re: Signing Limit Waiver Details & Projected Attrition

quote:

---

So, it does not appear that a player who is paid with NIL money but who does not receive a scholarship counts against the numbers.

---

quote:

---

In our current scenario, teams with unlimited budgets never need to worry about over-recruiting. We could see Bama, A&M, and Texas with, in effect, 120 "scholarship" players every year.

Are my assessments correct or am I missing something?

---

I don’t know that the question is necessarily related to the signing limit waiver itself, but sure - theoretically that’s possible. I’m not convinced that’s what lies ahead, though.

Consider that a rash of 4* players with scholarship offers from other schools going to a powerhouse program without any financial aid is likely to raise a TON of scrutiny from the NCAA. Also consider that these NIL deals have to be reported, so there’s a paper trail of who received money and how much.

Further, walk ons cannot sign a National Letter of Intent (NLI). The NLI is binding, and it’s the only thing that really guarantees a recruit will enroll and show up to fall camp. Despite the new one-time transfer exception, the NLI still has teeth because it’s not directly enforced by the NCAA - it’s (to oversimplify) a contract between schools who use NLI where they agree not to take a player who has signed an NLI elsewhere in the past year.

You can say “but the money will get them to enroll!” but A) we are apparently talking about small-money deals that are roughly equivalent to the scholarship a kid would receive elsewhere and B) kids are flaky/indecisive.

Granted, maybe it doesn’t matter whether the low 4-star recruits bail as long as you filled your scholarship class with better players. But when you consider everything I just don’t think it’s likely. Unless the NCAA completely punts and decides not to enforce any of their restrictions on pay-for-play. It’s a little early to make that statement right now, IMO.