Jump to content

NIL Recruiting News Megathread


texifornia

Recommended Posts

The Oklahoma governor signed an executive order allowing universities in that state to use their regular fund raising arms (Think Longhorn Foundation, as opposed to Texas One) to pay players. Here is a transcript copy from the Lehaman:Ikard podcast discussing it (they make a lot of assumptions about the future of NIL, collectives, give, etc.)

Quote

“Essentially, what this has done is made it to where our state schools, OU, Oklahoma State, even Tulsa, their foundations where people can contribute to the university and get the tax benefits of that. Those foundations can now fund the NIL collectives.

And it gives our collectives access to a big chunk of money that they haven't been able to have before. And as you read there, they don't have to worry about retaliation from NCAA or conferences or anything. Basically, just clearing the way for universities to fund their NIL.

And it's a game changer.

Now, I guess it's possibly just a short-term fix, because in June, whenever the revenue sharing is supposed to happen, if things play out like, I don't know if I should say, they're supposed to, I guess like people expect, and the judge signs off on that settlement, that collectives are going to be dead at that point. So in the near term...

They're going to be, they're not going to be what they are right now. I don't think they're going to be dead.

Well, I mean...”

“I think they become marketing agencies, is pretty much how it's going to work out, because from what I understand, and let me know if, I'm not going to pretend I understand all of this stuff, because it's confusing. I think fans are confused. I think coaches are confused.

I think players are confused. I think everyone is confused. And I don't think there's anyone that knows exactly how this thing is going to play out.

But I believe the executive order that STIT signed means that OU can pay players in IL money, even though the house settlement isn't finalized.

Correct.

That's what I'm saying.

Like now until June is the window. Currently, that could always change any day.

Nothing would ever change with this. Nothing has ever changed. But the way that I understand it is this executive order allows OU to pay the athletes.”

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, statsman said:

The Oklahoma governor signed an executive order allowing universities in that state to use their regular fund raising arms (Think Longhorn Foundation, as opposed to Texas One) to pay players. Here is a transcript copy from the Lehaman:Ikard podcast discussing it (they make a lot of assumptions about the future of NIL, collectives, give, etc.)

 

So, same as they've always done, then.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SydneyCarton said:

 Nothing changes, as we’ve been saying. 
 

Not a cat also has a salient, non CR point in that the DoE might not be around long enough for any of potential lawsuits to hit the courts. 

this changes quite a bit for everyone, Texas just happens to have infrastructure in place where this is not that big of an issue. Donor fatigue is real, collectives have been folding left and right etc. 

What's good for Texas or a non-issue isn't necessarily the same thing as saying it's something that overall makes the sport healthier. This clearly isn't a violation of Title IX by the spirit or letter of the law and they stretched revenue sharing to be assistance.

It is overall good for everyone if they can charge $5 per ticket for NIL and then just pay the players out of that fund, it's not bad for anyone. It allows for a healthy revenue distribution model that comes from the people that pay for the whole thing anyway, the fans. 

Eventually it becomes impossible to justify 30M a year without a return, the return is obvious for an AD, they have revenues. Donors get nothing but warm and fuzzies for donating, and donating to a collective while it gets you LHF points, doesn't do much else in the way of "returns". This title xi ruling effectively makes it unsustainable for any schools except those with billionaires who have just endowed the NIL fund to succeed. It also makes collective bargaining extremely difficult, because you can just go do whatever you want with 3rd parties. 

There's no way that UT is going to spend 10M on fb and mbb and then another 10M on womens sports NIL, it's a terrible use of funds and effectively makes the 20M settlement completely stupid. There's so much wrong with this ruling it's hard to even get started, but it does ruin a ton of plans for 2025 and it throws an enormous wrench in getting NCAAF into a well regulated state where you don't just have the NY Yankees effect. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SydneyCarton said:

 Nothing changes, as we’ve been saying. 
 

Not a cat also has a salient, non CR point in that the DoE might not be around long enough for any of potential lawsuits to hit the courts. 

