Help me understand the NIL threat.

[BigDawg0074]

The default take is that the rich get richer, ok that makes sense but what does it look like? Is the idea that boosters will pay for the second tier or third players and hollow out the talent of the second and third tier competitors? With the exception of Kentucky and TAMU I don’t see a big movement after one year, maybe in four that will look much different.

I see Mississippi State as straddling tier two and three in the SEC and the top tier is about to get bigger. Do you guys expect someone like Ole Miss or Kentucky to buy their way into a solid tier two position where teams like Auburn and Florida have traditionally sat? I consider tier one as blue bloods with a long tradition of natties. Tier two are those who recruit in the top fifteen and have the occasional run for championships.

 

[karlchilders.sixpack]

The combo of NIL and transfer at will,

can be devastating to the have nots.

The have's will have full control, in plain sight.

They can shred lesser teams rosters.

 

[ronpolk]

can be devastating to the have nots.

The have's will have full control, in plain sight.

They can shred lesser teams rosters.

In the grand scheme of college football I would say state is in the haves rather than have nots. But I think you’re right that the combination of the 2 is what could be hurtful. Can you imagine the schools that would have been trying to get Dak under the current system in place.

 

[patdog]

In the grand scheme, yes. We’re a have. But in our league, we’re pretty close to the bottom. The gap between us and the top 10 schools in the conference is going to get much bigger. And yes, they will raid our best young players from us.

 

[ronpolk]

In the grand scheme, yes. We’re a have. But in our league, we’re pretty close to the bottom. The gap between us and the top 10 schools in the conference is going to get much bigger. And yes, they will raid our best young players from us.

I don’t disagree with any of that. If/when our players start getting poached by teams in the league, we have to be good at poaching from schools below us.

 

[GloryDawg]

YOu can only have 85 so to make room for a guy a school will have to let one go. That one "Joe Borrows" might end up being really good some where else. Third string to Heisman.

 

[karlchilders.sixpack]

Guys like that are not the problem. Problems is losing that great D lineman, or left tackle, that you were already counting on.

 

[GloryDawg]

Guys like that are not the problem. Problems is losing that great D lineman, or left tackle, that you were already counting on.

I understand that but that same three star might have better coaching at Miss State so that 4 star state gets in return could end up being really good at a new school. Some guys just get over looked and they just give up. They go to Miss State and get a real shot and son of a ***** they turn out to be real Good. When you are a 4 Star sitting on the bench with 43 other 4 Stars you can get discourage. Go to State where there is only 14 4 stars things start to look up for you.

 

[T-TownDawgg]

It’s not that it’s a threat, it’s the shocking naivety of so many who buy the complete horseshit bromide that NIL will introduce the long overdue parity the sport desperately needs.

 

[paindonthurt]

But that hasn’t changed in 50 years

I don’t see a huge difference now. I see the nil harming us and benefiting us.

 

[Bill Shankly]

I said when this stuff started it would eventually be the death of all MSU athletics. If anything I'm even more convinced as it has played out. I also said the objective of it all by the people who were really pushing it was the destruction of all college sports. I stand by that as well. If
People want to watch pro sports they will just watch pro sports. If the only sports on offer are pro they will watch the best. It's going to take a few years/decades but it's going to happen. When it does maybe we can start again and go back to true college athletics. I won't live to see it but perhaps some of you may. I'm just going to see the death spiral.

 

[patdog]

The scale of it changed big time a year ago. And the poaching of players did not exist until very recently either.

 

[patdog]

A Joe Burrow comes along maybe once every 20 years. For every Joe Burrow a national power cuts, there will be 1,000 Nigel Knotts.

 

[philduckworth]

But that hasn’t changed in 50 years

I don’t see a huge difference now. I see the nil harming us and benefiting us.

What hasn't changed in 50 years? Jackie Sherrill took us to the SEC championship game. Dan Mullen had a chance. As it stands now, we have no chance. We are playing for nothing but pride and a mid tier bowl. Who could possibly be content with that. We are going to be 14th or 15th out of 16 SEC teams. We are going to get hit on both ends: recruiting and retention. It's a problem. A big problem. Thank you Charlie Winfield for doing all you can do.

 

[RiverCityDawg]

can be devastating to the have nots.

The have's will have full control, in plain sight.

They can shred lesser teams rosters.

Yeah I think the immediate and potentially unlimited transfer allowance paired with NIL is the kicker. One or the other could be manageable but in combination it's just uncapped free agency with the highest bidder having all the power.

