannot “switch schools each year” unless they want to sit out a season each time they choose to transfer following their second undergrad transfer.

[Giants]

Here's a good (and long) article about the effects of NIL on athletics departments, with a focus on North Carolina: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/24/magaz...hlete.html

The tl,dr is that money that once went to the whole department is now going to individual players, and it's not clear how departments are going to make up for that.  It's not an encouraging read if you're a fan of any sport besides basketball and football.

Non paywall link to article: https://archive.ph/lZ7l6

The University of North Carolina likely has some alums that believe in the academic mission.  I can imagine that a few schools will discover that not only are the former AD donations going directly to the recruits, but so are most donations that used to go to academic endeavors too.

This along with the transfer portal pretty much does away with what college sports used to be about.  Stanford's 40 year decision mantra will still affect some, but with the advent of large six figure NIL contracts and the ability to switch schools each year to who ever is the highest bidder pretty much makes a mockery the kind of system I think Stanford supports.  Even though the transfer rules at Stanford seem to have been eased to an extent, it is not enough to offset what our competition is doing.  Pretty disappointing but it is what it is.

Under current rules, undergrad athletes can transfer once with no restrictions.  In addition, those same athletes can transfer again without restrictions upon graduating.  Athletes cannot “switch schools each year” unless they want to sit out a season each time they choose to transfer following their second undergrad transfer.

[dabigv13]

This I think is a good development. There needs to be more regulation around this process and the SCOTUS ruling expressly allowed for it, so good job NCAA.

https://www.si.com/college/2023/01/30/nc...stigations

The NCAA and enforcement staff will no longer be hamstrung by uncooperative witnesses when it comes to potential name, image and likeness (NIL) violations, thanks to a new bylaw that went into effect Jan. 1.

Investigators can now use circumstantial evidence (like a tip or news story) instead of on-record sourcing to presume a school violated NCAA rules. Schools can disprove the allegation or else be potentially charged. The move strengthens the enforcement staff’s ability to charge schools and allows more leeway for investigators.

[dabigv13]

This I think is a good development. There needs to be more regulation around this process and the SCOTUS ruling expressly allowed for it, so good job NCAA.

https://www.si.com/college/2023/01/30/nc...stigations

The NCAA and enforcement staff will no longer be hamstrung by uncooperative witnesses when it comes to potential name, image and likeness (NIL) violations, thanks to a new bylaw that went into effect Jan. 1.

Investigators can now use circumstantial evidence (like a tip or news story) instead of on-record sourcing to presume a school violated NCAA rules. Schools can disprove the allegation or else be potentially charged. The move strengthens the enforcement staff’s ability to charge schools and allows more leeway for investigators.

[martyup]

Investigators can now use circumstantial evidence (like a tip or news story) instead of on-record sourcing to presume a school violated NCAA rules. Schools can disprove the allegation or else be potentially charged. The move strengthens the enforcement staff’s ability to charge schools and allows more leeway for investigators.

Isn't that similar to the burden of proof used in the Salem witch trials?  Gives a pretty strong incentive for rivals to surreptitiously generate fake news.

[martyup]

Investigators can now use circumstantial evidence (like a tip or news story) instead of on-record sourcing to presume a school violated NCAA rules. Schools can disprove the allegation or else be potentially charged. The move strengthens the enforcement staff’s ability to charge schools and allows more leeway for investigators.

Isn't that similar to the burden of proof used in the Salem witch trials?  Gives a pretty strong incentive for rivals to surreptitiously generate fake news.

[lex24]

Jaden Rashada, the QB from Pittsburg, has now committed to ASU.  According to the piece I read, two sources confirmed NIL had nothing to do with it. Be interesting to see if that holds true.

[lex24]

Jaden Rashada, the QB from Pittsburg, has now committed to ASU.  According to the piece I read, two sources confirmed NIL had nothing to do with it. Be interesting to see if that holds true.

