This is why I don't trust NIL valuations
- Thread starter 18IsTheMan
- Start date
He had a NIL deal with the OU collective. So I'm sure that factors into it. Social media presence factors heavily into it. He's a QB coming into a place with little QB depth, so that factors into it as well in terms of "roster value". I highly doubt he's getting $82K/yr from us.
www.on3.com
About On3 NIL Valuation and Roster Value
The On3 NIL Valuation, Post Value and the NIL 100 set the standard market value for student-athletes and their NIL deals.
The On3 "NIL valuation" is the dumbest, most arbitrary, most confusing number put out there. It means literally nothing, but because there's no actual NIL out there people see that number and think it's what the player is making or is worth. On3 needs to get rid of that valuation. It would clear up a lot of confusion to just not have it.
It seems terribly arbitrary and random. In large part b/c nobody actually knows what any player out there is getting through NIL.
You're right about that, but it's an incredibly stupid metric that they just arbitrarily created. It comes across as a calculation of what players are making, when it's actually nothing of the sort.
Revenue sharing with athletes is the answer. This portal, NIL system is not sustainable
Will athletes get to share in expenses as well? The programs that lose money in football, and that is about 90% of them, aren't going to be too interested in giving revenue to players who are already getting scholarships and all the other fringe benefits provided for them.
The programs are already sharing revenue with the athletes. Where do they think the scholarship, meal plan, lodging, tutoring, medical care, etc. money comes from?
This is how it goes with those who push certain socialist agendas. They argue that the workers are the ones producing the goods so ownership has a moral obligation to share the profits with them. What's left out is that the owner carries all the risk. If the business goes bell up, he's the one on the hook, not the workers. They walk away and get a job somewhere else.
If you want to share in the reward, you must also share in the risk/investment.
This will come to a head when non revenue producing sports start getting eliminated. That's going to happen. Schools aren't just going to take a $5M/yr (pulled it out of thin air) haircut to pay players.
Oregon is currently being sued for violating title 9 for NIL purposes. The suit claims that male athletes have better training and more access to funds than women athletes. We all know what common sense says in this context, but it will be interesting to see what the courts decide. If they rule with the plaintiffs, that would be a huge deal.
I recently saw a politician scolding businesses for passing on increased costs of doing business to the consumer in the form of higher prices. It's obviously an absurd notion as businesses exist to do one thing: make money. The cost is always passed onto the consumer. Always.
So, yes, college football is strictly a business now. Athletic departments exist to do one thing: make money. Period. As you point out, they are not going to just start footing the bill for paying the players. The cuts will come somewhere.
This will hit especially hard when women's sports start being eliminated. Women's sports are huge financial drains.
Title IX could cause the whole thing to crumble. Of course, NIL collectives are separate entities from the universities and possibly skirt Title IX issues. It'll be interesting to see how the courts decide this. Maybe they decide the NIL collectives are not substantively separate from the universities and have to also operate within Title IX.
Notably, the Oregon lawsuit was brought by members of the beach volleyball and rowing teams. Everyone is starting look for a piece of the pie. There simply isn't enough to go around.
Title 9 will protect those for the most part. So if a female sport is removed, an equal amount of male scholarships have to be removed.
I think to cut a woman's sport they'd also have to cut a men's sport? Could be wrong on that. Not a Title IX expert. Pretty sure, though, they can't just cut women's stuff since.
But they will start cutting non-revenue sports. Men and women. No doubt about that. Just fewer scholarships overall.
Yep. They wouldn't have to cut a whole sport out, just an equal amount of scholarships.
Mediocre coaches can attract talent by having their collectives take care of creating financial windfalls for the players
Title 9 is based on the male/female ratio of students. If, for example, USC is 60% female and 40% male. 60% of our athletes must be female. It's not based on if we eliminate the womens equestrian team which have 10 athletes then we have to eliminate 10 male athletes from other sports (I think)
I don't know about athlete quotas, but title 9 clearly states that the university must allocate scholarship funds proportionate to the participation of male and female athletes. So, if we eliminate 10 women's tennis players, we'd have to find 10 men's scholarships to reduce.
It doesn't have to do with enrollment as stated above, it has to do with percentage of athletes. Excerpt below explains it well:
Under Title IX, an educational institution must provide male and female athletes with equal access to financial aid. This means that funds allocated to athletic scholarships must be proportionate to the participation of male and female athletes. In other words, if a university allocates $500,000 to athletic scholarships, and 45 percent of its athletes are female, it must allocate $225,000 of that amount to female athletes. Outside the financial aid context, an institution does not need to spend the same amount of funds on male and female athletes.
In addition, a university must treat female athletes similarly to male athletes and provide them with comparable benefits and access to services. Among other things, these include:
- Athletic equipment and supplies
- Locker rooms
- Facilities for training and competition
- Medical services and facilities
- Coaching and tutoring
- Support services
- Travel allowances
- Scheduling of practices and games
Title IX and College Sports
Colleges and universities that get federal funds must provide female students with equal access to sports participation, benefits, services, and financial aid.
www.justia.com
Of note, when it comes to NIL, I think the Title IX folks may find some traction in the "Benefits, opportunities and treatment of men's and women's teams" section of Title IX.
I think the fact the university doesn't control any of the NIL dollars will protect schools from any Title IX issues surrounding NIL. I doubt a law will be passed forcing a private entity like an NIL collective to spend money equally on men and women. Women are free to receive all the benefits and opportunities of NIL money today. Look at Olivia Dunne at LSU, she has made a fortune in NIL money.
If revenue sharing is ever put into effect, that will open a huge can of worms. Women's sports generate almost zero dollars in revenue.
We're heading for a complete and total shift in college football, transitioning from the "amateur" to the professional. I'm guessing the Power 4 or 2 or some subset of big boy college football will break away from the NCAA and form their own governing body. Players will become employees. As employees, they'll unionize and collectively bargain with the new College Football governing body for contractual rights, revenue sharing, medical expenses, etc.
Perhaps the college football teams won't even be college teams anymore, just teams with the names of the colleges for association purposes. That might avoid Title IX issues.
Anyway, just spitballing ideas. The current "system" is unsustainable.
College football in 2030 being completely unrecognizable from college football in 2010 is my guess.
Perhaps the college football teams won't even be college teams anymore, just teams with the names of the colleges for association purposes. That might avoid Title IX issues.
Anyway, just spitballing ideas. The current "system" is unsustainable.
College football in 2030 being completely unrecognizable from college football in 2010 is my guess.
I'm sure lawsuits will explore just how separate NIL collectives and universities really are. The line is at least blurry.
But, as it pertains the discussion above with revenue sharing, that's a different ball of wax entirely.
Thanks DS2PP, that's why I put "(I think)". We were discussing it one night at supper club and one of the guys said it was based on the % of male/female student population. I should have done my own research
Sounds like what I said wasn't 100% accurate either. The scholarship funds have to be representative of the % of male/female student athletes. So you were almost there...just doesn't have anything to do with the overall student population. I still think there must be something to do with how many women's programs are offered, but I don't know it that well.
