Re: Understanding the NIL
Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2023 4:00 pm
Ooh...change-gamer? (Not sure why anyone thought they would be, but....y'never know)
So $35k NIL and $35k tuition and fees. $70k. If they suck they are getting booed and that is a fact.NYGFan_Section208 wrote: ↑1 year ago so...average top 3 players on each A10 team get $35K? If that's the case, shouldn't be that expensive to get competitive...
Not tax deduction unless it is used as advertising for a business.NYGFan_Section208 wrote: ↑11 months agoOoh...change-gamer? (Not sure why anyone thought they would be, but....y'never know)
Thanks for posting, RIFan. Interesting read. The Saudi’s could really cause some major disruption to our sports landscape if some controls are not put in place. We shall see.RIFan wrote: ↑11 months ago From todays projo: Saudi Arabia has used its vast financial resources to ingrain itself in Western sports; which league will it target next?
Possibly college football and basketball…
https://www.providencejournal.com/story ... 330586007/
Because in many of these situations, the player hasn't earned anything. As far as I'm concerned, a players max compensation shouldn't be determined by a donors wallet. I also don't think it's fair to cap NIL because obviously Livvy Dunne and Joe the benchwarmer shouldn't be treated equal. Make a formula that using professional metrics for contact (social media following) allows for players to actually be paid what they are worth, something like that...Blue Man wrote: ↑11 months ago Mike Locksley is making $5.5M this year and by the end of his current contract he’ll be making $6.7M.
If he’s so concerned why doesn’t he break off a tiny piece of that and pay the kids that supposedly will only come for cash.
He’s 23-54 in his career, a majority of that before the big bad NIL came for his super awesome recruiting classes.
I’ll never understand these absurdly overcompensated coaches who have their guys, especially football players, literally putting their bodies on the line, and they have the balls to say there’s an issue with those kids getting their share of the money they earn.
If it was based on actual marketing value 99.8% of college athletes wouldn’t make more than a couple thousand dollars.rjsuperfly66 wrote: ↑11 months agoBecause in many of these situations, the player hasn't earned anything. As far as I'm concerned, a players max compensation shouldn't be determined by a donors wallet. I also don't think it's fair to cap NIL because obviously Livvy Dunne and Joe the benchwarmer shouldn't be treated equal. Make a formula that using professional metrics for contact (social media following) allows for players to actually be paid what they are worth, something like that...Blue Man wrote: ↑11 months ago Mike Locksley is making $5.5M this year and by the end of his current contract he’ll be making $6.7M.
If he’s so concerned why doesn’t he break off a tiny piece of that and pay the kids that supposedly will only come for cash.
He’s 23-54 in his career, a majority of that before the big bad NIL came for his super awesome recruiting classes.
I’ll never understand these absurdly overcompensated coaches who have their guys, especially football players, literally putting their bodies on the line, and they have the balls to say there’s an issue with those kids getting their share of the money they earn.
Which would be what they are worth, no?bigappleram wrote: ↑11 months agoIf it was based on actual marketing value 99.8% of college athletes wouldn’t make more than a couple thousand dollars.rjsuperfly66 wrote: ↑11 months agoBecause in many of these situations, the player hasn't earned anything. As far as I'm concerned, a players max compensation shouldn't be determined by a donors wallet. I also don't think it's fair to cap NIL because obviously Livvy Dunne and Joe the benchwarmer shouldn't be treated equal. Make a formula that using professional metrics for contact (social media following) allows for players to actually be paid what they are worth, something like that...Blue Man wrote: ↑11 months ago Mike Locksley is making $5.5M this year and by the end of his current contract he’ll be making $6.7M.
If he’s so concerned why doesn’t he break off a tiny piece of that and pay the kids that supposedly will only come for cash.
He’s 23-54 in his career, a majority of that before the big bad NIL came for his super awesome recruiting classes.
I’ll never understand these absurdly overcompensated coaches who have their guys, especially football players, literally putting their bodies on the line, and they have the balls to say there’s an issue with those kids getting their share of the money they earn.
