Miami NIL article in the WSJ

[RobertG]

Behind a paywall but here it is:

On the men’s team, Nijel Pack is an $800,000 player. Shortly after he transferred from Kansas State, he signed a two-year endorsement deal with Ruiz’s healthcare company, LifeWallet, that pays him $400,000 annually. He has been Miami’s go-to 3-point shooter this postseason. His teammate Isaiah Wong, the Hurricanes’ lead scorer in 2022-23, is also making six figures. Upon learning of Pack’s exorbitant deal, Wong’s agent laid down an ultimatum to Ruiz: pay up or watch his client transfer. Wong later said his agent had spoken out of turn and that he did not plan to leave Coral Gables.

Wong stuck around and was named Atlantic Coast Conference athlete of the year. There don’t appear to be any hard feelings: Ruiz was on hand in Albany, N.Y., for the Miami men’s first two games of the tournament.

Miami Boosters Splashed the Cash—and the Hurricanes Have Two Teams in the Elite Eight

The Hurricanes high profile men’s and women’s basketball transfers who signed lucrative endorsements in the offseason are now key contributors in March.

www.wsj.com

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

NCAA really screwed this up

 

[fatsam98]

Not working quite as well with football for them

 

[MiloTalon13]

If you could put a price tag on the exposure Life Wallet got from that deal, I wonder what if they made money on it or if it was mostly a donation to Miami sports. I don't think the LW guy cares, just interesting because it was/is such a big story.

 

[Fat Koko]

Nice article in WSJ. I subscribe and read the article and the subscriber comments.

What are Governor Phil and Rutgers bosses doing to compete with Florida, specifically on NIL.

According to WSJ, "Gov. Ron DeSantis, readying for a run at the Republican presidential nomination, recently signed another state law that removes restrictions on compensation college athletes can earn from the use of their name image and likeness-and allows university officials to participate in endorsement negotiations."

NJ's NIL law, bill S971, passed with bipartisan support yet doesn't kick in until 2025 based on my reading of the bill.

Perhaps Phil can work with NCAA's new boss Charlie Baker. These Harvard classmates graduated together in 1979 and could work together to bring order to NIL. Then Phil - whose support for. Rutgers sports had received complements from boosters - could help Charlie shape the NIL environment in a way that helps Rutgers. At the same time, Phil would gain positive exposure on the national stage.

​

 

[LotusAggressor]

NCAA really screwed this up

Well, the NCAA has a new President who's going to try solving all of the NIL problems by lobbying/bribing Congress instead of actually coming up with real solutions.

 

[koleszar]

Well, the NCAA has a new President who's going to try solving all of the NIL problems by lobbying/bribing Congress instead of actually coming up with real solutions.

The only thing that can change it at this point is an act of Congress. The Supreme Courts decision sent the message if you try and limit a players earning ability in anyway you are subject to litigation. They gave free reign to boosters like Ruiz to buy anyone they want in any manner they want.

 

[MiloTalon13]

The only thing that can change it at this point is an act of Congress. The Supreme Courts decision sent the message if you try and limit a players earning ability in anyway you are subject to litigation. They gave free reign to boosters like Ruiz to buy anyone they want in any manner they want.

Now the transfer portal that's a different animal. To stop this just go back to the old transfer portal rules. You want to transfer fine, but you have to sit out one year and lose a year of eligibility. There's too much poaching and tampering going on this will put an end to some of that.

Alston was a narrow ruling but if you take the anti-trust principles used to decide that case and sue the NCAA to STOP them from making transfers sit out a year again, I think it's an easy win.

 

[koleszar]

Alston was a narrow ruling but if you take the anti-trust principles used to decide that case and sue the NCAA to STOP them from making transfers sit out a year again, I think it's an easy win.

So Congress or bust.

 

[MiloTalon13]

So Congress or bust.

Yes, I'm not a lawyer, but I can read and it seems like the last thing the NCAA should want to do is go back to court. If they want to go back to indentured servitude for athletes, they need Congress to grant them an anti-trust exemption.

