End of college football as we know it. There is no name, image or likeness being used it’s flat out unadulterated who can pay the most. Better hope MSU can be in the new organization that winds up being formed because the NCAA days are numbered. Better hope there’s some type of revenue sharing with athletes getting a portion. Have to wonder what happens with the much less popular sports and title 9 etc.
NIL
- Thread starter goodknight
- Start date
Until there is radical change in the way NIL is handled, along with the transfer portal, college football, basketball and to some degree baseball -( but not near as much at least not yet) is dead as we use to know it.
Who were some of the posters outspokenly in favor of it? Where are they now? There were plenty.
I'm in favor of a player profiting off his likeness and talents. I don't just think universities and coaches and the NCAA should be the only ones earning enormous amounts of money. Good college coaches and assistant coaches now make more than NFL coaches. Pay the players, something. I'm not sure if the NIL, as currently conceived, or what it will become, will benefit college football. But, give players some money. I watch sports because of loyalty team and to watch outstanding athletes play. At least give them a stipend.
What has become of NIL is a farce and a travesty.
The O’Bannon brothers wanted to be paid because gamers could enter their name onto a roster containing a blocky pixelated black player in a dumb video game.
I’m fine with paying a player for signing their autograph on a jersey or a ball. Put their face on a T-shirt and give them a cut. But it’s not fine for Alabama, Ohio State or anyone else to pay millions to a player that hasn’t even walked in his cap and gown at his HS graduation yet.
The system is ludicrous and I hope it does kill the sport. The fat cats getting rich off this ******** deserve it.
I respect the fairness concern. I just hope this hasn’t swung the pendulum so far to the other side that it closes doors for the average and below average college athletes that far outnumber the elites that play for a dozen or so schools. I think there’s a real chance of it.
I did and still support NIL in its pure intent. By that, I mean I support guys who can make money off their name having the ability to make money off their name. I have no problem with a guy like Dak or Mangum being able to make money off a jersey with their name and number on the back or being able to make money from advertising a product. I’ve always acknowledged the potential for recruiting abuse, which is what we have now. I don’t really know how to solve that. But to deny a person the ability to profit off themselves seems very anti free market and unAmerican…
They already get that. Players are mostly paid pretty well for minor league athletes. Lot of inkind benefits but they have a pretty solid lifestyle compared to other minor league athletes. The only minor league athletes that I think do better are top golfers on the Korn Tour and minor league players that are really being paid by a major league team to have the rights to that player. The problem is that because antitrust doesn't allow schools to cap spending on sports, they end up in an arms race where they pour all their money into coaching and facilities, with the facilities having minimal impact on the quality of the product.
That's the comparison. Minor leagues with dismal pay and leagues that don't make anywhere near what college football and basketball make. Do the coaches also get paid pretty well in comparison to other minor league athletes. I bet they do. You're pointing out flaws within college athletics overall. The NCAA may have been able to avert this issue by providing stipends similar to the way grad students are paid. Now, the flawed system you mentioned that profited the few is no more. It leaves out small schools. Oh well. That's were true amateur athletics will be played.
I disagree that minors are a good comparison for college sports, maybe some but definitely not football. Minor league sports don’t generate near the money that college football and basketball do. If minor league baseball was a billion dollar industry, trust me there would be more pay involved for the players
Minor leagues that aren't propped up by the school brands are the right comparison. THe athletes aren't the ones generating the money, it's the school brand and loyalty. If the top 1,000 athletes in each sport went pro out of high school, college athletes would still generate a ton of money because while the quality of play matters some, mostly people just want to watch their school compete with other schools. Ideally, congress would pass a law allowing college sports leagues to cap spending on sports, including coaches pay, and that money would be funneled to the school instead of just funneled to coaches and facilities.
They’ve always gotten a stipend. At least in the last 20 years.
Tuition
Room
Board
Monthly living money/stipend
College athletes monetarily have more money than most all other students.
Do they make as much as coaches? No. But it was always an amateur sport.
Tuition
Room
Board
Monthly living money/stipend
College athletes monetarily have more money than most all other students.
Do they make as much as coaches? No. But it was always an amateur sport.
Agreed, and considering the court rulings surrounding this that have already taken place, it’s time for all to come to grips with the fact that Pandora’s box isn’t ever going to be closed. College football is now a semi-pro league with no salary cap, no restrictions on free agency, and no plan to change any of this.
The blue bloods that are already backed by huge booster networks now have a license to spend any amount of money they want on virtually whomever they want, and to be perfectly honest, I’m not sure that there’s much the NCAA can actually do about it. Maybe put some rules around portal activity or something like that, but any legislation they try to put in place on payment limitations or NIL income sharing is going to get shot down.
Overall, I think State still has the means to compete in basketball, baseball, and most sports, but our shot at a football title is now effectively 0%
The blue bloods that are already backed by huge booster networks now have a license to spend any amount of money they want on virtually whomever they want, and to be perfectly honest, I’m not sure that there’s much the NCAA can actually do about it. Maybe put some rules around portal activity or something like that, but any legislation they try to put in place on payment limitations or NIL income sharing is going to get shot down.
