NIL and Collectives

[greenbean.sixpack]

I recently heard an interview with Prime. He said there are very few football players with NIL deals, most players have collective deals. NIL would be between a business and athlete, and there are very few of those. Most players are paid out of collectives. So I guess it works this way; we give money to the BI, someone with the BI and/or the coaching staff puts a value on a certain player and the player is offered a collective deal.

You guys may have already knew all this, but when we hear the term NIL deal, it's actually probably a collective deal. So the issue is not with NIL, it's with the collectives.

 

[Maroon13]

Some players get a lot. Most get a little. Some get nothing. This is from a player parent at another P5.

But the value in college athletes is the conference and schools. A players value is based on where he plays and in what conference. Bryce Young doesn't have a Dr Pepper deal nor subway if he plays for any of 11 other sec schools.

 

[OG Goat Holder]

Duh. Like I said yesterday:

".....The only reason many of these players have an NIL worth is because BOOSTERS want to win. That is a big fact that is being left off. I'd say 1% of college athletes have a true NIL brand that commands commercial money.

Boosters have always paid players, for 50 years. If you make them employees, the system will change into something nobody wants. Perhaps the answer is just a raised stipend from the TV money - but you're still going to have boosters out there paying players above and beyond that. But maybe it'll curb it to an extent."

 

[kired]

The collectives are just a way of using the NIL rule to pay players.

Only the most popular athletes are really worth a business using them for advertisement. There's only a handful of msu players most normal fans would even recognize. And then a business risks pissing off half it's customers - would you have second thoughts about spending money somewhere that uses Jaxson Dart as their spokesperson?

 

[pseudonym]

"NIL" is not NIL. It's a pay-for-play workaround. And it is a temporary bridge to actual pay-for-play. Players should be paid to play revenue-generating sports because that is the value they bring to the marketplace, not their name, image, and likeness.

Livvy Dunne is the best example of actual NIL.

ETA: I have no problem with NIL/collectives. I contribute to the BI. It is (currently) the reality of college sports. The current alternative to NIL/collectives is your school being mediocre/irrelevant.

 

[RockyDog]

"NIL" is not NIL. It's a pay-for-play workaround. And it is a temporary bridge to actual pay-for-play. Players should be paid to play revenue-generating sports because that is the value they bring to the marketplace, not their name, image, and likeness.

Livvy Dunne is the best example of actual NIL.

ETA: I have no problem with NIL/collectives. I contribute to the BI. It is (currently) the reality of college sports. The current alternative to NIL/collectives is your school being mediocre/irrelevant.

That doesn't make sense. We have NIL, a collective and are still mediocre/irrelevant. Unfortunately in giant super leagues there is always going to be a bottom feeder and we will most likely be it on a rotating basis with the likes of Vandy, SC, Arkansas, Kentucky, and maybe scUM after next season. It doesn't matter how much our fans ***** to each other about contributing 20 bucks a month. When the Texas and Bamas of the world can spend 7 figures on a backup or just to keep a player from going to another school, the little fish can't compete with that.

In the current state of college football where players are sold like cattle, we will NEVER compete.

 

[8dog]

That doesn't make sense. We have NIL, a collective and are still mediocre/irrelevant. Unfortunately in giant super leagues there is always going to be a bottom feeder and we will most likely be it on a rotating basis with the likes of Vandy, SC, Arkansas, Kentucky, and maybe scUM after next season. It doesn't matter how much our fans ***** to each other about contributing 20 bucks a month. When the Texas and Bamas of the world can spend 7 figures on a backup or just to keep a player from going to another school, the little fish can't compete with that.

In the current state of college football where players are sold like cattle, we will NEVER compete.

TCU went to the playoff last year. OM will go next year. Mizzou would have gone this year to a 12 team. Hire good coaches. Make QB a priority. That’s the most important part

 

[dawgstudent]

The way I view NIL is I get joy out of State doing well in sports. It used to be contribute to the Bulldog Club and buy season tickets. Now it's mostly NIL and tickets.

I've said before - I just reappropriated my donation from Bulldog Club to NIL. If that's what helps State win - so be it.