[Genuine Realist]

Jaden Rashada, the QB from Pittsburg,  has now committed to ASU.  According to the piece I read, two sources confirmed NIL had nothing to do with it. Be interesting to see if that holds true.

Same ol' song. The solution to this situation is simply to junk the amateurism rule altogether, as has happened in every other major athletic venue, most notably the Olympics.

Athletically gifted kids make academic choices based on the same criteria other kids else do, with the additional element of coaching, athletic tradition, etc.

They make financial decisions based on whatever makes sense financially. It's got nothing to do with college choice (or shouldn't).NIL is just one factor among others. Much larger is the influence of a relationship with a professional franchise, if the kid is that gifted. I think relationships between pro coaches and college coaches will work out, as both want the same thing (improved performance, not adding an athlete to a pro squad until he or she can contribute).

The great equalizer in all this is scholarship limitations. Back in 1989, when Kentucky went on probation for anticipating NIL (ahem), Rick Pitino was hired as savior. Asked what he could offer athletes to play for a school that was barred from postseason play and off television. He shrugged and said 'PT ', that is, playing time. I don't care what your loyalties are, you're better off at a place where you get on the field or on court than being the fifth back up at Alabama. 

College sports will take care of themselves, if the powers that be simply remember their function - which is to conduct an extracurricular activity according to the established rules of the athletic association. Interference with the student athlete's private financial life should never have been part of the mix.

[Genuine Realist]

Jaden Rashada, the QB from Pittsburg,  has now committed to ASU.  According to the piece I read, two sources confirmed NIL had nothing to do with it. Be interesting to see if that holds true.

Same ol' song. The solution to this situation is simply to junk the amateurism rule altogether, as has happened in every other major athletic venue, most notably the Olympics.

Athletically gifted kids make academic choices based on the same criteria other kids else do, with the additional element of coaching, athletic tradition, etc.

They make financial decisions based on whatever makes sense financially. It's got nothing to do with college choice (or shouldn't).NIL is just one factor among others. Much larger is the influence of a relationship with a professional franchise, if the kid is that gifted. I think relationships between pro coaches and college coaches will work out, as both want the same thing (improved performance, not adding an athlete to a pro squad until he or she can contribute).

The great equalizer in all this is scholarship limitations. Back in 1989, when Kentucky went on probation for anticipating NIL (ahem), Rick Pitino was hired as savior. Asked what he could offer athletes to play for a school that was barred from postseason play and off television. He shrugged and said 'PT ', that is, playing time. I don't care what your loyalties are, you're better off at a place where you get on the field or on court than being the fifth back up at Alabama. 

College sports will take care of themselves, if the powers that be simply remember their function - which is to conduct an extracurricular activity according to the established rules of the athletic association. Interference with the student athlete's private financial life should never have been part of the mix.

[81alum]

I was doing some research for the WBB @ Washington game and came across this website for UDub athletes' NIL:

https://opendorse.com/washington-huskies...entAthlete

They offer a whole menu of choices of things you can buy from their men's and women's athletes.   Daliya Daniels charges $146 to post something on social media for you, for example, while an autograph is a mere $30.

Is it just me, or is this really tacky?  It also makes it easy for a booster to funnel any amount of money to nearly any player, just by picking items off the menu.

[81alum]

I was doing some research for the WBB @ Washington game and came across this website for UDub athletes' NIL:

https://opendorse.com/washington-huskies...entAthlete

They offer a whole menu of choices of things you can buy from their men's and women's athletes.   Daliya Daniels charges $146 to post something on social media for you, for example, while an autograph is a mere $30.

Is it just me, or is this really tacky?  It also makes it easy for a booster to funnel any amount of money to nearly any player, just by picking items off the menu.

[Farm93]

It's tacky, but it's open.

There are a decent number of American's that are making money with Patreon pages, Youtube videos, and the like.   So I think to 17-22 year-olds this is pretty much accepted as the way things work.  

If I was a small company in the Seattle area I might be able to get 20 or 30 of these athletes to take a picture visiting my restaurant/shop/store or using my service.  Since it is open I could plan and buy that impression blitz program without finding and hiring some PR firm or ad agency.

