re: LSU may have third largest NIL collective per Brad Crawford of 247

This NIL ranking for us does not equal the spending we have seen so far for football players.

It’s not the collective man. It’s about all these other side deals for all these other companies. Damn.

The estimates vary from site to site, but they all of the seem to have LSU in to 3-10, so there has to be some accuracy in saying LSU has the money to make some big moves.

That wasn’t Meeechigan that was, Portnoy.

This is actual collectives and NIL deals with businesses in place. This doesn't account for millionaires/billionaires a school can call up for extra funds. The state of Texas has 76 Billionaires, Louisiana has 9...let that sink in.

quote:

---

It's the individual billionaires that are taking us out.

---

That's why collectives should disappear. Corporate NIL would still be welcomed along with revenue sharing and direct payments from schools.

quote:

---

doubled their spending potential

---

This is an understatement.

So I saw “per NCAA estimates” in the tweet and started digging to find the source of those numbers. I don’t think the NCAA had anything to do with those estimates.

The estimates come from ncaa-nil.com, which as far as I can tell has no actual connection to the NCAA. The bottom of each page on the site says:

quote:

---

Statistics compiled & edited by Patrick O’Rourke, CPA Washington, DC

---

No idea who this guy is, but I will admit his website provides some pretty detailed analysis of CFB financials/revenue sharing projections.

That being said, these estimates were built up based on a ton of assumptions. One key note on his website:

quote:

---

Accordingly, our estimates are not what specific collectives receive in contributions. Instead, we are providing what we believe to be a reasonable estimate of funding a collective(s) supporting the school might be expected to generate in funding, given the school’s historic level of support from boosters.

---

Basically he looked at the amount of revenue from contributions on each school’s NCAA financial reports. Then he looked at a study that gave an estimated total NIL market for collectives. He assumed that collective funding would be proportionate to booster contributions, which came out to 16% of contributions as the NIL collective estimate.

It’s a good estimate and at least he discloses the methodology, but it’s not based on any real-world analysis of the collectives themselves. It’s just a metric based on annual “contributions.” Brad Crawford probably shouldn’t be framing this as “per NCAA estimates” when that’s pretty clearly not the case.