Kidding on the indentured servitude part, I think NIL is a horrible way to go, but I do think athletes should be compensated at an amount comparable to what they'd get if they were employees bringing in revenue like they do.

 

[RUsojo]

Not working quite as well with football for them

Great example of how much easier it is to build a basketball program

 

[MADHAT1]

It's simple, leave expecting polititions to fix this NIL mess out of the picture and demand the NCAA clean up the monster they created by trying to fight it , then ignoring the results after they lost their case.

Asking schools and Governors of States to be part of competing in the NIL war is great, but it's the boosters that pay the freight and if they don't do thir part would those demanding polititions and the school do something be willing to add a NIL tax to their state income tax and pay a NIL seat premium when buying thickets to the games

 

[NickRU714]

Yes, I'm not a lawyer, but I can read and it seems like the last thing the NCAA should want to do is go back to court. If they want to go back to indentured servitude for athletes, they need Congress to grant them an anti-trust exemption.

Kidding on the indentured servitude part, I think NIL is a horrible way to go, but I do think athletes should be compensated at an amount comparable to what they'd get if they were employees bringing in revenue like they do.

Someone said something in a Clif/NIL thread that made me think.
They are similar situations.

Clif can't receive NIL because he's on a student visa.
Someone said "Just change the dumb law and let them earn money and pay taxes".
It's kind of similar to the pre-NIL situation.
Athletes were banned from receiving any compensation because they were on scholarship.

Now, are boosters of colleges going to start paying foreign students to attend their alma mater? Probably not. But maybe so?

 

[retired711]

Yes, I'm not a lawyer, but I can read and it seems like the last thing the NCAA should want to do is go back to court. If they want to go back to indentured servitude for athletes, they need Congress to grant them an anti-trust exemption.

Kidding on the indentured servitude part, I think NIL is a horrible way to go, but I do think athletes should be compensated at an amount comparable to what they'd get if they were employees bringing in revenue like they do.

Another part of the problem is that each state has a different law regulating NIL. We need a level playing field. So far there seems to be no consideration in Congress of simply handing the NCAA an anti-trust exemption. Instead Congress wants to make its own NIL law just as every state has, and for that NIL law to displace ("pre-empt" to use the legal term) state law. The problem is that Congress can't agree on what should be in that NIL law, e.g, should it include health insurance for present and former college athletes. I thought maybe there would be a deal in December at the end of the last Congress, but it didn't happen.

The NCAA could try to actually enforce its NIL rules that forbid the use of NIL as a quid pro quo and I think it would have a good chance of being allowed by the courts to do so. The kind of restraints that the NCAA wants would be judged by a rule of reason, and rules against quid pro quo arrangements might pass that test. But I can't blame the NCAA for not wanting to find itself in court again.

Another part of the problem is that the rules struck down by the Supreme Court were restrictions on the educational benefits that institutions could offer. It was easy to strike down rules like that as unreasonable. So we don't know what would pass muster. Justice Kavanaugh said in his concurring opinion that virtually no restrictions on athletes were OK, but that is just his view.

 

[retired711]

Someone said something in a Clif/NIL thread that made me think.
They are similar situations.

Clif can't receive NIL because he's on a student visa.
Someone said "Just change the dumb law and let them earn money and pay taxes".
It's kind of similar to the pre-NIL situation.
Athletes were banned from receiving any compensation because they were on scholarship.

Now, are boosters of colleges going to start paying foreign students to attend their alma mater? Probably not. But maybe so?

I very much doubt that Congress would allow holders of student visas to earn money here because of the threat that could pose to American job-seekers. But maybe I'm not understanding your point.

 

[NickRU714]

I very much doubt that Congress would allow holders of student visas to earn money here because of the threat that could pose to American job-seekers. But maybe I'm not understanding your point.

I didn't really have a point. Hahaha

Just thought they were similar situations.
Someone else suggested allowing student-visa holders to earn.
Then Clif could receive NIL (and be more likely to stay).

 

[Fat Koko]

Perhaps the NIL end game is universities with top football and basketball teams link up with NFL and NBA clubs. The NFL creates a development farm system and the NBA adds a junior G League.