In many ways I think this is what the NCAA hoped would happen with NIL.   I suspect the new alumni networks just creating massive pools of money to buy HS recruits without any real desire for the group to then leverage the N or I or L.    

However, I can see the UW thing backfiring when trying to recruit players even while it is more consistent with the spirit of NIL.  I would think other schools could show recruits that while UW kids are wasting time, pushing little time products and services for perhaps a couple of hundred dollars per year.   The other program could guarantee that recruit (insert five, six or seven figure number here).

[Farm93]

It's tacky, but it's open.

There are a decent number of American's that are making money with Patreon pages, Youtube videos, and the like.   So I think to 17-22 year-olds this is pretty much accepted as the way things work.  

If I was a small company in the Seattle area I might be able to get 20 or 30 of these athletes to take a picture visiting my restaurant/shop/store or using my service.  Since it is open I could plan and buy that impression blitz program without finding and hiring some PR firm or ad agency.

In many ways I think this is what the NCAA hoped would happen with NIL.   I suspect the new alumni networks just creating massive pools of money to buy HS recruits without any real desire for the group to then leverage the N or I or L.    

However, I can see the UW thing backfiring when trying to recruit players even while it is more consistent with the spirit of NIL.  I would think other schools could show recruits that while UW kids are wasting time, pushing little time products and services for perhaps a couple of hundred dollars per year.   The other program could guarantee that recruit (insert five, six or seven figure number here).

[81alum]

It's tacky, but it's open.

There are a decent number of American's that are making money with Patreon pages, Youtube videos, and the like.   So I think to 17-22 year-olds this is pretty much accepted as the way things work.  

If I was a small company in the Seattle area I might be able to get 20 or 30 of these athletes to take a picture visiting my restaurant/shop/store or using my service.  Since it is open I could plan and buy that impression blitz program without finding and hiring some PR firm or ad agency.

In many ways I think this is what the NCAA hoped would happen with NIL.   I suspect the new alumni networks just creating massive pools of money to buy HS recruits without any real desire for the group to then leverage the N or I or L.    

However, I can see the UW thing backfiring when trying to recruit players even while it is more consistent with the spirit of NIL.  I would think other schools could show recruits that while UW kids are wasting time, pushing little time products and services for perhaps a couple of hundred dollars per year.   The other program could guarantee that recruit (insert five, six or seven figure number here).

That all makes sense.

But what if a booster responded to that site and asked Daniels to sign 1000 autographs, at $35 a pop, for $35,000?  What if he didn't bother to pick them up?  I guess my question is how does this kind of NIL work get monitored and enforced?  Would the athlete need to pay taxes on the $35k?  Is the University responsible for tax withholding--after all it was advertised on their website, not the athlete's?

[81alum]

It's tacky, but it's open.

There are a decent number of American's that are making money with Patreon pages, Youtube videos, and the like.   So I think to 17-22 year-olds this is pretty much accepted as the way things work.  

If I was a small company in the Seattle area I might be able to get 20 or 30 of these athletes to take a picture visiting my restaurant/shop/store or using my service.  Since it is open I could plan and buy that impression blitz program without finding and hiring some PR firm or ad agency.

In many ways I think this is what the NCAA hoped would happen with NIL.   I suspect the new alumni networks just creating massive pools of money to buy HS recruits without any real desire for the group to then leverage the N or I or L.    

However, I can see the UW thing backfiring when trying to recruit players even while it is more consistent with the spirit of NIL.  I would think other schools could show recruits that while UW kids are wasting time, pushing little time products and services for perhaps a couple of hundred dollars per year.   The other program could guarantee that recruit (insert five, six or seven figure number here).

That all makes sense.

But what if a booster responded to that site and asked Daniels to sign 1000 autographs, at $35 a pop, for $35,000?  What if he didn't bother to pick them up?  I guess my question is how does this kind of NIL work get monitored and enforced?  Would the athlete need to pay taxes on the $35k?  Is the University responsible for tax withholding--after all it was advertised on their website, not the athlete's?