I saw Cruz came out with a strong statement against this idiocy. No CR but probably one of the few things I 100% agree with.   This policy by the DOE is a completely unforced error that makes anyone paying attention on this issue assume they are incompetent as it relates to everything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, immamac said:

this changes quite a bit for everyone, Texas just happens to have infrastructure in place where this is not that big of an issue. Donor fatigue is real, collectives have been folding left and right etc. 

What's good for Texas or a non-issue isn't necessarily the same thing as saying it's something that overall makes the sport healthier. This clearly isn't a violation of Title IX by the spirit or letter of the law and they stretched revenue sharing to be assistance.

It is overall good for everyone if they can charge $5 per ticket for NIL and then just pay the players out of that fund, it's not bad for anyone. It allows for a healthy revenue distribution model that comes from the people that pay for the whole thing anyway, the fans. 

Eventually it becomes impossible to justify 30M a year without a return, the return is obvious for an AD, they have revenues. Donors get nothing but warm and fuzzies for donating, and donating to a collective while it gets you LHF points, doesn't do much else in the way of "returns". This title xi ruling effectively makes it unsustainable for any schools except those with billionaires who have just endowed the NIL fund to succeed. It also makes collective bargaining extremely difficult, because you can just go do whatever you want with 3rd parties. 

There's no way that UT is going to spend 10M on fb and mbb and then another 10M on womens sports NIL, it's a terrible use of funds and effectively makes the 20M settlement completely stupid. There's so much wrong with this ruling it's hard to even get started, but it does ruin a ton of plans for 2025 and it throws an enormous wrench in getting NCAAF into a well regulated state where you don't just have the NY Yankees effect. 

I expect a slow (at least for UT) transition where funds raised by ADs end up being raised by NIL collectives instead. The LHF has 30+ years of experience in getting boosters and fans to contribute. I know the LHF and Bellmont do not want to let that money go, but I think competition will force it to. 
 
I think college ADs will have to become leaner and more efficient, now that the labor isn’t free. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Turns out Name, Image and Likeness is actually Name, Image, Likeness and Gender. This ruling is fucking stupid and will assuredly be walked back with the new admin (Will the DOE even exist lol). They want to make a rule about universities doing equal distribution....sure whatever, I can understand the premise with Title IX as it stands. The truly ridiculous part is them saying that third parties have to provide equal NIL as well....dude, lol, fuck no!

Why would a private business have to equally distribute, what equates to advertising dollars, to both genders in sports. "Sorry, you can't make your mustard with Bijan unless you make one for Madisen Skinner too", ya, sure Chief let me get right on that. The toothpaste is so far out of the tube and they have absolutely zero idea how to put it back 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, statsman said:

I expect a slow (at least for UT) transition where funds raised by ADs end up being raised by NIL collectives instead. The LHF has 30+ years of experience in getting boosters and fans to contribute. I know the LHF and Bellmont do not want to let that money go, but I think competition will force it to. 
 
I think college ADs will have to become leaner and more efficient, now that the labor isn’t free. 

The opposite of this is going to happen (and/or has already happened), the fact that you think this is going to happen means you are truly completely disconnected from reality. This is why the ruling is disruptive, even to Texas. There were decisions made regarding how things were going to work based on the university being able to provide the $$ as defined in the original settlement. This horseshit decision that makes no fucking sense whatsoever effectively makes NIL from a university completely ridiculous and more like a baseline salary that can be divvied up like the stipend was. NIL isn't a fucking stipend and it's not assistance, there is a quid pro quo exchange that has nothing to do with "just doing your sport". 

They weren't gonna sign these players to big ass fucking NIL deals and then not have them do a bunch of brand work, that's not how businesses operate and that's not how the AD was planning to operate. The AD can farm out all kinds of Arch Manning the QB of the Longhorns to whatever sponsor or big ass media outlet it wants to in turn drive businesses, sponsorships, real revenue for all it's various streams and/or participants in the brand pool.

This ignores that entirely and treats it like scholarship++. It's completely wrong because it's not PAY FOR PLAY, it's NAME IMAGE AND LIKENESS, if it was pay for play then sure they could claim title IX. 