Overall, I think State still has the means to compete in basketball, baseball, and most sports, but our shot at a football title is now effectively 0%
I think quality of play matters more than you’re giving it credit for. I agree with that school loyalty matters a ton but quality of players is equal in my opinion. How else would you explain a school like Florida international, south Florida or Georgia state having no athletic support compared to a school like Mississippi State even though enrollment is 3 times as much? Do the 60k students that go to Florida international have no loyalty to their university or is the quality of athletes no nearly comparable to other programs?
The relative quality matters. It doesn't matter if the top 1,000 athletes go somewhere else. The next 1,000 athletes that weren't quite DI material would go G5, and the top 1,000 athletes that weren't quite P5 would go P5. Basically nobody would care that the top teams weren't quite as good. If USF made it into a P5 conference, you probably would see them start to have a lot of support. Wouldn't translate to SEC type support relative to the alumni base because South Florida just has more competition for people's interest, but it would definitely go up.
Another example: The top WNBA team averages around 3,000 people in attendance per game. MSU women's basketball averaged at one time over 6k. Granted the price for tickets is probably different, but why would people watch college games like that if they cared about the quality of competition? They are there for the name on the jersey, not the quality of competition.
Last edited:
It feels like we're not that far from the Jerry Seinfeld "rooting for laundry" situation that exists with professional sports
I don't understand how everyone couldn't see this coming a mile away. College football especially already had a major parity problem. This just opens pandora's box to where it will now never be contained or repealed. With the vast majority of talent now likely going to the top of 5 to 6 schools nationwide why should the average college football fan tune in? Why not go watch the NFL where there is much more parity, and the talent is much improved? Who knows, State and Ole Miss's programs could very well be a club sport in 25 years. One thing for certain is we will not be in the top 5 or 6. And why the hell would you donate your hard-earned money to a 17 year old kid who is in no way a professional athlete, will give you at best C level minor league talent until he hones his skills by his Junior or Senior year. But he won't get that chance anymore because we've turned them all into hired guns that will transfer out the first time a positions coach calls them to task in the locker room for being a Primadona. The sport is doomed. I had it out with Bo Bounds when all this was coming down the pipe. It was fun while it lasted though**
One thing it might improve is college baseball. Maybe that will become a top sport nationwide in a few years by encouraging talented high school players to go to college instead of the Minor Leagues. The MLB's model is the antithesis of the NIL in college football but that's a whole other discussion.
One thing it might improve is college baseball. Maybe that will become a top sport nationwide in a few years by encouraging talented high school players to go to college instead of the Minor Leagues. The MLB's model is the antithesis of the NIL in college football but that's a whole other discussion.
The quality of play matters, ticket sales suffer when teams suck, which is why athletes deserve some of the money that's generated. People buy their jerseys, etc. Share some of it. "THe athletes aren't the ones generating the money, it's the school brand and loyalty." If true, which it is to some degree although it doesn't really matter, how does this also not apply to the NFL or NBA? I'm a Saints fan. Give the players some chump change cause I support the Saints regardless of the quality of the athletes.
Exactly, colleges already have an emotionally invested fanbase which minor leagues don't have. Like you are saying, the majority of this money being generated with college sports would be there no matter what the names of the players are.
Well that is sort of a universal law that successful teams draw the most fans. In fact, at least as far as ticket sales go, college football would make way more money at the ticket office if more teams were competitive (like the NFL model). I think the fact that only maybe 10% of FBS teams can even really compete for a championship in football drives down ticket sales for the vast majority of schools. NIL with the transfer portal will just drive a bigger gap between the haves and have nots. Players already get full cost of attendance which is essentially a stipend on top of their academic costs now before NIL even gets factored in.
Those who thought NIL could level the field are 17in morons.
I also sadly believe that those who say State must "get their **** together and get with the program, lest we get left behind" might as well buy stock in newsprint. If you think that even drastic NIL rollout campaigns spearheaded by the likes of John Cohen and Lynn Spruill can compete with what other big booster networks are putting together, I can't help you. Just being real. The current setup will only make the gap wider.
In addition, why the 17 would anyone donate to a NIL for the disloyal 17er to Star Trek Portal to a higher bidder next spring? It's 17ing anarchy, and, then Nick 17in Saban and is crying foul at Jimbo Boomhauer? It's like listening to Congress ***** and finger point for the cameras in order to incite reactions, and they all get rich in the end anyway.
It's over.
I also sadly believe that those who say State must "get their **** together and get with the program, lest we get left behind" might as well buy stock in newsprint. If you think that even drastic NIL rollout campaigns spearheaded by the likes of John Cohen and Lynn Spruill can compete with what other big booster networks are putting together, I can't help you. Just being real. The current setup will only make the gap wider.
