This is how it's intended to work, and I'd be in favor of a system that allows players to profit off their own NIL, however impossible it is in real life to regulate. This is absolutely not what is happening currently. Players are being paid to sign a NLI and to stay.
"After further review," I think your argument is not really with NIL, but rather with the collective's decision to pay everyone. In the case of Bobby Benchwarmer, I think what you're really saying is that his NIL isn't worth anything, and so the collective shouldn't be paying him. I don't know whether that is true or not, but I just thought it might be useful to clarify what you are saying.
You're absolutely right. NIL should not be a recruitment tool. The NCAA's rules say this, but they are not enforcing their own rules.
Long post ahead.
theathletic.com
I was trying to use "arguing" in the lawyer's sense ("He argued before the U.S. Supreme Court") rather than in the sense of "I'm upset so I'm going to argue with you." I think that I am correct in thinking that you're less upset with the NIL concept than with how the collective is spreading around the NIL money it has raised, and I understand your concern. I don't know what the right answer is. It might be that the collective thinks everyone has to get something or they will be upset, but I don't know if that's what they are thinking or whether that's a good approach or not. I understand the desirability of focusing on the top players.Long post ahead.
You say that I am arguing. I'm not arguing, and I don't want to argue. I'm merely stating my opinion on the matter, and my opinion is worth what anyone pays for it- nothing. But we do currently give a decent amount to R Fund, and we are under a commitment for a couple/few more years. I'm sounding out what we may do when our R Fund obligation is done in terms of giving to one of the collectives. Right now we are tapped out.
As NIL is a brave new world, and the foundation for NIL is far from set, we can anticipate that the current state of NIL will likely change over time.
But back to my opinion, which is subject to change as the state of NIL changes and more facts become available, I believe there should be a NIL hierarchy in which "star" players who have proven themselves on the college field may command higher NIL dollars than players who sit on the bench and never see game action. As I noted above, all scholarship players are getting free tuition, room, board and a lot of other perks (nutrition info access to an outstanding fitness facility and a team of doctors, trainers, etc. ). There is value in this. Mind you, this is viewed as nothing in the NIL world because this is what all scholarship players have received for years.
The star players will be in high demand, and supply and demand will dictate their market worth. We have already seen exposed with Cam Spencer, who is testing the market after spending one year at Rutgers and proving himself on a bigger stage. He may command up to $200-250,000 next year at another school. Another player, however, Dean Reiber, was rumored to have received $70K on the open market.
Currently then, in my mind, Bobby Benchwarmer should get nothing being the free tuition, room and board and the perks noted above. Perhaps he may have value as a practice or a scout player, and that brings value to the team. May he deserves a little extra. But if pool of NIL money is limited, how do the collectives spread that money around for 85 (or more) players and keep the Sam Browns and other stars without losing them to higher bidders?
Finally, found this interesting NIL tidbit:
Hearsay, but kind of surprising if true, from a writeup on B1G Football titled "Big Ten Recruiting Confidential: NIL, hardest-working coaches, impressive assistants" Behind a paywall, but this is all that is there. This is from a high school head football coach in Pennsylvania. :.
"Rutgers supposedly has a lot of NIL money, a ton. …"
Who are the hardest-working coaches? Who is active in NIL? Big Ten Recruiting Confidential
If you had a son, which Big Ten head coach would you want him to play for? What is your biggest gripe with the way the league recruits?
I can't disagree -- I have had two problems with the government this week just as an ordinary citizen. But I'm not sure there's a better solution. The only option I see is to give the NCAA an antitrust exemption and let them do what they want, but I think you'd agree they wouldn't do a good job either.
It's not upsetting to me. I believe in free market capitalism, and I think that if a player is bringing value to a team/university, that player should be compensated for their name/image/likeness. As one example, a Heisman trophy winner--he should certainly be compensated, as he increased the market value of a team and a university in terms of media rights, increased applications to the university and sales of licensed university items (mostly clothing).
The government already got involved. The NCAA had rules. The government invalidated them.
Yeah Big 10 and SEC, where schools and coaches make millions don’t give the players sh_t. Don’t think that would work
It would not solve anything, even if they get paid by the school, they could still get the same NIL deals that they currently do.