Instead of just moving on and letting things get to a new normal, this rulling effectively restarts everything - there's no tenable way forward for the NCAA to operate with this level of stupidity and the amount of money it is taking to field competitive D1 high revenue sports teams. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, statsman said:

The Oklahoma governor signed an executive order allowing universities in that state to use their regular fund raising arms (Think Longhorn Foundation, as opposed to Texas One) to pay players. Here is a transcript copy from the Lehaman:Ikard podcast discussing it (they make a lot of assumptions about the future of NIL, collectives, give, etc.)

 

Shockingly, the Oklahoma governor doesn't know or understand this for shit. 

4 hours ago, immamac said:

this changes quite a bit for everyone, Texas just happens to have infrastructure in place where this is not that big of an issue. Donor fatigue is real, collectives have been folding left and right etc. 

What's good for Texas or a non-issue isn't necessarily the same thing as saying it's something that overall makes the sport healthier. This clearly isn't a violation of Title IX by the spirit or letter of the law and they stretched revenue sharing to be assistance.

It is overall good for everyone if they can charge $5 per ticket for NIL and then just pay the players out of that fund, it's not bad for anyone. It allows for a healthy revenue distribution model that comes from the people that pay for the whole thing anyway, the fans. 

Eventually it becomes impossible to justify 30M a year without a return, the return is obvious for an AD, they have revenues. Donors get nothing but warm and fuzzies for donating, and donating to a collective while it gets you LHF points, doesn't do much else in the way of "returns". This title xi ruling effectively makes it unsustainable for any schools except those with billionaires who have just endowed the NIL fund to succeed. It also makes collective bargaining extremely difficult, because you can just go do whatever you want with 3rd parties. 

There's no way that UT is going to spend 10M on fb and mbb and then another 10M on womens sports NIL, it's a terrible use of funds and effectively makes the 20M settlement completely stupid. There's so much wrong with this ruling it's hard to even get started, but it does ruin a ton of plans for 2025 and it throws an enormous wrench in getting NCAAF into a well regulated state where you don't just have the NY Yankees effect. 

I simply meant "This changes nothing For Texas."

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks. 
 
I listened to a clip of OU AD Castiglione explaining that a cap is coming, with enforcement mechanisms. I don’t know- I see some huge obstacles to work through…

1. Are teams from smaller conferences really going to accept smaller allowed revenue share with players?

2. Schools have to allocate the revenue share among athletes. If it is anything other than a “peanut butter even spread” among all sports and sexes, won’t someone be upset?

3. Castiglione says there will be an independent firm reviewing NIL deals for legitimacy, with significant penalty power. How will that work any better than the NCAA enforcing its rules against Auburn (Can Newton) and TAMU (Manziel)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, statsman said:

Thanks. 
 
I listened to a clip of OU AD Castiglione explaining that a cap is coming, with enforcement mechanisms. I don’t know- I see some huge obstacles to work through…

1. Are teams from smaller conferences really going to accept smaller allowed revenue share with players?

2. Schools have to allocate the revenue share among athletes. If it is anything other than a “peanut butter even spread” among all sports and sexes, won’t someone be upset?

3. Castiglione says there will be an independent firm reviewing NIL deals for legitimacy, with significant penalty power. How will that work any better than the NCAA enforcing its rules against Auburn (Can Newton) and TAMU (Manziel)?

Well for one thing you won't have the bullshit deals that we've been seeing where guys do shit that's of no value or not public at all and get paid 300k+. 

You can't go hang out with sick kids 5 times for 60k a pop. That's some horseshit. You also can't go do a 5 minute podcast for 100k. These things all have real market value and they've been using the "hurr durr market is what people are willing to pay". Appearances will be more closely aligned to what people in pros or in the open market as celebrities command. What delloite is going to do is say hey we've never seen a deal for doing X that pays Y. Why does this pay that? And if they can't answer it then that deal gets tossed or if they do it anyway will get reported. 