 

[greenbean.sixpack]

Players have been paid under the table for ever. Collectives are a legal way to do that. It seems collectives have ratcheted up the amount players are getting now verses what they were getting under the table. Scam allegedly wanted $200k, someone with his talent (which there's probably not anyone in the game today as talented as him) now would be worth $3mil plus for one season.

 

[GloryDawg]

The way I view NIL is I get joy out of State doing well in sports. It used to be contribute to the Bulldog Club and buy season tickets. Now it's mostly NIL and tickets.

I've said before - I just reappropriated my donation from Bulldog Club to NIL. If that's what helps State win - so be it.

I wonder when the Athletic Departments begin not having enough money to operate if all the doners did this.

 

[8dog]

I wonder when the Athletic Departments begin not having enough money to operate if all the doners did this.

When the athletes are employees and get a share of the revenue.

 

[dawgstudent]

I wonder when the Athletic Departments begin not having enough money to operate if all the doners did this.

The seat license fees automatically build in contributions to the Bulldog Club so that part is mostly covered. I'm not sure what % of seat licenses are part of our budget compared to regular contributions.

 

[thatsbaseball]

Are there any schools that we know of where their NFL alumni are making an large impact on their school's NIL collective ? And I'm not talking about a player or two here and there.

 

[Called3rdstrikedawg]

We need a MSU alumni emissary for NFL players to convince them to share in their earnings with the Bulldog Initiative.

The Top 5 MSU players in the NFL probably have a combined $100 million plus annual salary. No reason they shouldn't give back to the University that offered the platform for them to achieve their success.

 

[The Cooterpoot]

We need a MSU alumni emissary for NFL players to convince them to share in their earnings with the Bulldog Initiative.

We've got that already

 

[pseudonym]

That doesn't make sense. We have NIL, a collective and are still mediocre/irrelevant. Unfortunately in giant super leagues there is always going to be a bottom feeder and we will most likely be it on a rotating basis with the likes of Vandy, SC, Arkansas, Kentucky, and maybe scUM after next season. It doesn't matter how much our fans ***** to each other about contributing 20 bucks a month. When the Texas and Bamas of the world can spend 7 figures on a backup or just to keep a player from going to another school, the little fish can't compete with that.

In the current state of college football where players are sold like cattle, we will NEVER compete.

Having NIL is not binary. Yes, we have an NIL collective, but our fanbase is not bought in like some other fanbases. We could do a lot better (and a lot worse). I think our fanbase started waking up with the recent coaching change. I also think if our fanbase watches Ole Miss go to the CFP in 2024, it will light a fire under our asses. The average fan who says, "What's the point? We can never compete with NIL, so I'm not going to contribute," will realize that however much more money you think Ole Miss fans have than State fans, the difference is not competing for the CFP vs. competing for bowl eligibility. If Ole Miss can make a 12-team playoff, State can, too.

And to your second point, college football players have been sold like cattle my entire life. That isn't new. What's new is the current structure. And some programs/fanbases have adjusted faster than others. And it will continue to show up on the field.

 

[pseudonym]

The way I view NIL is I get joy out of State doing well in sports. It used to be contribute to the Bulldog Club and buy season tickets. Now it's mostly NIL and tickets.

I've said before - I just reappropriated my donation from Bulldog Club to NIL. If that's what helps State win - so be it.

This is exactly the right thought process. If you're contributing to State athletics, why not put some thought into how you can best contribute?

 

[pseudonym]

I wonder when the Athletic Departments begin not having enough money to operate if all the doners did this.

Athletic departments are bloated bureaucracies. This is in part due to the crazy structure of

1. Don't pay the players
2. Charge for tickets
3. And STILL ask for donations

If fanbases redirect their contributions to NIL, athletic departments will have to return to sanity.

 

[mstateglfr]

"NIL" is not NIL. It's a pay-for-play workaround. And it is a temporary bridge to actual pay-for-play. Players should be paid to play revenue-generating sports because that is the value they bring to the marketplace, not their name, image, and likeness.