[SamuelMcF]

Would the athlete need to pay taxes on the $35k?  Is the University responsible for tax withholding--after all it was advertised on their website, not the athlete's?

This is not UW's website. It's a third-party site that is partnered with athletes from a bunch of schools...

including Stanford.

Cameron Brink charges $555 for a social post on the same site.

[SamuelMcF]

Would the athlete need to pay taxes on the $35k?  Is the University responsible for tax withholding--after all it was advertised on their website, not the athlete's?

This is not UW's website. It's a third-party site that is partnered with athletes from a bunch of schools...

including Stanford.

Cameron Brink charges $555 for a social post on the same site.

[BobK]

Thanks Sam. For those who didn’t know

https://opendorse.com/profile/cameron-brink

[BobK]

Thanks Sam. For those who didn’t know

https://opendorse.com/profile/cameron-brink

[msqueri]

Random thought:

I think NIL and its frontal assault on the appeal of the Stanford 40 year decision value proposition (because let's be real, Dylan Lonergan is NOT making an irrational 40 year decision to go to Alabama rather than Stanford) is absolutely a big deal and much about our future depends on how we navigate that and/or if NIL evolves further in ways more or less congenial to our success. However, one big factor is our willingness to play in this space (pay to play if you prefer), and I think that may be less about administration support than some assume. My worry/hypothesis is that Stanford football fans are just so much less plentiful and passionate than what we're trying to compete with that we may struggle to achieve liftoff in NIL regardless of the administration's posture. As Taylor keeps saying, we have a collective. But is money flowing into that collective? Is it being doled out to entice recruits to come, either in a blanket way or a strategic way? If the answer to either remains no then we're going to struggle in this space. Yes, we have some rich alums, but a lot of them don't give a crap about football. A lot of those who do have other interests in life or will want to give their money to something more purely philanthropic or will want returns on investment that are unrealistic in the world of college football recruiting. Ultimately, we may struggle with NIL not because the administration is lukewarm to it but because a) we don't have any fans so can't pool money beyond what a few big donors give and b) the big donors may be temperamentally/culturally/individually/whatever less disposed to do so than some Texas oil baron is.

[msqueri]

Random thought:

I think NIL and its frontal assault on the appeal of the Stanford 40 year decision value proposition (because let's be real, Dylan Lonergan is NOT making an irrational 40 year decision to go to Alabama rather than Stanford) is absolutely a big deal and much about our future depends on how we navigate that and/or if NIL evolves further in ways more or less congenial to our success. However, one big factor is our willingness to play in this space (pay to play if you prefer), and I think that may be less about administration support than some assume. My worry/hypothesis is that Stanford football fans are just so much less plentiful and passionate than what we're trying to compete with that we may struggle to achieve liftoff in NIL regardless of the administration's posture. As Taylor keeps saying, we have a collective. But is money flowing into that collective? Is it being doled out to entice recruits to come, either in a blanket way or a strategic way? If the answer to either remains no then we're going to struggle in this space. Yes, we have some rich alums, but a lot of them don't give a crap about football. A lot of those who do have other interests in life or will want to give their money to something more purely philanthropic or will want returns on investment that are unrealistic in the world of college football recruiting. Ultimately, we may struggle with NIL not because the administration is lukewarm to it but because a) we don't have any fans so can't pool money beyond what a few big donors give and b) the big donors may be temperamentally/culturally/individually/whatever less disposed to do so than some Texas oil baron is.