In addition, why the 17 would anyone donate to a NIL for the disloyal 17er to Star Trek Portal to a higher bidder next spring? It's 17ing anarchy, and, then Nick 17in Saban and is crying foul at Jimbo Boomhauer? It's like listening to Congress ***** and finger point for the cameras in order to incite reactions, and they all get rich in the end anyway.
It's over.
"is essentially a stipend on top of their academic costs now before NIL even gets factored in."
That's not what the word stipend means. I'm not dismissing the value of scholarships. College football makes tons of money. Give some of it to players in addition to scholarships.
That's not what the word stipend means. I'm not dismissing the value of scholarships. College football makes tons of money. Give some of it to players in addition to scholarships.
While I do agree with the spirit of your rant, I do think you’ll see the field even slightly. You’re already seeing it with Texas A&M. I expect USC and Miami to get back on top. The sun is setting on Saban and Alabama. He’s a relic of the old system, and while he’s always been able to adapt, he won’t be able to do it here. Alabama will still be good, just not dominant anymore.
And yes….MSU? 17 donating to NIL. We are going to have to be a program who does it in a niche way. Maybe we can buy a few DLs or something, but by and large we got to innovate and use the portal to grab high talent players on Alabama’s bench.
my prediction,
The SEC is about to distance itself from other conferences regarding TV contract $$$ and athletes. Eventually Ohio State, Michigan and etc will want to join. The sec becomes a national conference (No just the southeast) splits from the ncaa and rebrands. A new college football organization is formed. State OM and a few others are not invited the "new organization" because of few cable tv subscribers.
Last edited:
It's hard to boot schools from the conference. Sanky can't just toss teams out. Other schools aren't voting to do it either. Takes a lot to boot teams.
I beg to differ. A stipend is a fixed allowance by definition which is what is given now ABOVE what it costs to actually pay for school. What you are talking about is essentially profit sharing. I don't really have any issue with that either as it would be much better than this wild west of NIL. But I don't know if you can get by just giving that to football players and no other athletes. Given the court ruling though NIL will not be going away but somebody has to enforce it for what it was meant to be and stop this blatant purchasing of recruits. Recruits and transfers are getting a crap ton of money right now without doing anything tangible that would have that market value.
I got tuition paid for and a stipend as a grad asst. That's what I'm referring to. Businesses making money and paying for labor used to make money isn't profit sharing (Publix does that, though, and I like shopping at Publix). I agree that the NIL is something else. My argument is that the enormous amount of money generated by college football went to a small number of people. Some of it should have been given to players. The Supreme Court noticed who was really being exploited and who benefitted economically from that system. I like being paid for my labor and paying others as well. It's all now in the hands of the courts and vested interests to figure out how to make this NIL work without ruining the cash cow that is college football.
That's similar to pro football where highly paid athletes often change teams and retire. How much of a dent has free agency put in football revenues?
Buy some DL’s? That’s what I’m talking about.
The core bonds that bind the MSU family are founded on loyalty and principles. Therefore, NIL is a nonstarter for many fans and alumni. Of course we want to win, but winning championships at all costs is not and never was part of the MSU culture.
If buying the best players to win at all costs was ever the benchmark at MSU, the program was an abject failure since it’s inception.
The core bonds that bind the MSU family are founded on loyalty and principles. Therefore, NIL is a nonstarter for many fans and alumni. Of course we want to win, but winning championships at all costs is not and never was part of the MSU culture.
If buying the best players to win at all costs was ever the benchmark at MSU, the program was an abject failure since it’s inception.
We've always bought a few guys, I see no reason that won't continue, NIL or no NIL.
I never said that doesn’t happen. I’m saying that selling your soul to play the devil’s Monopoly game his way and by his rules is a losing proposition unless you already own a few hotels in hell. Everyone else will just be paying rent.
The difference is that if a competitor league to the NFL showed up (say Football version of LIV) and managed to pull away the top 650 players and play a 12 team league, NFL fans wouldn't remain NFL fans for long, at least in the cities where the 12 best teams are. The fans would largely go to watch the best league. The NCAA isn't like that. They aren't watching because they want to watch the best players in the world. They know they are watching inferior players but don't care because it's their team.
If the NFL sold all the saints IP to the USFL and replaced the saints with a new branded team in San Antonio, how long would you continue to pay NFL prices to watch the saints? How long would you really remain invested in them?
It is going to level the playing field somewhat, between current blue bloods and schools that have the alumni base and money but haven't done as well in the past. You are going to see some schools like UNC get better. Not sure it will be UNC, but they have a good sized alumni base that is relatively affluent. It wasn't feasible to tap into that for under the table payments, but even with a fan base that is not as invested in football, they can probably dwarf what Ole Miss and MSU can put together if it gains any steam.
I think it will mostly stay the same, with the current blue bloods that already have crazy fan bases staying on top, but larger richer schools overtaking schools like MSU and Ole Miss, and maybe even schools like Auburn, that are really only ever good because they care more than other schools and are in a talent rich area.
Latest posts
Get unlimited access today.