Livvy Dunne is the best example of actual NIL.

ETA: I have no problem with NIL/collectives. I contribute to the BI. It is (currently) the reality of college sports. The current alternative to NIL/collectives is your school being mediocre/irrelevant.

NIL is absolutely NIL. It may not be how you want it to be, or how you expected it to be, but it is 100% absolutely 'NIL'. Also, just because Dunne and a few others have been able to monetize their name and image in a more direct manner does not mean NIL and Collectives is not 'NIL'.

If someone really wants an 18yo to go to a specific college and is willing to pay that person $X to attend, thats NIL. It is 100% NIL. That player's name, image, and likeness is worth something to the stupidly wealthy fan and so that player is able to monetize their name by playing for the college.
Again, it may not be what you had in mind, but that doesnt mean it isnt NIL.

You seem to think people have to work for NIL money, and that said work must be in a traditional advertising/spokesperson sense. Sure, that can be one way, but it is not the only way.
An entire industry exists based on famous people being paid to appear at parties/events because it brings interest and success to the party/event. Those people are monetizing their name and image. Apply that to college and you have the very thing you are claiming isnt NIL.



^ this is all aside from if I actually like the current reality or not. I dislike it, but I can still recognize that what is happening is very clearly student athletes cashing in on their NAME within the 'NIL'.

 

[OG Goat Holder]

Players should be paid to play revenue-generating sports because that is the value they bring to the marketplace, not their name, image, and likeness.

Athletic departments are bloated bureaucracies. This is in part due to the crazy structure of

1. Don't pay the players
2. Charge for tickets
3. And STILL ask for donations

I don't think you get it.

If we paid football players for this "value they bring to the marketplace", then we would have to do the same for the other non-revenue generating sports. Which means, they cease to exist.

Point out, specifically, the 'bloat' in the athletic department. It's not quite what you think. The best you'll be able to come up with is coaching salaries. All this football "value they bring to the marketplace" pays for the rest. And I still say it's not the players that bring the value - it's the school and fans. This is the biggest myth of this whole process.

That's why NIL is the way to go over employment - it's on a player by player basis.

 

[OG Goat Holder]

Hire good coaches. Make QB a priority. That’s the most important part

Everybody is trying to do this. It's just the baseline.

I am more interested in exactly how we plan and execute this. Mullen had a plan. Moorhead had a plan. Leach had a plan. I'm sure Lebby has a plan. All of them signed good QBs. So it appears it's all about that "good coaches" part. I think we can all agree Mullen and Leach were good coaches, and Moorhead was not. We also can agree that Mullen and Leach were hard-nosed mfers who took no shlt, were hard on S&C and employed simple offenses. Moorhead was the players' buddy, and had a complicated offense, and was very lax (so was Croom). Which one will Lebby be?

I have my preliminary thoughts.

 

[pseudonym]

NIL is absolutely NIL. It may not be how you want it to be, or how you expected it to be, but it is 100% absolutely 'NIL'. Also, just because Dunne and a few others have been able to monetize their name and image in a more direct manner does not mean NIL and Collectives is not 'NIL'.

If someone really wants an 18yo to go to a specific college and is willing to pay that person $X to attend, thats NIL. It is 100% NIL. That player's name, image, and likeness is worth something to the stupidly wealthy fan and so that player is able to monetize their name by playing for the college.
Again, it may not be what you had in mind, but that doesnt mean it isnt NIL.

You seem to think people have to work for NIL money, and that said work must be in a traditional advertising/spokesperson sense. Sure, that can be one way, but it is not the only way.
An entire industry exists based on famous people being paid to appear at parties/events because it brings interest and success to the party/event. Those people are monetizing their name and image. Apply that to college and you have the very thing you are claiming isnt NIL.



^ this is all aside from if I actually like the current reality or not. I dislike it, but I can still recognize that what is happening is very clearly student athletes cashing in on their NAME within the 'NIL'.

1. I'm not complaining when I say NIL is pay-for-play. I think pay-for-play is a good thing. You can call it whatever you want.
2. Perhaps we are just using different definitions. Are you saying that the NFL model is also NIL? And I'm not talking about Dak doing mattress commercials. When NFL players suit up on Sunday, is that NIL?