[CowboyIndian]

Random thought:

I think NIL and its frontal assault on the appeal of the Stanford 40 year decision value proposition (because let's be real, Dylan Lonergan is NOT making an irrational 40 year decision to go to Alabama rather than Stanford) is absolutely a big deal and much about our future depends on how we navigate that and/or if NIL evolves further in ways more or less congenial to our success. However, one big factor is our willingness to play in this space (pay to play if you prefer), and I think that may be less about administration support than some assume. My worry/hypothesis is that Stanford football fans are just so much less plentiful and passionate than what we're trying to compete with that we may struggle to achieve liftoff in NIL regardless of the administration's posture. As Taylor keeps saying, we have a collective. But is money flowing into that collective? Is it being doled out to entice recruits to come, either in a blanket way or a strategic way? If the answer to either remains no then we're going to struggle in this space. Yes, we have some rich alums, but a lot of them don't give a crap about football. A lot of those who do have other interests in life or will want to give their money to something more purely philanthropic or will want returns on investment that are unrealistic in the world of college football recruiting. Ultimately, we may struggle with NIL not because the administration is lukewarm to it but because a) we don't have any fans so can't pool money beyond what a few big donors give and b) the big donors may be temperamentally/culturally/individually/whatever less disposed to do so than some Texas oil baron is.

I see your point but we already have named endowments for our coach, our OC and at least one other position on the staff, which I'm forgetting. I think there may not be SEC-level donor numbers but they exist if the team shows some signs of life. At least I'm hoping that's still the case.

[CowboyIndian]

Random thought:

I think NIL and its frontal assault on the appeal of the Stanford 40 year decision value proposition (because let's be real, Dylan Lonergan is NOT making an irrational 40 year decision to go to Alabama rather than Stanford) is absolutely a big deal and much about our future depends on how we navigate that and/or if NIL evolves further in ways more or less congenial to our success. However, one big factor is our willingness to play in this space (pay to play if you prefer), and I think that may be less about administration support than some assume. My worry/hypothesis is that Stanford football fans are just so much less plentiful and passionate than what we're trying to compete with that we may struggle to achieve liftoff in NIL regardless of the administration's posture. As Taylor keeps saying, we have a collective. But is money flowing into that collective? Is it being doled out to entice recruits to come, either in a blanket way or a strategic way? If the answer to either remains no then we're going to struggle in this space. Yes, we have some rich alums, but a lot of them don't give a crap about football. A lot of those who do have other interests in life or will want to give their money to something more purely philanthropic or will want returns on investment that are unrealistic in the world of college football recruiting. Ultimately, we may struggle with NIL not because the administration is lukewarm to it but because a) we don't have any fans so can't pool money beyond what a few big donors give and b) the big donors may be temperamentally/culturally/individually/whatever less disposed to do so than some Texas oil baron is.

I see your point but we already have named endowments for our coach, our OC and at least one other position on the staff, which I'm forgetting. I think there may not be SEC-level donor numbers but they exist if the team shows some signs of life. At least I'm hoping that's still the case.

[BobK]

I didn’t look at every Stanford sport but counted 30 coaches whose position/salary is endowed

[BobK]

I didn’t look at every Stanford sport but counted 30 coaches whose position/salary is endowed

[BostonCard]

Random thought:

I think NIL and its frontal assault on the appeal of the Stanford 40 year decision value proposition (because let's be real, Dylan Lonergan is NOT making an irrational 40 year decision to go to Alabama rather than Stanford) is absolutely a big deal and much about our future depends on how we navigate that and/or if NIL evolves further in ways more or less congenial to our success. However, one big factor is our willingness to play in this space (pay to play if you prefer), and I think that may be less about administration support than some assume. My worry/hypothesis is that Stanford football fans are just so much less plentiful and passionate than what we're trying to compete with that we may struggle to achieve liftoff in NIL regardless of the administration's posture. As Taylor keeps saying, we have a collective. But is money flowing into that collective? Is it being doled out to entice recruits to come, either in a blanket way or a strategic way? If the answer to either remains no then we're going to struggle in this space. Yes, we have some rich alums, but a lot of them don't give a crap about football. A lot of those who do have other interests in life or will want to give their money to something more purely philanthropic or will want returns on investment that are unrealistic in the world of college football recruiting. Ultimately, we may struggle with NIL not because the administration is lukewarm to it but because a) we don't have any fans so can't pool money beyond what a few big donors give and b) the big donors may be temperamentally/culturally/individually/whatever less disposed to do so than some Texas oil baron is.