If I could pick one to go it might be even be the immediate transfer rule. At least if guys still had to sit it would be harder to convince them to leave for cash and schools might be less motivated to pay for a guy that had to sit. The guy could just stay where he is and get to the NFL faster, if he's that good.

 

[Dawg1976]

Agree. I'm completely turned off by how all this is developing. To the point I plan to watch very little college sports going forward. I don't give a crap about pro sports and this is headed in the same direction.

 

[paindonthurt]

No one thought we had a chance before Jackie did it.

And nothing has changed since Mullen got here or left.

Alabama is still dominant. Other than Georgia becoming close enough.

NIL didn’t change any of that. Yet anyways.

I don’t like NIL but I don’t see it changing much for msu. We are still gonna be competing behind the haves in college football. Same yesterday. Same tomorrow.

 

[paindonthurt]

There aren’t 1000 Nigel Knotts to go around.

 

[paindonthurt]

Define the scale of it.

You can’t quantify anything that has changed that’s different.

Alabama and the other big boys are till getting the best recruits.

 

[Bulldog from Birth]

Here is the best way I can put it. We already operate at a huge disadvantage. But there is a glimmer of hope. A 5-star talent like Jeffrey Simmons can decide to stay close to home pre-NIL. We can recruit a 3-star guy like Dak who turns into a Heisman contender. In post-NIL world, Simmons never signs with us. And Dak is playing for someone else mid-career once everyone realizes what he is. The Daks are going to be the morale killer. You identified and signed them before everyone else. Yet come junior year, they are kicking your tail playing for a conference rival for life changing money. Every megastar you manage to get on your roster is going to ultimately be poached from you. Imagine a world where Dak, Moulds, Norwood, Simmons, Fletcher Cox, Charles Cross, etc don’t finish their careers as Bulldogs. That’s what’s coming. Sure, we will replace them with a decent replacement we poach from somewhere else. But they won’t be anywhere near the level of what you lost. Your 1 in 50 odds to win the SEC become 0 in 1,000.

 

[Go Budaw]

The default take is that the rich get richer, ok that makes sense but what does it look like? Is the idea that boosters will pay for the second tier or third players and hollow out the talent of the second and third tier competitors? With the exception of Kentucky and TAMU I don’t see a big movement after one year, maybe in four that will look much different.

I see Mississippi State as straddling tier two and three in the SEC and the top tier is about to get bigger. Do you guys expect someone like Ole Miss or Kentucky to buy their way into a solid tier two position where teams like Auburn and Florida have traditionally sat? I consider tier one as blue bloods with a long tradition of natties. Tier two are those who recruit in the top fifteen and have the occasional run for championships.

South Carolina
Arkansas
Tennessee
Texas A&M
Kentucky

Those 5 schools constitute about one third of the new SEC. All five have an absolute 17-load more money and alumni than we ever will have. Yet, in college football, all 5 have been even or below us in the pecking order for the past decade on the whole. The reason is that we built a winning brand and were able to develop overlooked talent. The problem is, developing talent is now dead. You recruit some 2* or 3* player that starts delivering 5* value? You suddenly have to cough up $500k per year, minimum, to keep him. It won’t be just the Bama’s and UGA’s and LSU’s we have to worry about. It’s all the schools above, too, who will all outbid us. We simply don’t stand a chance. We can’t even keep starters from transferring to Ole Miss, for 17’s sake. Lost one and would have lost three if the new interconference transfer rules didn’t kick in after Lovett / Jones had to declare a suitor.

Trying to explain it, but I can’t understand it for anyone else. The TLDR version….check back in 5 years from now to see what MSU’s place in the pecking order is. Better yet, check in 5 years after Leach is gone. He’s one of very few coaches who can remain competitive in the current environment with the talent gap not in his favor in just about every conference game he plays.

 

[BigDawg0074]

I’m not certain that Dak would have left in his final year, everyone saw potential but he broke out as a junior. I think he very well may have finished with Dan Mullen. Teams are still constrained by rosters and I don’t think starting players with true NFL talent will be necessarily willing to jump ship and risk riding the bench somewhere that has already recruited equal or greater talent. Some will but I’m not convinced that this is the end of everything we hold dear in CFB just yet.

 

[Bulldog from Birth]

The WR from Pitt jumped ship. Many more will be. There is a chance we kept Dak for his junior year. But not his senior year. Dak would’ve gotten close to 7 figures to play his senior year elsewhere. No way he turns down life changing money like that. And you couldn’t blame him at all for leaving us either.

