90% of FBS ADs polled concerned NIL used as improper recruiting tool

A recent poll of around 80 athletic directors in the Football Bowl Subdivision revealed an overwhelming majority are concerned collectives are using NIL payments as improper recruiting enticements, both for high school prospects and players in the transfer portal.

The survey conducted by the LEAD1 Association – a group representing the interests of FBS athletic directors – found that 90% of ADs surveyed described themselves as “concerned” that Name, Image and Likeness is being used as an improper recruiting tool and 73% said they were “extremely concerned.”

Collectives, which are independent of a university, pool funds from boosters and businesses, to help facilitate NIL deals for athletes. They also create their own ways for athletes to monetize their brands. Every Power 5 school is expected to be affiliated with at least one collective by the end of the year.

Coaches have been outspoken that NIL has been used to disguise “pay-for-play” deals choreographed by collectives to persuade prospects, target players on other college teams and convince their own players to stay out of the transfer portal.

It’s gotten so out of whack insiders say the NIL has created a multimillion-dollar market for blue-chip quarterbacks. Coaches also say the perfect recruiting pitch can be beaten by NIL pay-for-play deals.

77% of ADs believe NIL will create more scandal

The survey also found:

• 92% disagree NIL payments being used as pay for performance should be allowed. For example, NIL payments for scoring a certain number of points.
• 87% disagree NIL payments being used as pay-for-play should be allowed. For example, NIL payments solely for being on an athletics team.
• 72% agree NIL payments should be tied to market value.

Furthermore, 77% agree an unregulated NIL market will lead to increased scandals, such as betting schemes and athletes being taken advantage of.

The survey also found that 78% of surveyed agree NIL collectives will impact traditional athletic department fundraising. They say this may lead to a reduction in both participation opportunities and the allocation of essential resources for student-athletes.

Additionally, 58% disagree with a model which would provide individual conferences to have full autonomy on key issues such as NIL, prospective student-athlete compensation, and scholarship regulations.

“This is a transformational period in college sports,” said LEAD1 President and CEO Tom McMillen. “The results of our survey illustrate that the FBS athletic directors are extremely concerned with a number of key issues. We have shared our findings with the NCAA and expressed that considerable work needs to be done in order to continue to support the success of student-athletes and the evolution of college athletics.”

Coaches support reform

The NIL’s impact on the recruiting trail has become a hot-button issue across the country.

A report on Tuesday from Sports Illustrated’s Ross Dellenger says college leaders are gearing up to issue a warning to hundreds of wealthy boosters who are using NIL ventures to involve themselves in recruiting.” However, legal experts and college coaches are not sure the NCAA can fix this.

“You can be a great recruiter and not have a chance with NIL,” a Pac-12 recruiting coordinator said. “Some schools are being very aggressive with it, and others have taken a wait-and-see approach.

“I do believe the legislation needs to be introduced as soon as possible to level the playing field. It’s out of hand right now. College football can’t sustain with this model unless all the Power 5’s are going to do it. Then college football just becomes another version of professional football.”