The amounts aren't the problem, the quid pro quo for what they were doing for the amount is the problem. Burnt Ends is an aggressive, but fair market rate for what we get from these players and it has the highest visibility of any NIL outside of the commercials on tv and things like bijan mustardson. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, immamac said:

The opposite of this is going to happen (and/or has already happened), the fact that you think this is going to happen means you are truly completely disconnected from reality. This is why the ruling is disruptive, even to Texas. There were decisions made regarding how things were going to work based on the university being able to provide the $$ as defined in the original settlement. This horseshit decision that makes no fucking sense whatsoever effectively makes NIL from a university completely ridiculous and more like a baseline salary that can be divvied up like the stipend was. NIL isn't a fucking stipend and it's not assistance, there is a quid pro quo exchange that has nothing to do with "just doing your sport". 

They weren't gonna sign these players to big ass fucking NIL deals and then not have them do a bunch of brand work, that's not how businesses operate and that's not how the AD was planning to operate. The AD can farm out all kinds of Arch Manning the QB of the Longhorns to whatever sponsor or big ass media outlet it wants to in turn drive businesses, sponsorships, real revenue for all it's various streams and/or participants in the brand pool.

This ignores that entirely and treats it like scholarship++. It's completely wrong because it's not PAY FOR PLAY, it's NAME IMAGE AND LIKENESS, if it was pay for play then sure they could claim title IX. 

Instead of just moving on and letting things get to a new normal, this rulling effectively restarts everything - there's no tenable way forward for the NCAA to operate with this level of stupidity and the amount of money it is taking to field competitive D1 high revenue sports teams. 

If there is real thought that the next administration is going to roll back these changes then why does this change what the university is planning to do? Wouldn't it make sense to slowplay stuff while clarity emerges?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Noozak said:

If there is real thought that the next administration is going to roll back these changes then why does this change what the university is planning to do? Wouldn't it make sense to slowplay stuff while clarity emerges?

Now you have to contingency plan and figure shit out that was not the general plan. These aren't small budgets and simple things. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Noozak said:

If there is real thought that the next administration is going to roll back these changes then why does this change what the university is planning to do? Wouldn't it make sense to slowplay stuff while clarity emerges?

Too much uncertainty for us to have a definite plan of action. Just multiple contingencies for shit that is out of our control. In the mean time, operate as usual which is full and complete compliance and follow through with all of the entities rules we have to abide by. If something happens, we will have a contingency ready for it. We are set to handle this better than most, if not all, others in the market. Lot of stupid fucks running collectives who will FAFO

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, immamac said:

This is the dumbest shit I've ever read in my life. These people are completely disconnected from reality. 

I mean, if the "NIL" is coming from the University, it is pretty clearly athletic financial assistance, so I see where the DOE is coming from.  As for third party NIL, the statement is purposefully vague, but it seems pretty clear that they are talking about booster NIL, not real commercial NIL.

Who knows what happens under the new administration, but I think this reading of Title IX is pretty reasonable, at least based on how it is been interpreted in the past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Texas Wahoo said:

I mean, if the "NIL" is coming from the University, it is pretty clearly athletic financial assistance, so I see where the DOE is coming from.  As for third party NIL, the statement is purposefully vague, but it seems pretty clear that they are talking about booster NIL, not real commercial NIL.

Who knows what happens under the new administration, but I think this reading of Title IX is pretty reasonable, at least based on how it is been interpreted in the past.

No, you are just as stupid as these administrators.

Does the school have to pay actors in their commercials the same? Does the school have to pay anyone who foes commercial brand work or promotion the same based on gender? No. Because it's a fucking commercial activity, it's not education related and it's related directly to their brand value and revenue generation. It has nothing to do with their athletic scholarship and they don't just get the money because they are enrolled and playing a sport. They are going to have to do shit for the money. It's not just a salary cux you are good at sports. 

I'm so tired of stupid people being involved in this and obfuscating it in new and dumb ways. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, immamac said:

No, you are just as stupid as these administrators.

Does the school have to pay actors in their commercials the same? Does the school have to pay anyone who foes commercial brand work or promotion the same based on gender? No. Because it's a fucking commercial activity, it's not education related and it's related directly to their brand value and revenue generation. It has nothing to do with their athletic scholarship and they don't just get the money because they are enrolled and playing a sport. They are going to have to do shit for the money. It's not just a salary cux you are good at sports. 