Teams are still constrained by rosters and I don’t think starting players with true NFL talent will be necessarily willing to jump ship and risk riding the bench somewhere that has already recruited equal or greater talent

 

[QuaoarsKing]

The WR from Pitt jumped ship. Many more will be. There is a chance we kept Dak for his junior year. But not his senior year. Dak would’ve gotten close to 7 figures to play his senior year elsewhere. No way he turns down life changing money like that. And you couldn’t blame him at all for leaving us either.

Dak had already finished his bachelor's degree and could have transferred somewhere for the 2015 without sitting out anyway. Players were already getting paid back then - it's not a new thing. Somehow we've all incepted ourselves to forget that every P5 program was paying players "secretly" before NIL.

Let's pump the brakes on the overdramatics.

 

[Bulldog from Birth]

There is going to be >10x the money going to players in the NIL world. Previously it was only some boosters willing to get their hands dirty. There will be far more money now that it’s legal. Look at what A&M spent on their last recruiting class. That kind of money wasn’t there pre-NIL. Dak probably isn’t leaving a good gig with us for $80,000. But he’s certainly leaving us for the $800,000 he’d get in today’s world.

Dak had already finished his bachelor's degree and could have transferred somewhere for the 2015 without sitting out anyway. Players were already getting paid back then - it's not a new thing. Somehow we've all incepted ourselves to forget that every P5 program was paying players "secretly" before NIL.

Let's pump the brakes on the overdramatics.

 

[HRMSU]

I don’t disagree with any of that. If/when our players start getting poached by teams in the league, we have to be good at poaching from schools below us.

Yes. Similar to What we've done in Baseball to restock a couple key positions quickly. We need to always be scouting impact players from other conferences and programs below us.

 

[IBleedMaroonDawg]

Dak had already finished his bachelor's degree and could have transferred somewhere for the 2015 without sitting out anyway. Players were already getting paid back then - it's not a new thing. Somehow we've all incepted ourselves to forget that every P5 program was paying players "secretly" before NIL.

Let's pump the brakes on the overdramatics.

We are going to see some players poached for sure but I still predict we're going to see some serious issues with the schools who are shoveling out tons of money. People who shovel tons of money expect tons of success. I just hate it's going to ruin the original game the college football used to be

 

[thatsbaseball]

^^^Most relevant post in this thread^^^

 

[missouridawg]

The default take is that the rich get richer, ok that makes sense but what does it look like? Is the idea that boosters will pay for the second tier or third players and hollow out the talent of the second and third tier competitors? With the exception of Kentucky and TAMU I don’t see a big movement after one year, maybe in four that will look much different.

I see Mississippi State as straddling tier two and three in the SEC and the top tier is about to get bigger. Do you guys expect someone like Ole Miss or Kentucky to buy their way into a solid tier two position where teams like Auburn and Florida have traditionally sat? I consider tier one as blue bloods with a long tradition of natties. Tier two are those who recruit in the top fifteen and have the occasional run for championships.

Look no further than LSU baseball. They have made a huge commitment to NIL for baseball players that resulted in them poaching two starters from Vanderbilt, as well as the freshman of the year from NC State.

Teams that decide to buy their roster will go and select proven commodities from other rosters, rather than recruit and develop. This is not good for us.

 

[Negative Waves]

I think we would've kept Dak because we'd thrown all our money at him....

The WR from Pitt jumped ship. Many more will be. There is a chance we kept Dak for his junior year. But not his senior year. Dak would’ve gotten close to 7 figures to play his senior year elsewhere. No way he turns down life changing money like that. And you couldn’t blame him at all for leaving us either.

State will probably be able to keep the two or three big stars on the team, but where we'll get hurt is in the surrounding cast. Alabama, A&M, etc. are going to have superstars at every position while we will only have 3-4 on the entire team. Also, Bama is still going to get the 5 star quarterbacks out of high school. If we develop a 3-star to a 5-star, Bama and A&M will more than likely already have a QB at a similar level.

 

[tcdog70]

Bama has been paying players for years--now it is legal--so what. The transfer deal can swing both ways. Hell, we can now get pissed off players from Bama-LSu and others. so instead of crying and bitching lets poach for the players we need. thank goodness we have ML and not some cookie cutter coach . ML has won with lesser players for years.