The funny thing is you seem to think I don't like it. I have no problem with it. I'm just comfortable calling it what it is: pay-for-play. You admit that you dislike it but feel the need to defend it as being name, image, likeness, not pay-for-play. Do you have a problem with pay-for-play?

 

[pseudonym]

I don't think you get it.

If we paid football players for this "value they bring to the marketplace", then we would have to do the same for the other non-revenue generating sports. Which means, they cease to exist.

Point out, specifically, the 'bloat' in the athletic department. It's not quite what you think. The best you'll be able to come up with is coaching salaries. All this football "value they bring to the marketplace" pays for the rest. And I still say it's not the players that bring the value - it's the school and fans. This is the biggest myth of this whole process.

That's why NIL is the way to go over employment - it's on a player by player basis.

Title IX is absolutely part of the problem. I am a free-market maximalist. Schools should not be forced to fund money-losing sports for the right to participate in revenue-generating sports. This is absolutely part of the problem and why athletic departments "need" your donations.

But you are wrong when you say that I think the bloat of college sports is coaches' salaries. It's everything else. Don't forget that athletic departments are still part of a university. And universities are the king of bloated bureaucracies:

 

[OG Goat Holder]

Title IX is absolutely part of the problem. I am a free-market maximalist. Schools should not be forced to fund money-losing sports for the right to participate in revenue-generating sports. This is absolutely part of the problem and why athletic departments "need" your donations.

But you are wrong when you say that I think the bloat of college sports is coaches' salaries. It's everything else. Don't forget that athletic departments are still part of a university. And universities are the king of bloated bureaucracies:

Academia is one thing - let's stay on athletics. I disagree with you that free-market maximalism should be applied to schools. They are non-profits, and should be viewed as investments in a state's future. So when it comes to athletics, these avenues are a way for some kids to go to college. Do some changes need to be made? Sure. For example, instead of steering toward kinesiology, we should be steering towards business, so kids at least have some sort of money-making knowledge when they leave school. But this investment in education is the fundamental difference in college amateur athletics and professional athletics. I see no reason to change this about college. Time and time again, we see secondary professional sports leagues fail anyway.

Just so I have it straight - you want to get rid of all sports opportunities except men's football and basketball?

 

[pseudonym]

Academia is one thing - let's stay on athletics. I disagree with you that free-market maximalism should be applied to schools. They are non-profits, and should be viewed as investments in a state's future. So when it comes to athletics, these avenues are a way for some kids to go to college. Do some changes need to be made? Sure. For example, instead of steering toward kinesiology, we should be steering towards business, so kids at least have some sort of money-making knowledge when they leave school. But this investment in education is the fundamental difference in college amateur athletics and professional athletics. I see no reason to change this about college. Time and time again, we see secondary professional sports leagues fail anyway.

Just so I have it straight - you want to get rid of all sports opportunities except men's football and basketball?

No, schools can fund whatever they want. I've never said that a school shouldn't give a full-ride scholarship to a female volleyball player or a male golfer. The problem is requiring a school to provide a scholarship to a female athlete for every scholarship they give to a male athlete, regardless if one athlete is playing a revenue-generating sport and the other isn't.

I think you could tweak Title IX to limit the restrictions to sports that do not pay for themselves. For example, let's assume both men's and women's tennis lose money. I can understand requiring scholarships for sports like that to be evenly split between males and females. The 85 football scholarships should not have an impact on the balance of male/female scholarships because the football scholarships can pay for themselves.

 

[OG Goat Holder]

No, schools can fund whatever they want. I've never said that a school shouldn't give a full-ride scholarship to a female volleyball player or a male golfer. The problem is requiring a school to provide a scholarship to a female athlete for every scholarship they give to a male athlete, regardless if one athlete is playing a revenue-generating sport and the other isn't.