Think about it. The Jets affiliate with Rutgers and another university from a market without an NFL team, say the University of Arkansas. The Giants team up with Syracuse and the University of Oklahoma. The Patriots link up with Boston College, Oklahoma State, and maybe UMass, and UConn. Each NFL team could draft a handful of high school football studs into the universities, pay them NIL $$$, and retain rights to these players when they declare a desire to pursue the NFL. Universities would take the lead rounding out their rosters with players the NFL did not prioritize for development.

College sports would be flush with cash from TV deals, helping to support non-revenue sports, while NIL boosters and the professional teams would fund payments to high-potential players.

Mel Kiper and Pat Hobbs would have less influence. The SEC and B1G administrators would lose power. Who cares? The fans and athletes would benefit.

This model has proven to work elsewhere. University College Dublin and Trinity College Dublin develop players for Leinster, the professional rugby team representing Dublin and its suburbs. This season, Leinster is 15-0 in one of the top three professional rugby leagues in the world. And that follows Leinster winning or finishing runner-up in the 40-team European club championship during most of the past 15 years.

People might laugh at this idea. Let's face it, the amateur model started by Rutgers and Princeton 1869 is in the early stages of being upended, and the new system, once it matures, will persist for decades.

Witness rugby. The sport remained amateur for 150 years, from the writing of the first rules in 1845 until 1995 when rugby's leaders admitted amateurism had become shamateurism and the game went professional. The result was a less competitive sport as the rich got richer and the poor were left behind.

 

[retired711]

Perhaps the NIL end game is universities with top football and basketball teams link up with NFL and NBA clubs. The NFL creates a development farm system and the NBA adds a junior G League.

Think about it. The Jets affiliate with Rutgers and another university from a market without an NFL team, say the University of Arkansas. The Giants team up with Syracuse and the University of Oklahoma. The Patriots link up with Boston College, Oklahoma State, and maybe UMass, and UConn. Each NFL team could draft a handful of high school football studs into the universities, pay them NIL $$$, and retain rights to these players when they declare a desire to pursue the NFL. Universities would take the lead rounding out their rosters with players the NFL did not prioritize for development.

College sports would be flush with cash from TV deals, helping to support non-revenue sports, while NIL boosters and the professional teams would fund payments to high-potential players.

Mel Kiper and Pat Hobbs would have less influence. The SEC and B1G administrators would lose power. Who cares? The fans and athletes would benefit.

This model has proven to work elsewhere. University College Dublin and Trinity College Dublin develop players for Leinster, the professional rugby team representing Dublin and its suburbs. This season, Leinster is 15-0 in one of the top three professional rugby leagues in the world. And that follows Leinster winning or finishing runner-up in the 40-team European club championship during most of the past 15 years.

People might laugh at this idea. Let's face it, the amateur model started by Rutgers and Princeton 1869 is in the early stages of being upended, and the new system, once it matures, will persist for decades.

Witness rugby. The sport remained amateur for 150 years, from the writing of the first rules in 1845 until 1995 when rugby's leaders admitted amateurism had become shamateurism and the game went professional. The result was a less competitive sport as the rich got richer and the poor were left behind.

Notre Dame's president and AD have just proposed the exact opposite approach: that rules like one-and-done be abolished so that kids could sign with professional teams right out of high school and be assigned to farm teams, just as in baseball. College teams would consist of kids who actually want to go to college and not include those who are attending simply to meet the requirements for being drafted.

 

[Fat Koko]

Notre Dame's proposal is an elegant solution from credible institution. I hadn't read yesterday's New York Times op-ed. Thanks you for posting it.

The NBA's rule makes no sense in a time when the G League has proven itself as a legitimate development system for NBA teams.

The NFL situation is more complicated because the nature of the sport means players right out of high school are not physically ready for the NFL game.

Perhaps the NFL could establish a G League that would allow recent high school graduates along with younger players (say <23 years old) from the practice squad and younger back-ups competitive game experience. An NFL team could have 4 quarterbacks - a starter, the back-up, a third stringer available to the NFL team in emergencies, and a youngster. The third stringer and youngster could get the benefit of playing time at the NFL G League level.