 

[FrontRangeDawg]

I have a little different perspective on part of it. There's no doubt that the NIL issue is going to be total chaos for the next 3-5 years while rich boosters from schools dump money out on tons of prospects. But, I think that there will be a settling once a lot of those schools pay a ton for unproven teenagers who don't pan out. So, while the richer schools can pay tons of money, I think the question is one of tolerance by boosters to pay like that when paying for highly variable talent remains extremely risky.

For example, let's say that A&M's vaunted class turns out to actually need to be coached up, and they only win 8 games in '23 and '24. Someone else, likely Bama, wins the SEC and goes to the playoff. A&M's boosters expect to be in the hunt for the SEC (and by, in the hunt, I mean having only Bama as a hurdle in the West, etc.) If they only win 8 games, those boosters are going to be furious. If that happens for 3 years, and A&M boosters have spent $60 million to get basically what they've already had, will they continue to shell that out?

I think that on a long enough timeline, NIL won't be much different than paying under the table has been historically.

The bigger issue that has been identified is the transfer and poaching. The richest schools will absolutely pay a kid who has a great sophomore breakout year to come from State to play. I would like to see the reinstatement of the transfer rule to try and curb this.

 

[BigDawg0074]

So it looks like the consensus is MSU football is essentially going to return to the Croom years or maybe worse. The bright side is those tickets are going to get cheap I guess. If the crowd funded NIL isn’t going to net anything but defeat no matter what why bother promoting donations to something that will be more expensive and less entertaining than the average TV streaming package?

 

[johnson86-1]

Define the scale of it.

You can’t quantify anything that has changed that’s different.

Alabama and the other big boys are till getting the best recruits.

I dont' know why it's so hard to understand that it's not the blue bloods that are the problem. It's the non-blue bloods with money. Texas 17ing Tech can blow us away with NIL money. Miami, Virginia Tech, Virginia, North Carolina St., Ok St., and Georgia Tech all are going to have more money than us. Even for those schools that don't get serious about it, if they stop us from picking up a leftover from Georgia or Florida, it doesn't take too many of those before we are 17ed. Generally, while we are behind in talent compared to the blue bloods, there is a gulf between us and the blue bloods as far as depth.

 

[Mayor of Little London]

Better yet, check in 5 years after Leach is gone. He’s one of very few coaches who can remain competitive in the current environment with the talent gap not in his favor in just about every conference game he plays.

This is a great take. I’d like to add that it also gives us time to figure the NIL out some as a fan base. But… We cannot just assume we are doing it right just because Leach has a good year or two. Have to (as Boobie said) “keep grinding for my State”..

 

[IPMdawg]

Tennessee baseball too. When a school with a rich alumni base gets interested in a sport they usually didn’t pay for play, they now have an easy way to grab up talent.

 

[aTotal360]

^^^This^^^ Historically we can be ranked in the top 25 in recruiting and still be next to last in our own damn division.

 

[Maroonthirteen]

I have a little different perspective on part of it. There's no doubt that the NIL issue is going to be total chaos for the next 3-5 years while rich boosters from schools dump money out on tons of prospects. But, I think that there will be a settling once a lot of those schools pay a ton for unproven teenagers who don't pan out. So, while the richer schools can pay tons of money, I think the question is one of tolerance by boosters to pay like that when paying for highly variable talent remains extremely risky.

For example, let's say that A&M's vaunted class turns out to actually need to be coached up, and they only win 8 games in '23 and '24. Someone else, likely Bama, wins the SEC and goes to the playoff. A&M's boosters expect to be in the hunt for the SEC (and by, in the hunt, I mean having only Bama as a hurdle in the West, etc.) If they only win 8 games, those boosters are going to be furious. If that happens for 3 years, and A&M boosters have spent $60 million to get basically what they've already had, will they continue to shell that out?
.

and that is the multi million dollar question. It's my hope they all get burned and the money stops.

 

[kired]

Regardless of the money aspect - I think the more frequent transfers are going to hurt football. We already see this with basketball. It’s rare for anyone to stick around for more than two seasons. We love guys like Dak, Dixon, Banks, TA, Rowdy, etc because we watched them for 3 - 4 years. They are the legends people name their kids after. That’s always been unique to college sports but it feels like that’s about to change. It will be hard for anyone other than a top tier school to keep a great player for more than 1-2 seasons.

 

[aTotal360]

Add Arky to that list. They got piles of money and are quietly picking up steam.