I think you could tweak Title IX to limit the restrictions to sports that do not pay for themselves. For example, let's assume both men's and women's tennis lose money. I can understand requiring scholarships for sports like that to be evenly split between males and females. The 85 football scholarships should not have an impact on the balance of male/female scholarships because the football scholarships can pay for themselves.

That's not reality. The profit made from football and basketball will be gone, playing for football/basketball expenses, and player pay. The only way the non-revenue sports exist is through donations, which you are not in favor of. That's the facts.

While it is an investment, no one is going to simply go into huge debt funding a sports program. Maybe a few schools around the country will decide to fund some sports, most won't. MSU would have like 10 other programs to play against in baseball.

 

[mstateglfr]

The problem is requiring a school to provide a scholarship to a female athlete for every scholarship they give to a male athlete, regardless if one athlete is playing a revenue-generating sport and the other isn't.

I think you could tweak Title IX to limit the restrictions to sports that do not pay for themselves. For example, let's assume both men's and women's tennis lose money. I can understand requiring scholarships for sports like that to be evenly split between males and females. The 85 football scholarships should not have an impact on the balance of male/female scholarships because the football scholarships can pay for themselves.

That darn civil rights law which ensures equality in education- how I wish you were never enacted!**

Sarcasm aside, no you cant just tweak Title 9 because half a century later you view compliance as inconvenient for a single sport that is played by a small % of higher education across the country(D1 football programs that make money).
There are like 4000 universities in the US, only 130 in D1 FBS, and only like 40 that are positive for net revenue. That last stat varies from year to year, and it is also murky as to what is and isnt considered when figuring out if a program is profitable, so even if you ignore that and just focus on the 130 D1 FBS programs and generously add in 70(over half) FCS programs into consideration, you have 200 out of 4000 universities that are impacted. The real number is much smaller than this, but again, I am feeling generous here.

The desire to fudge numbers so that 5% of universities no longer have to comply with Title9, simply because it is inconvenient, is absurd.
^ that is kinda sorta the most on point reason for ensuring Title9 continues- so that people cant just start creating situations where educational access is once again not generally equal.

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/research/Finances/2020RES_D1-RevExp_Report.pdf

 

[mstateglfr]

Title IX is absolutely part of the problem. I am a free-market maximalist. Schools should not be forced to fund money-losing sports for the right to participate in revenue-generating sports. This is absolutely part of the problem and why athletic departments "need" your donations.

1- schools aren't forced to fund any athletics at all. That needs to be said first and foremost.

2- go learn about how many schools have football programs that actually make money.

3- somehow, universities across the country manage to exist and field dozens of teams for men and women, football included, yet everything loses money. They also don't have athletics departments that are constantly begging for donations.
The budgets are smaller and the revenues are smaller.





You are basically taking what has been a luxury and crying that in order to continue to consume the luxury, an exception needs to bale carved out in a half century old civil right act.

 

[ckDOG]

I've said a long time ago that once all this settles, your average non-rev student athlete or replaceable depth on the popular sports are going to wish for the good ol days of "free school for play". A small count of student athletes are going to come our way ahead and make some real dollars. The masses will get hosed when their sport gets defunded or your replaceable role on special teams barely covers tuition.

 

[OG Goat Holder]

I've said a long time ago that once all this settles, your average non-rev student athlete or replaceable depth on the popular sports are going to wish for the good ol days of "free school for play". A small count of student athletes are going to come our way ahead and make some real dollars. The masses will get hosed when their sport gets defunded or your replaceable role on special teams barely covers tuition.

And so I say again.....why would ANYBODY be for this 'employee' system?

I'll tell you why - you're either an MSU fan are so stuck in their bubble, they don't see yeah we may get a little more of advantage by wrecking the system - but the system is still wrecked. So what good does this do? Or, you're one of these do-gooder theorists like Steven Godfrey or @pseudonym who really have not thought this thing through.

I'll say again - the system we have now is not all that bad.....and it would be business as usual by now had the NCAA slowly implemented these things throughout the years. I mean we knew boosters were paying players in the 70s. And coaches were leaving for bigger paychecks since the beginning.