In addition to the New York Times op-ed, Notre Dame did an interview with Sports Illustrated.

https://www.si.com/college/2023/03/23/notre-dame-ad-jack-swarbrick-calls-stronger-nil-ncaa-collapse

 

[retired711]

Notre Dame's proposal is an elegant solution from credible institution. I hadn't read yesterday's New York Times op-ed. Thanks you for posting it.

The NBA's rule makes no sense in a time when the G League has proven itself as a legitimate development system for NBA teams.

The NFL situation is more complicated because the nature of the sport means players right out of high school are not physically ready for the NFL game.

Perhaps the NFL could establish a G League that would allow recent high school graduates along with younger players (say <23 years old) from the practice squad and younger back-ups competitive game experience. An NFL team could have 4 quarterbacks - a starter, the back-up, a third stringer available to the NFL team in emergencies, and a youngster. The third stringer and youngster could get the benefit of playing time at the NFL G League level.

In addition to the New York Times op-ed, Notre Dame did an interview with Sports Illustrated.

https://www.si.com/college/2023/03/23/notre-dame-ad-jack-swarbrick-calls-stronger-nil-ncaa-collapse

The risk is that college basketball and football would come to resemble college baseball, where many of the best players are signed out of high school by major league teams and the best college players are those who either can't signed out of high school or think that four years of playing in college will make them more desirable. Not having the best players makes the sport less interesting to spectators.

BTW, it's chancy for a player to go to college to try to boost his draft position. A major league team might be willing to sign an 18-year old pitcher in the hope his physique will develop.. In the case of a 22-year old, the team might conclude that his track record shows he's not ready and isn't going to get better. It doesn't help that, in the view of some, college coaches overuse their best pitchers.

 

[Fat Koko]

I agree 100% with your first paragraph.

On the second paragraph, baseball draft picks have gone from 1/2 high school, 1/2 college in the 1990s to 3/4 college more recently. Moneyball probably influenced the start of this shift, and post-Moneyball draftees outperform pre-Moneyball draftees in the pros. In other words, leaning toward college draftees is the better way to go.

 

[The RUT]

Well, the NCAA has a new President who's going to try solving all of the NIL problems by lobbying/bribing Congress instead of actually coming up with real solutions.

NCAA can’t fix the problem without killing the NCAA.

This issue gets resolved when the students become official employees of the conference/schools.

Then they can sign non-competes which will allow the B1G to limit back door deals.

Salary cap gets introduced.

NCAA gets killed. B1G and SEC run college athletics.

 

[DJ Spanky]

NCAA really screwed this up

Yup.

 

[koleszar]

The risk is that college basketball and football would come to resemble college baseball, where many of the best players are signed out of high school by major league teams and the best college players are those who either can't signed out of high school or think that four years of playing in college will make them more desirable. Not having the best players makes the sport less interesting to spectators.

Do you really watch for the name on the back of the Jersey or the Front? Me it's what's on the front. Sure I have players I like and follow later in their careers, but they all have one thing in common "RUTGERS". This is what most college football fans follow their favorite school.

 

[bitnez]

Notre Dame’s proposal is self-serving (no surprise). With the explosion of NIL money that normally went to these schools now being funneled to players, schools are probably seeing their donations drop. At the same time, it will create an arms race and eventually lead to professional salaries. And teams like ND that refuse to really join a conference won’t be able to keep up.

 

[retired711]

Do you really watch for the name on the back of the Jersey or the Front? Me it's what's on the front. Sure I have players I like and follow later in their careers, but they all have one thing in common "RUTGERS". This is what most college football fans follow their favorite school.

I agree . . but doesn't the quality of play affect your level of interest in a sports league?

 

[koleszar]

I agree . . but doesn't the quality of play affect your level of interest in a sports league?

You're talking to a guy who watched the USFL and became a fan of the New Jersey Generals for a second time. If I worried about quality of play, I would only watch the NFL and not college. The quality of college play is a joke compared to the NFL. The worst NFL team would crush the best college team.

