NCAA to Allow Players to be Compensated for their Names, Likenesses, and Images

[Machinator 32,097]

 

[Machinator 32,097]

 

[Machinator 32,097]

 

[Machinator 32,097]

 

[Machinator 32,097]

 

[Machinator 32,097]

 

[Machinator 32,097]

[Machinator 32,097]

 

[Machinator 32,097]

[Bevo 13,524]

Do y'all think that the NIL will have any effect on recruiting? It seems like cheaters will still cheat but the NCAA won't be able to enforce any of it.

[Machinator 32,097]

[Machinator 32,097]

 

[Machinator 32,097]

 

[Machinator 32,097]

 

[Machinator 32,097]

 

[Machinator 32,097]

 

[Machinator 32,097]

 

[Burt Macklin 18,994]

If they add required post-grad medical or anything regarding pay directly from the schools, it would kill college sports as we know it. They should just focus on NIL, but politicians can’t ever help themselves. 
 

2 minutes ago, Bevo said:

Do y'all think that the NIL will have any effect on recruiting? It seems like cheaters will still cheat but the NCAA won't be able to enforce any of it.

There’s no doubt it will affect recruiting significantly. I don’t think cheating will go away and some recruits will likely still be up for auction, but I think it will significantly weaken the ability to ourtright buy recruits moving forward, which would be a great thing for UT. 

[Machinator 32,097]

 

[TwiceHorn 31,262]

Sort of a rhetorical side question.

Is federal NIL legislation really appropriate?

I can see an interest in and value to national standards and one standard for everyone to comply with.

But does that alone merit a federal law?  Or is this federal politicians inserting themselves into what is or should be a fundamentally state issue for self-aggrandizing purposes.

[Machinator 32,097]

 

[Machinator 32,097]

 

[Machinator 32,097]

 

[Machinator 32,097]

 

[Machinator 32,097]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

But does that alone merit a federal law?  Or is this federal politicians inserting themselves into what is or should be a fundamentally state issue for self-aggrandizing purposes.

Well, it's not just politicians taking it upon themselves to get involved. Now we have coaches begging the federal lawmakers to intervene (see Mark Few's comments above).

[Machinator 32,097]

 

[Machinator 32,097]

 

[Machinator 32,097]

 

[Machinator 32,097]

 

[Machinator 32,097]

 

[Machinator 32,097]

 

[Machinator 32,097]

 

[Machinator 32,097]

 

[Machinator 32,097]

 

[Machinator 32,097]

 

[Bevo 13,524]

2 minutes ago, Burt Macklin said:

There’s no doubt it will affect recruiting significantly. I don’t think cheating will go away and some recruits will likely still be up for auction, but I think it will significantly weaken the ability to ourtright buy recruits moving forward, which would be a great thing for UT. 

How do you see recruiting going down in the future? Alabama will still be offering $80K for Waddle's signature. Maybe they give it to him beforehand or maybe they tie it into a NIL package. But, explain to me how it weakens the ability of schools to outright buy recruits moving forward. I can see how it dilutes the recruiting game and moves it towards things like shoe contracts, but I see money as the deciding factor of why a recruit chooses one school over another. And once the NIL kicks in, JUCOs and transfers will be in an open market bid process where the biggest markets win out. Why would someone play in Ames or Manhattan or Buffalo when they can make much more money in New York, Atlanta or Chicago? Yeah, Austin/UT would do well in such a system but it seems like it would not fix any of the inherent problems with the current system.

[Machinator 32,097]

 

[Machinator 32,097]

 

[Machinator 32,097]

 

[Machinator 32,097]

 

[Machinator 32,097]

 

[Machinator 32,097]

 

[Machinator 32,097]

 

[Machinator 32,097]

 

[Machinator 32,097]

 

[Machinator 32,097]

 

[Zeus 5,947]

I'm sure the government isn't going to fuck this up worse than the totally incompetent NCAA

[Burt Macklin 18,994]

48 minutes ago, Bevo said:

Alabama will still be offering $80K for Waddle's signature. Maybe they give it to him beforehand or maybe they tie it into a NIL package. But, explain to me how it weakens the ability of schools to outright buy recruits moving forward.

Because right now schools buy recruits by violating the law with money they launder from boosters. NIL massively broadens the pool of money that can be used to compensate players and allows for legal avenues from legitimate sources that aren’t currently available. Broadening the pool of money and increasing the sources absolutely lessens the impact of the limited black market that currently exists. 
That will absolutely lessen the effect offering a guy cash under the table upfront has on a lot of recruits. On top of that, schools will have actual reportable data to show recruits the kind of money they could make through NIL. 

52 minutes ago, Bevo said:

I can see how it dilutes the recruiting game and moves it towards things like shoe contracts, but I see money as the deciding factor of why a recruit chooses one school over another. And once the NIL kicks in, JUCOs and transfers will be in an open market bid process where the biggest markets win out. Why would someone play in Ames or Manhattan or Buffalo when they can make much more money in New York, Atlanta or Chicago? Yeah, Austin/UT would do well in such a system but it seems like it would not fix any of the inherent problems with the current system.

I’m not sure how this relates to your original question about buying recruits illegally, but no one is doubting that schools who can benefit the most from NIL will be further strengthened by it becoming legal. Everyone’s known that the NIL will make the rich, richer. 
 

And one of the current problems is the NCAA has created a black market where schools and boosters launder  money and use shady handlers to make things happen. Having players be able to receive money legally and above board will absolutely fix one of the current problems. It also fixed the other huge problem of athletes unfairly being restricted from making money for no good reason. That’s a massive problem and injustice that will be fixed. 

It won’t necessarily create more parity across all colleges, which you seem to be trying to get at it in your post, but no one has ever said it would. 

[Bevo 13,524]

15 minutes ago, Burt Macklin said:

It won’t necessarily create more parity across all colleges, which you seem to be trying to get at it in your post, but no one has ever said it would. 

Thanks. I'm not sure that I had a point but mainly just wanted to get your opinion on how you thought it would change the recruiting landscape.

I do think that the lack of parity is the main issue that is created when players get paid either legally or illegally. Personally, long-term I think it will lead to semi-pro teams either sponsored through universities or as part of the major professional leagues. It will absolutely kill schools like Gonzaga and Kansas St. and Baylor and Texas Tech to where only the major 30 or so universities can compete. The rest of the country I already believe is sick of seeing the same schools in the college playoffs. This pretty much just continues the trend to where most of the country tunes out. Who in the Bay area wants to watch tOSU play Alabama in the playoffs every year? What gives them hope that Stanford or Cal will make the NC playoffs? Unless they are students, they will focus their attention on the NFL and spend Saturdays in the open air.

 

[Machinator 32,097]