01-05-2023, 02:12 PM
Cal's best player and former Stanford recruit, Frosh WR J. Michael Sturdivant, hits the portal. Cal fans are divided between it being an issue of not enough NIL money, or just uncertainty with Cal's offense/new OC/QB situation. Might be a bit of everything, but Cal fans act like they are just gonna be picked apart by other programs because they have no big donors to foot the bill. Not all programs are gonna leave themselves so vulnerable, as this suggests: https://frontofficesports.com/tulane-nil-cotton-bowl/
I've wondered ever since this mad dash to Wild West player acquisition evolved if coaching salaries would take a hit because donors would want to put the money into paying players to play for their schools, rather than hiring coaches to recruit and coach. It seems this is a very realistic possibility, if not inevitable.
Saw a post from a Cal donor saying he wants to split his donation between the school and an NIL collective (and the school to tell him the collective it endorses). The rub is if you give 50% to school and 50% to collective to pay players, you lose 50% of your tax deduction. But I'm pretty sure the big money donors who want to win aren't interested in tax deductions anyway.
At the end of the day, recruiting High School players is for chumps if you can just recruit proven college players to build your team. This seems to be the USC MO. As I told a friend after the Cotton Bowl loss, expect them to go out and buy a roster of great defensive players this offseason.
Stanford really is in position to handle transfer poaching better than most programs given the fact the Stanford degree is so coveted and valuable. If Troy Taylor and staff can recruit and develop the players they recruit, Stanford could be in a good competitive situation in the NIL/transfer (unregulated free agency) era of college sports. But it certainly would be a good idea to get a serious NIL collective going nevertheless, as a hedge against departures for cash that can't be turned down.
I mean how much would a 2010 Andrew Luck be worth if he existed 12 years later in this crazy market? Would Stanford be at risk of losing him for I don't know a $1M NIL deal with Texas? Or would he turn that money down for a Stanford education and Stanford Football?
I've wondered ever since this mad dash to Wild West player acquisition evolved if coaching salaries would take a hit because donors would want to put the money into paying players to play for their schools, rather than hiring coaches to recruit and coach. It seems this is a very realistic possibility, if not inevitable.
Saw a post from a Cal donor saying he wants to split his donation between the school and an NIL collective (and the school to tell him the collective it endorses). The rub is if you give 50% to school and 50% to collective to pay players, you lose 50% of your tax deduction. But I'm pretty sure the big money donors who want to win aren't interested in tax deductions anyway.
At the end of the day, recruiting High School players is for chumps if you can just recruit proven college players to build your team. This seems to be the USC MO. As I told a friend after the Cotton Bowl loss, expect them to go out and buy a roster of great defensive players this offseason.
Stanford really is in position to handle transfer poaching better than most programs given the fact the Stanford degree is so coveted and valuable. If Troy Taylor and staff can recruit and develop the players they recruit, Stanford could be in a good competitive situation in the NIL/transfer (unregulated free agency) era of college sports. But it certainly would be a good idea to get a serious NIL collective going nevertheless, as a hedge against departures for cash that can't be turned down.
I mean how much would a 2010 Andrew Luck be worth if he existed 12 years later in this crazy market? Would Stanford be at risk of losing him for I don't know a $1M NIL deal with Texas? Or would he turn that money down for a Stanford education and Stanford Football?