I don't have the issues with NIL that others do and it just is what it is. Just have to figure out how best to operate in that environment big dog or little dog. I've said before that I think it probably leads to a slight widening of the concentration of talent because theoretically any donors of a school can put up a bunch of money and suddenly get in the mix...see A&M. Roster spots, playing time and starting spots are still limitations that will distribute talent to some degree. IIRC recently read WF has got 3 4 stars in their recruiting class and they usually recruit at the bottom of the ACC.
I kind of think practices in NIL will be tweaked just naturally if not through regulation because no matter how much money you have, you'll want to see a return and right now the return you get for the money you spend on recruits (unknown quantities) and current roster players (more known quantities) is still unknown.
There was a question in Mandel's mailbag and I kind of agree with his take on it.
From his mailbag in the Athletic:
I know this is an unpopular sentiment, but as of today I see NIL leading to more, not fewer, programs competing at a high level. Texas A&M, which has not won a national title in 83 years, signed the No. 1 class last year. The No. 1 player signed with Jackson State. The top running back in the country for 2023, Rueben Owens, just committed to
Louisville, and the No. 4 player in the country, five-star Nico Iamaleava, is heading to 20-year underachiever Tennessee. Four-star QBs have committed to or are expected to commit to
South Carolina (Dylan Lonergan), Louisville (Pierce Clarkson),
Purdue (Rickie Collins), and Kansas State (Avery Johnson).
I’m not suggesting all of them got sweet NIL deals, but it’s also probably not a coincidence that a five-star Texas running back chose an ACC program with little recent momentum, or that a QB from California is relocating to the other side of the country to play for an SEC team that’s not Alabama or Georgia.
Time will tell whether the barely disguised pay-for-play market will remain sustainable. But if it does, theoretically any school in the country is one free-spending donor like Miami’s John Ruiz away from being able to land elite prospects. Nick Saban is still going to get his regardless. Alabama will still finish at or near No. 1 in the recruiting rankings this year, with or without a
collective. But the mass consolidation we’ve seen in recent years — in 2022, half of the Top 100 recruits signed with Alabama, Georgia, Ohio State or Texas A&M — could undo itself just a bit and help disperse talent.
Now as I’m saying all this, using NIL to entice recruits/transfers is still very much against the rules, and as this week’s Rashada saga demonstrates, the donor/collective arms race is an absolute hot mess. I’ve said it before, but it would truly benefit all parties to remove once and for all the notion that money in recruiting is taboo and let the schools themselves buy their athletes’ NIL rights.
Obviously, some schools will be able to raise more funds than others (as is the case already), but they’re all bound by the 85-scholarship limit. Recruiting would involve an aspect of managing cap space. Say Alabama has $13 million to spend on its roster, and
Mississippi State only has $5 million. But Alabama blows $3 million on a five-star QB who transfers after one season and another $2 million on a pair of five-star defensive ends who don’t pan out. Meanwhile, Mississippi State spends $1 million on a four-star QB who turns out to be the best in his class, then gets five overlooked three-stars at $150,000 apiece who blow up and become high-round
NFL picks. I’d argue Mississippi State has a better chance of competing with Ohio State in that model than in the present one.