Almost certainly correct.  I think the question is what the eventual NIL landscape winds up looking like.  Will Inch & Co be doling out four Teslas every year to Penn State football players?  Will they become disillusioned when a year after their NIL deal, one of those guys leaves for another school?  Right now the NIL landscape is very unsettled while schools and donors try to figure out what the market is worth.  But yeah, while I could see donors funding some players on an ad hoc basis, I don't see a thriving collective with a multi-million dollar budget each year to acquire and retain players, nor do I want one.

BC

[BostonCard]

Random thought:

I think NIL and its frontal assault on the appeal of the Stanford 40 year decision value proposition (because let's be real, Dylan Lonergan is NOT making an irrational 40 year decision to go to Alabama rather than Stanford) is absolutely a big deal and much about our future depends on how we navigate that and/or if NIL evolves further in ways more or less congenial to our success. However, one big factor is our willingness to play in this space (pay to play if you prefer), and I think that may be less about administration support than some assume. My worry/hypothesis is that Stanford football fans are just so much less plentiful and passionate than what we're trying to compete with that we may struggle to achieve liftoff in NIL regardless of the administration's posture. As Taylor keeps saying, we have a collective. But is money flowing into that collective? Is it being doled out to entice recruits to come, either in a blanket way or a strategic way? If the answer to either remains no then we're going to struggle in this space. Yes, we have some rich alums, but a lot of them don't give a crap about football. A lot of those who do have other interests in life or will want to give their money to something more purely philanthropic or will want returns on investment that are unrealistic in the world of college football recruiting. Ultimately, we may struggle with NIL not because the administration is lukewarm to it but because a) we don't have any fans so can't pool money beyond what a few big donors give and b) the big donors may be temperamentally/culturally/individually/whatever less disposed to do so than some Texas oil baron is.

Almost certainly correct.  I think the question is what the eventual NIL landscape winds up looking like.  Will Inch & Co be doling out four Teslas every year to Penn State football players?  Will they become disillusioned when a year after their NIL deal, one of those guys leaves for another school?  Right now the NIL landscape is very unsettled while schools and donors try to figure out what the market is worth.  But yeah, while I could see donors funding some players on an ad hoc basis, I don't see a thriving collective with a multi-million dollar budget each year to acquire and retain players, nor do I want one.

BC

[81alum]

Will Inch & Co be doling out four Teslas every year to Penn State football players?  Will they become disillusioned when a year after their NIL deal, one of those guys leaves for another school? 
BC

I'd love to see them driving away to the next school in their Teslas.

[81alum]

Will Inch & Co be doling out four Teslas every year to Penn State football players?  Will they become disillusioned when a year after their NIL deal, one of those guys leaves for another school? 
BC

I'd love to see them driving away to the next school in their Teslas.

[Spiny_Norman]

Clemson has just opened its Athletics Branding Institute to help student-athletes with NIL "branding, marketing, sponsorship, content creation and more. . . the new 12,000-square-foot, two-story facility now houses two photo and video studios, an audio studio, editing space, conference room and the office of Name, Image and Likeness Coordinator C.D. Davies, all intended to provide on-site resources for student-athletes choosing to pursue sponsorship opportunities and content generation."

https://clemsontigers.com/branding-institute/

It's the new arms race in college athletics.

[Spiny_Norman]

Clemson has just opened its Athletics Branding Institute to help student-athletes with NIL "branding, marketing, sponsorship, content creation and more. . . the new 12,000-square-foot, two-story facility now houses two photo and video studios, an audio studio, editing space, conference room and the office of Name, Image and Likeness Coordinator C.D. Davies, all intended to provide on-site resources for student-athletes choosing to pursue sponsorship opportunities and content generation."

https://clemsontigers.com/branding-institute/

It's the new arms race in college athletics.