re: For those of you who think NIL is good for college sports.

25k a yr to tuition, 15k to room and board, 8-12k on high end food their supplied for free if they go to the chef prepared meals, unlimited access to world class atheltic facilities and football ops building, all the free clothes they could ever need. And they were getting 3-5k / month cash stipend for spending money.... before NIL. How on earth is that not seeing a fraction. The athletic department revenue pays for all of the above to be possible, it's a weird gripe when the school is the vessel allowing them to become what they aspire to be. Both sides were huge benefactors of one another, as it should be.

Nil made it a things for kids to have agents at 18, and now younger in high school potentially, leverage your team and school for $ every season, quality lessons to teach a young kid. If pro leagues don't work out, I'm sure that kid will have a great future with the foundation of me mentality, and $ is all that matters approach.

quote:

---

For those of you who think NIL is good for college sports.

Only the elite's will be able to legitimately compete for the best players.

---

Define NIL.

I know what the initials NIL stand for. I understand that it is designed to compensate players for the use of their name, image, and likeness. But for many schools, teams, boosters, coaches, billboard counselors etc., NIL is not NIL. It's compensation to sign and play.

Is player compensation good for college sports? I think all sports benefit from relative parity and competition within the sport. But other than perhaps salary caps based on some revenue sharing guidelines to protect the schools and players, I don't care about whether player compensation is good for college sports.

I believe in free market economies.

Amateurism in Power 5 football is a myth and has been for decades. Schools and entities that profit from college football have received billions of dollars in windfalls due to the legacy of amateurism. Schools have merely had to provide tuition, room, board, perks, etc. typically at or around marginal cost.

How much would players receive in compensation above and beyond tuition, room, board, perks, etc. if there were no regulations preventing them from receiving that compensation?

College football generates more than $4 billion in annual revenue for the 65 universities making up the Power 5. Most of the major professional sports share revenue between teams and players. Typically it's right around 50%-50%.

How many Power 5 schools are paying their players an aggregate of $30 million? ($2 billion / 65)

As a firm believer in free markets, I believe the players should receive what the market would bear if there were no regulations preventing them from receiving that compensation.

Why should government and quasi-government regulations prohibit players from earning market compensation?

quote:

---

“For really good players out of high school,” he says, “you’re talking $100,000 a year.”

– Ross Dellenger, Sports Illustrated

---

So if a team pays all 85 players $100,000, the total player payroll would be $8.5 million. Seems like it might be too low.

How many professional sports have coaches who are paid multiples of the highest paid player?

quote:

---

no one thinks nil is good for college sports

---

But wait Mascona said we live in a free market society and NIL is a great idea…

The basic intent of NIL is a good thing and the players deserve some compensation due to the fact that they are the product. Autograph signings, commercials, social media promotion, jersey sales are all things they should profit from. However, what NIL has turned into is a joke and is in no way sustainable.

Nobody said it was good for sports just that it is fair and constitutional. Not everything that is right is good

Putting into players hands!

A good thing

Balancing and fairness across FBS, also a good thing

What happens when this top player gets this money, but doesn't perform as expected. Does the school say hey,no more money because you are not coming thru asexpected. And we know all top players do not pan out all the time. Some will slack up after getting the money. This a crazy idea.

quote:

---

NIL is just putting some of that money into the players hands. None of it comes directly from the AD’s budget.

---

These two sentences are a direct contradiction fwiw.

quote:

---

LSU has a top 10 athletic department budget/revenue but our boosters and NIL deals from local businesses won't be able to compete with the likes of Texas, Texas A&M, Ohio State etc whether people want to admit that or not.

---

I know OP failed to link the article but this was written also in same article.

quote:

---

From 1998 to 2020, six teams won 74% of the national championships: Alabama (6), LSU (3), Clemson (2), Florida State (2), Florida (2) and Ohio State (2). Five of the six are not only inside the top 12 nationally in 2019 athletic budgets but also have reeled in the best talent in the nation over the last decade. In a study from MaxPreps, seven college football programs have signed 55% of the five-star prospects from ’11 to ’21. They include LSU, Alabama, Clemson, Florida State and Ohio State, as well as USC and Georgia, the ’21 national champion.

“NIL may spread out talent ever so slightly on the margin, but overall, the rich are neither going to get richer or poorer; they are just going to use their riches differently to remain as rich as ever,” Schwarz says.

---

SI Article - Ross Dellenger

Don't sell USC short. getting to live in a southern california mansion is quite persuasive