So then the donors pay an Indian click farm to get a million bots to follow their players.rjsuperfly66 wrote: ↑11 months agoWhich would be what they are worth, no?bigappleram wrote: ↑11 months agoIf it was based on actual marketing value 99.8% of college athletes wouldn’t make more than a couple thousand dollars.rjsuperfly66 wrote: ↑11 months ago
Because in many of these situations, the player hasn't earned anything. As far as I'm concerned, a players max compensation shouldn't be determined by a donors wallet. I also don't think it's fair to cap NIL because obviously Livvy Dunne and Joe the benchwarmer shouldn't be treated equal. Make a formula that using professional metrics for contact (social media following) allows for players to actually be paid what they are worth, something like that...
Here is a very simple formula I would use...
Any player can make 10% of their social media followers monthly...
So a player with 100k followers can earn up to 10k per month, a player with 1 million followers $100k per month.
It semi-eliminates pay-for-play while not capping earnings.
To me something like that is players earning what they are actually worth.
The more logical framework IMO is tying them to the revenue they generate - so a formulaic manner of sharing revs generated from ticket sales, media rights and merchandise. That is the crux of the argument. The NIL thing is all a work around bc in reality none of them (beyond a few outliers) have significant marketing value.rjsuperfly66 wrote: ↑11 months agoWhich would be what they are worth, no?bigappleram wrote: ↑11 months agoIf it was based on actual marketing value 99.8% of college athletes wouldn’t make more than a couple thousand dollars.rjsuperfly66 wrote: ↑11 months ago
Because in many of these situations, the player hasn't earned anything. As far as I'm concerned, a players max compensation shouldn't be determined by a donors wallet. I also don't think it's fair to cap NIL because obviously Livvy Dunne and Joe the benchwarmer shouldn't be treated equal. Make a formula that using professional metrics for contact (social media following) allows for players to actually be paid what they are worth, something like that...
Here is a very simple formula I would use...
Any player can make 10% of their social media followers monthly...
So a player with 100k followers can earn up to 10k per month, a player with 1 million followers $100k per month.
It semi-eliminates pay-for-play while not capping earnings.
To me something like that is players earning what they are actually worth.
College accounting is one of the most byzantine things out there, up there with the movie business. College football somehow loses millions of dollars every year for every school involved, yet coaches keep making more money and there is an arms race when it comes to facilities. I think there's a zero percent chance you can accurately account for, say, the revenue that a top recruit brings to a program. Ultimately, I think coaches are most upset that they've lost control, power and leverage over players. If you can't get players to buy in to your program and vision, especially if your team sucks, they're going to transfer.bigappleram wrote: ↑11 months agoThe more logical framework IMO is tying them to the revenue they generate - so a formulaic manner of sharing revs generated from ticket sales, media rights and merchandise. That is the crux of the argument. The NIL thing is all a work around bc in reality none of them (beyond a few outliers) have significant marketing value.rjsuperfly66 wrote: ↑11 months agoWhich would be what they are worth, no?bigappleram wrote: ↑11 months ago
If it was based on actual marketing value 99.8% of college athletes wouldn’t make more than a couple thousand dollars.
Here is a very simple formula I would use...
Any player can make 10% of their social media followers monthly...
So a player with 100k followers can earn up to 10k per month, a player with 1 million followers $100k per month.
It semi-eliminates pay-for-play while not capping earnings.
To me something like that is players earning what they are actually worth.
The money from top level coaches is earned by the out of state prospective students they reach when the make an impact on a national stage.SGreenwell wrote: ↑11 months agoCollege accounting is one of the most byzantine things out there, up there with the movie business. College football somehow loses millions of dollars every year for every school involved, yet coaches keep making more money and there is an arms race when it comes to facilities. I think there's a zero percent chance you can accurately account for, say, the revenue that a top recruit brings to a program. Ultimately, I think coaches are most upset that they've lost control, power and leverage over players. If you can't get players to buy in to your program and vision, especially if your team sucks, they're going to transfer.bigappleram wrote: ↑11 months agoThe more logical framework IMO is tying them to the revenue they generate - so a formulaic manner of sharing revs generated from ticket sales, media rights and merchandise. That is the crux of the argument. The NIL thing is all a work around bc in reality none of them (beyond a few outliers) have significant marketing value.rjsuperfly66 wrote: ↑11 months ago
Which would be what they are worth, no?
Here is a very simple formula I would use...
Any player can make 10% of their social media followers monthly...
So a player with 100k followers can earn up to 10k per month, a player with 1 million followers $100k per month.
It semi-eliminates pay-for-play while not capping earnings.
To me something like that is players earning what they are actually worth.