 

[retired711]

You're talking to a guy who watched the USFL and became a fan of the New Jersey Generals for a second time. If I worried about quality of play, I would only watch the NFL and not college. The quality of college play is a joke compared to the NFL. The worst NFL team would crush the best college team.

You are of course right that pro players are better than college players in football and basketball. But pro football and college football are different in the way the game is played, and the same is true in basketball. People on this board prefer the college style in both cases. I frequently read here posts from fervent basketball fans who can't stand the NBA. But I don't know if that logic applies to baseball. Is college baseball really that different in style from the majors? And are the differences likely to attract fans to college baseball?

 

[retired711]

I agree 100% with your first paragraph.

On the second paragraph, baseball draft picks have gone from 1/2 high school, 1/2 college in the 1990s to 3/4 college more recently. Moneyball probably influenced the start of this shift, and post-Moneyball draftees outperform pre-Moneyball draftees in the pros. In other words, leaning toward college draftees is the better way to go.

It was probably mostly moneyball, but another factor is the decline of the minors for economic reasons and because of expansion. There was a time when there were six levels of minor league play and three AAA leagues. That's a thing of the past.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

Not working quite as well with football for them

It will. Unlike basketball, you can't build a football team with one freshman. These teams with bagmen will all be powerhouses again in football within three years.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

NCAA can’t fix the problem without killing the NCAA.

Ding. Ding. Ding.

There are two ways to solve the problem ...

1. Congress provides an exemption to the NCAA and things go back to normal, or
2. The Big 10 and SEC simultaneously ban NIL in their conferences (without colluding) and things go back to normal

Anything less and you have a Professional College Sports League (of approximately 40 schools) within 15-20 years and every other school in the country starts dropping scholarships (and entire athletics departments) because they have no hope of competing.

 

[retired711]

Ding. Ding. Ding.

There are two ways to solve the problem ...

1. Congress provides an exemption to the NCAA and things go back to normal, or
2. The Big 10 and SEC simultaneously ban NIL in their conferences (without colluding) and things go back to normal

Anything less and you have a Professional College Sports League (of approximately 40 schools) within 15-20 years and every other school in the country starts dropping scholarships (and entire athletics departments) because they have no hope of competing.

Alternative #2 doesn't work. If the teams in a conference arrive at a rule, that is an agreement in restraint of trade just as much as if the NCAA imposed the rule. Alternative #1 is unlikely to happen: Congress is not going to give the NCAA the power to ban NIL. Recall that states began permitting NIL even before the Supreme Court decision. That shows the political dynamic is in favor of NIL. The only thing that can happen is for Congress to impose rules to keep NIL from being a recruitment inducement.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

Alternative #2 doesn't work. If the teams in a conference arrive at a rule, that is an agreement in restraint of trade just as much as if the NCAA imposed the rule. Alternative #1 is unlikely to happen: Congress is not going to give the NCAA the power to ban NIL. Recall that states began permitting NIL even before the Supreme Court decision. That shows the political dynamic is in favor of NIL. The only thing that can happen is for Congress to impose rules to keep NIL from being a recruitment inducement.

The Supreme Court explicitly said in their ruling that the individual conferences could ban NIL because they are not monopolies (because the players could always go to a different conference if they wanted).

 

[Nycrusupporter]

Perhaps the NIL end game is universities with top football and basketball teams link up with NFL and NBA clubs. The NFL creates a development farm system and the NBA adds a junior G League.

Think about it. The Jets affiliate with Rutgers and another university from a market without an NFL team, say the University of Arkansas. The Giants team up with Syracuse and the University of Oklahoma. The Patriots link up with Boston College, Oklahoma State, and maybe UMass, and UConn. Each NFL team could draft a handful of high school football studs into the universities, pay them NIL $$$, and retain rights to these players when they declare a desire to pursue the NFL. Universities would take the lead rounding out their rosters with players the NFL did not prioritize for development.

College sports would be flush with cash from TV deals, helping to support non-revenue sports, while NIL boosters and the professional teams would fund payments to high-potential players.

Mel Kiper and Pat Hobbs would have less influence. The SEC and B1G administrators would lose power. Who cares? The fans and athletes would benefit.