 

[pseudonym]

That's not reality. The profit made from football and basketball will be gone, playing for football/basketball expenses, and player pay. The only way the non-revenue sports exist is through donations, which you are not in favor of. That's the facts.

While it is an investment, no one is going to simply go into huge debt funding a sports program. Maybe a few schools around the country will decide to fund some sports, most won't. MSU would have like 10 other programs to play against in baseball.

I'm not against people donating. In a previous post, I said I'm not concerned about NIL taking away from athletic department donations because athletic departments are already bloated bureaucracies. If NIL donations result in athletic departments tightening the belt, so be it. That's not a bad thing. And I'm not talking about coaches' salaries.

That is exactly the free-market point of view: If people want to pay to consume [fill in the blank sport], it will exist. If people want to donate to [fill in the blank sport], it will exist.

 

[pseudonym]

That darn civil rights law which ensures equality in education- how I wish you were never enacted!**

Sarcasm aside, no you cant just tweak Title 9 because half a century later you view compliance as inconvenient for a single sport that is played by a small % of higher education across the country(D1 football programs that make money).
There are like 4000 universities in the US, only 130 in D1 FBS, and only like 40 that are positive for net revenue. That last stat varies from year to year, and it is also murky as to what is and isnt considered when figuring out if a program is profitable, so even if you ignore that and just focus on the 130 D1 FBS programs and generously add in 70(over half) FCS programs into consideration, you have 200 out of 4000 universities that are impacted. The real number is much smaller than this, but again, I am feeling generous here.

The desire to fudge numbers so that 5% of universities no longer have to comply with Title9, simply because it is inconvenient, is absurd.
^ that is kinda sorta the most on point reason for ensuring Title9 continues- so that people cant just start creating situations where educational access is once again not generally equal.

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/research/Finances/2020RES_D1-RevExp_Report.pdf

I feel like you're making my point: College athletics isn't the same across the board, so we shouldn't govern them with rules that make sense for some and not for others.

 

[OG Goat Holder]

I'm not against people donating. In a previous post, I said I'm not concerned about NIL taking away from athletic department donations because athletic departments are already bloated bureaucracies. If NIL donations result in athletic departments tightening the belt, so be it. That's not a bad thing. And I'm not talking about coaches' salaries.

That is exactly the free-market point of view: If people want to pay to consume [fill in the blank sport], it will exist. If people want to donate to [fill in the blank sport], it will exist.

It exists now, because football/basketball pays for it all.

The people in charge are going to have to decide what they want - either the schools paying football/basketball players, or the schools funding non-revenue sports (including women). Can't have both. Well - I guess technically they CAN (NIL funded by boosters rather than school), but they can't have both paid for by the actual school/athletic department.

 

[pseudonym]

1- schools aren't forced to fund any athletics at all. That needs to be said first and foremost.

Are you saying State could field football, men's basketball, women's basketball, and baseball ONLY if we wanted to? Or are you saying the option is to balance male/female scholarships, including 85 football scholarships, or don't have any athletics at all?

Because the latter is exactly how I described it: "Schools should not be forced to fund money-losing sports for the right to participate in revenue-generating sports."

 

[mstateglfr]

I feel like you're making my point: College athletics isn't the same across the board, so we shouldn't govern them with rules that make sense for some and not for others.

I am not making your point because your point is that we should rewrite a federal civil rights law that ensures equality in education because you dislike how it impacts a single sport in a small group of colleges.

 

[mstateglfr]

Are you saying State could field football, men's basketball, women's basketball, and baseball ONLY if we wanted to? Or are you saying the option is to balance male/female scholarships, including 85 football scholarships, or don't have any athletics at all?

Because the latter is exactly how I described it: "Schools should not be forced to fund money-losing sports for the right to participate in revenue-generating sports."

I am saying exactly what I said- schools arent forced to fund any athletics at all. That seems to not be recognized and many views seem to come from a position of 'well we have to have this sport'.
No, that sport doesnt have to exist. No sports have to exist.


Title9 does not require the same amount of money be spent on both male and female athletics.
Title9 does not required the same number of scholarships be awarded to males and females.

^ these realities need to be clearly written out at this point.