Weed is legal in RI but my employer has a zero-tolerance drug policy and would be unhappy if I lit up a joint (same for drinking). It's basically their terms and conditions, the alternative is leaving the NCAA.SmartyBarrett wrote: ↑11 months ago "even if they conflict with state laws" ????? Good luck with that.
Stuff like this makes me feel the sports world has really gone through the looking glass.
She's a different breed. Her NIL deals are legit companies paying her to spread their brand on her social media.ramster wrote: ↑11 months ago Social media star and Sports Illustrated swimsuit cover girl Olivia Dunne has hinted at the amazing amounts companies are willing to throw at her for a paid post.
Dunne, 20, is heading into her senior year at Louisiana State University as a member of the school’s gymnastics team. She has more than 4 million Instagram followers and 7.6 million acolytes on TikTok, meaning her online posts are seen millions of times.
That has made her the top female social media influencer, worth an estimated $3.3 million and climbing.
https://sports.yahoo.com/lsu-gymnast-ol ... p_catchall
Bizarro world.Billyboy78 wrote: ↑9 months ago Arch Manning (yet to play a single down in college football) and Caleb Williams (likely 1st pick in next year's draft) both will make more money in NIL this year than Joe Burrow will make for the Cincinnati Bengals.
This is kind of cherry picking to fit your argument, though. Burrow's salary is like $1m this year, because he already got a $23m signing bonus. His yearly contract - still on his rookie deal - is worth about $9m a year when averaged out. Arch Manning (around $3m) and Bronny James (who's NIL is estimated at like $12m) are getting paid based on family legacy. Caleb Williams NIL is reportedly about $2.6m.Billyboy78 wrote: ↑9 months ago Arch Manning (yet to play a single down in college football) and Caleb Williams (likely 1st pick in next year's draft) both will make more money in NIL this year than Joe Burrow will make for the Cincinnati Bengals.
Caleb Williams will probably make more money next year if he stays at USC rather than entering the draft, even if he goes #1.SGreenwell wrote: ↑9 months agoThis is kind of cherry picking to fit your argument, though. Burrow's salary is like $1m this year, because he already got a $23m signing bonus. His yearly contract - still on his rookie deal - is worth about $9m a year when averaged out. Arch Manning (around $3m) and Bronny James (who's NIL is estimated at like $12m) are getting paid based on family legacy. Caleb Williams NIL is reportedly about $2.6m.Billyboy78 wrote: ↑9 months ago Arch Manning (yet to play a single down in college football) and Caleb Williams (likely 1st pick in next year's draft) both will make more money in NIL this year than Joe Burrow will make for the Cincinnati Bengals.
He's not wrong.RIFan wrote: ↑9 months ago Update: maybe this should be in he transfer carousel thread…up to Mod’s.
I think this is the right place for coach Cal’s thoughts on the portal:
https://www.espn.com/mens-college-baske ... e-one-done
I think you're absolutely right. We're in a tidal wave of change with athletes getting an extra year of eligibility due to Covid, free transferring, and NIL all happening at the same time. It's a shock to the system, but eventually it will slow down and we'll get to a normal state. The extra year is already getting ready to go away completely and the NCAA is now limiting free transfers after the first one. Like you said, eventually people are going to realize they're not getting a lot for their NIL contributions and that market will correct itselfBlue Man wrote: ↑9 months agoHe's not wrong.RIFan wrote: ↑9 months ago Update: maybe this should be in he transfer carousel thread…up to Mod’s.
I think this is the right place for coach Cal’s thoughts on the portal:
https://www.espn.com/mens-college-baske ... e-one-done
I just don't see this gravy train of NIL money lasting for more than a few years. The big donors/collectives are going to start to realize that they can't buy an NCAA title, no matter what they do. Paying $400k for one year of a kid who can just shop around and leave the next year or jump to the pros is going to wear thin once those investors realize the lack of ROI.
The more these guys get burned, the less they're going to open up their wallets for future transfers.
UConn was incredibly light in NIL last year. They won a title.
The top payout schools? UNC - didn't make it. Kentucky? 2nd round. Kansas? 2nd round.
When donors give to schools - they a) get something - longevity with access/name on a building etc, and b) tax write offs.
When donors give to NIL they get a player for 1 year. They can't write it off. They're just throwing money away with no guarantee that they win anything.