I'm so tired of stupid people being involved in this and obfuscating it in new and dumb ways. 

If the schools go through the process of itemizing everything and assigning NIL based entirely on non-athletics related items (like $10k for an appearance in a TV commercial, etc.), maybe it would not implicate Title 9.  I'm skeptical that is how it is going to be done, but I could see such a situation being more like your example of hiring paid actors.

Regardless of whatever the DOE says now or under the new administration, this will all get decided by the courts.  Oregon is already being sued by a few female athletes and there will be a lot more if and when the House settlement is approved and schools start paying athletes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Texas Wahoo said:

If the schools go through the process of itemizing everything and assigning NIL based entirely on non-athletics related items (like $10k for an appearance in a TV commercial, etc.), maybe it would not implicate Title 9.  I'm skeptical that is how it is going to be done, but I could see such a situation being more like your example of hiring paid actors.

Regardless of whatever the DOE says now or under the new administration, this will all get decided by the courts.  Oregon is already being sued by a few female athletes and there will be a lot more if and when the House settlement is approved and schools start paying athletes.

That's the plan. Always has been, otherwise it's just pay for play, which I do think fits under Title IX and questions whether universities need to have professional sports teams. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems like the disconnect is the DOE is treating this as student financial aid, to which Title IX applies, when pragmatically-speaking they're really just employees being paid according to their value. Schools can pay teachers, chancellors, or Ministers of Culture whatever they want in order to benefit the university, but no, these athletes are just simple students getting financial benefit for attending the university and none should be treated differently. Lol 

If this sticks, seems like it would mean fewer schools max out their rev share cap (bc of all the negative financial-return $ required to be spent on women's sports) and collectives will continue to be a big source of NIL (to get around Title IX).

It's yet another stupid twist in this whole NIL saga. Just make it a minor-league NFL already because that's clearly the only place this can end up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/17/2025 at 3:52 PM, Texas Wahoo said:

If the schools go through the process of itemizing everything and assigning NIL based entirely on non-athletics related items (like $10k for an appearance in a TV commercial, etc.), maybe it would not implicate Title 9.  I'm skeptical that is how it is going to be done, but I could see such a situation being more like your example of hiring paid actors.

Regardless of whatever the DOE says now or under the new administration, this will all get decided by the courts.  Oregon is already being sued by a few female athletes and there will be a lot more if and when the House settlement is approved and schools start paying athletes.

There is no lawsuit ongoing with female athletes at Oregon. The beach volleyball team sued the university under Title IX but that's been settled. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, immamac said:

This is insane. They are treating him like property. 

That's how almost all professional athletes are treated. 

In American professional sports, at least there's a CBA so that players get some input into how they are treated. But they can be traded, cut, or sold as commodities. Hell, in baseball, you can trade a player for "cash considerations"... In other words, you can straight up sell him to another team. 

In global soccer, they will put release prices into the terms of the contract... Essentially, pay us X price to dissolve the contract so you can sign them. Players are literally talked about being transferred, bought, and sold.

In professional sports, if you are under contract with a team, you can ask to be traded, but it doesn't give other teams permission to contact you. That's tampering and there are consequences to that (fines/draft picks/etc). I think this Wisconsin situation is similar...I don't think it'll affect NIL (true third-party NIL such as commercial endorsements and collectives) at all. After all, Wisconsin's complaint barely mentions their collective; they are more worried about the contract signed with the school for AD revenue sharing. I think this situation could hasten the professionalization of NCAA sports and possibly lead to some sort of CBA between college athletes and the NCAA (or some other NCAA-like overseeing entity).

However, just like professional athletes, no CBA can place any limits on what an athlete can make utilizing their name, image, and likeness for endorsements. No CBA can limit how much State Farm pays Patrick Mahomes, how much Dr. Pepper pays Quinn Ewers, or how much a group of people pays the Texas Longhorns Tight Ends to make an appearance at a group ticketed event.

Edited by TheBryMan81
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...