This model has proven to work elsewhere. University College Dublin and Trinity College Dublin develop players for Leinster, the professional rugby team representing Dublin and its suburbs. This season, Leinster is 15-0 in one of the top three professional rugby leagues in the world. And that follows Leinster winning or finishing runner-up in the 40-team European club championship during most of the past 15 years.

People might laugh at this idea. Let's face it, the amateur model started by Rutgers and Princeton 1869 is in the early stages of being upended, and the new system, once it matures, will persist for decades.

Witness rugby. The sport remained amateur for 150 years, from the writing of the first rules in 1845 until 1995 when rugby's leaders admitted amateurism had become shamateurism and the game went professional. The result was a less competitive sport as the rich got richer and the poor were left behind.

People will laugh at this idea because NFL teams get all the benefits of this system without any costs. Why would they want to change anything???

 

[retired711]

The Supreme Court explicitly said in their ruling that the individual conferences could ban NIL because they are not monopolies (because the players could always go to a different conference if they wanted).

Yes, the Court said that individual conferences could impose greater restrictions on, say, educational benefits than could the NCAA.. But note that the conferences have not made any attempt to do this. The reason is a practical one: if the Big Ten bans , for instance, NIL, then Big Ten teams will find themselves at a disadvantage as against non Big Ten teams in recruiting athletes. In theory, every conference could on its own adopt the same restrictions. But it would be hard to do that without collusion ---and beside, getting everyone to do the same thing is never an easy task; some conference will want to allow NIL as a way of getting competitive advantage for its teams. Getting unanimous agreement is never an easy task.

 

[DennisHajekRC84]

If you could put a price tag on the exposure Life Wallet got from that deal, I wonder what if they made money on it or if it was mostly a donation to Miami sports. I don't think the LW guy cares, just interesting because it was/is such a big story.

LifeWallet... is there a better name for a NIL Deal out there?

 

[AdventureHasAName]

Yes, the Court said that individual conferences could impose greater restrictions on, say, educational benefits than could the NCAA.. But note that the conferences have not made any attempt to do this. The reason is a practical one: if the Big Ten bans , for instance, NIL, then Big Ten teams will find themselves at a disadvantage as against non Big Ten teams in recruiting athletes. In theory, every conference could on its own adopt the same restrictions. But it would be hard to do that without collusion ---and beside, getting everyone to do the same thing is never an easy task; some conference will want to allow NIL as a way of getting competitive advantage for its teams. Getting unanimous agreement is never an easy task.

That's exactly what I wrote in my original post ... the Big 10 and SEC (the other conferences are irrelevant) would have to ban NIL simultaneously and without collusion (actually, without evidence of collusion). Anything these two conferences do will instantly be followed by every other conference.

 

[NickRU714]

That's exactly what I wrote in my original post ... the Big 10 and SEC (the other conferences are irrelevant) would have to ban NIL simultaneously and without collusion (actually, without evidence of collusion). Anything these two conferences do will instantly be followed by every other conference.

You mean back to the Pre-NIL system of select schools paying players under the table that everyone hated?
The system that resulted in weekly "recruiting scandal" threads?

How is that a solution?

 

[retired711]

That's exactly what I wrote in my original post ... the Big 10 and SEC (the other conferences are irrelevant) would have to ban NIL simultaneously and without collusion (actually, without evidence of collusion). Anything these two conferences do will instantly be followed by every other conference.

I don't think that works --- it re-establishes the monopoly that the NCAA had, and is virtually impossible to do without collusion. Keep in mind also that every individual conference or independent school has an incentive to cheat by offering NIL and thus getting better athletes than everybody else. That makes it hard to ban NIL even assuming it were legally possible to do so.

But the discussion you and I are having is academic. Numerous states have adopted laws allowing NIL. That makes conference bans on NIL legally impossible even without the federal anti-trust laws. The only way out is federal legislation that pre-empts the states -- but that legislation is unlikely to ban NIL because of the same forces that led the states to permit NIL. The genie is out of the bottle.

 

[bac2therac]

Ill be rooting hard against Miami going forward