Ncaa image and likeness

the hyperfocus on recruiting "talent" over development will lead to the status quo offense and defense making it boring as hell, and the lack of true foootball dudes making it into the league and being tough guys


in other words

the death of the game

How will it change that much? You can only sign 20 or so kids a year still. Not like Bama can now sign 50 dudes every year and get them NIL money. Let's not sit back and pretend like big time players aren't already benefiting some way some how at the big time programs. And really of the players how many will really reap the benefits of this? Not like all 85 scholarship dudes are gonna be signing million dollar endorsement deals with Bob's Subs on College Avenue South. People are gonna want the big names for all of this guys that are proven and have some juice behind them in the college game.

cqmiller how is this ruling going make anything significantly different? Oklahoma is still going to be Oklahoma. Ball State is still Ball State. I could be wrong, but I am betting Ben Roethlisberger didn't choose Miami over the Ohio State University. The mid level schools are still going to have to survive on the late blooming prospects just as they have.

I think wingtol further develops a point I made in the thread regarding transfers. There will be limited opportunities in most cases, although I would be interested to see how the new policies apply. He is now retired, but I wonder what could have happened 10 years ago with Phil Knight (Nike) and Oregon. Could every Oregon Duck athlete have been in partnership with Nike?

blb , while I don't think the tax issue matters much for cash compensation cases (since 80% of something is better than 0% of something), it very well may create some issues if the compensation is in goods or services. If you get 10 free dinners valued at $1,000 at Local College Town Steakhouse for doing a promo there, that should be a taxable event. Not sure if the IRS is really going to pursue that though.

You also bring up a good point about how this will not be standardized across the country. Not only will state income tax be considered, but also states have different laws about this very topic, and the schools that don't have state law on the books will be writing and regulating their own policy.  In some states the players will not be allowed to wear their school gear, in some they will etc. 

I think where we are going to see some  big differences are in things like championship posters. 

You have to pay those guys now.  PLUS, how do those guys get picked?  Is the Athletic Dept picking them? The SID? The HC? Same with anything else sold in the bookstores.   

Another issue is that this very well may create a void to be filled by agents/agent type "wranglers".  Who is the contact point between the student union Zaxby's or Raising Cane's and the players? How will that happen?  

Will be interesting for sure, but I don't think we will see much difference on Saturday's to be honest. The differences and free for all will be behind the scenes. 

There will absolutely be lots of moving parts, and I am sure somewhere down the line some student athlete is going to get in trouble with some tax authority or government business agency and it will play out in the public eye as some poor unsuspecting kid getting taken advantage of... which will likely be true for the most part. 

It would be interesting to see the financial differences between existing as a low performing football team in a group of 5 FBS league vs competing in FCS.

I think between these (and future changes along these lines) as well as the changing/expanding the CFP will result in possibly a quite different college football landscape in the next decade or so.

Several SEC athletes have already announced partnerships on their social media. I’m sure this is true in all parts of the country.

Most people are talking about the main football and basketball sports, but where I really think you’ll see something is in other sports. Read an article this morning as to how one of LSU’s female gymnast might be one of the biggest earners with her 1.1 million followers on social media

I do think that something that a certain portion of the fandom will NOT like is now you will see is athletes taking measures on the field/court to build a brand.  The showboating might get a bit distasteful. 

A good indicator of how this may go, may be Illinois' Kofi Kockburn. Initially he declared for the NBA draft and has been doing that deal for a while. Kind of out of nowhere, he entered the "portal" today (which, for my money, is as big a danger to the future of the sport as this). Prevailing theory I've seen so far is that Kofi will basically see where he can get the best monetary deal should he not like his draft outlook.

But the thing is, he can't get "monetary deals" from the schools per se. No quid pro quo offers from boosters to attend either. Sure, one can say "you know its going to happen, they are going to work around it" but if that is the mindset, then you have to stipulate that those places would have simply done something illegal prior to the new policy. 

I really think this is going to play out differently than many expect.  As I mentioned, an LSU female gymnast with over 1million followers on instagram and over 4 million on tik tok (whatever the hell that is) could very well be the richest NCAA athlete in a few days time.  

For the record, I am not sure I agree with you that empowering student athletes with regards to transfers a bit, and making the process more transparent at the Div I level is necessarily a big danger to the sport.  A danger to the status quo, yes. 

I don't know if I would consider image and likeness compensation a danger to the future of the sport at all. 

1. The sport is screwed regardless of this deal.

2. They most certainly were going to do crooked things before this deal, and they most certainly will do crooked things after it. They'll just augment it with a pile of now legitimate cash.

Absolutely nothing to do with what I want. Football is dying from the roots up. Kids are increasingly not playing the game.

It's not football per se that's screwed, it's the institution of intercollegiate sports that bring in a lot of money, whether football, basketball, or something else, that's screwed.  It won't happen immediately, but unless antitrust law is changed, the process I foresee is inexorable.

Eligibility rules by law will have to be amended by the colleges so that every rule that interferes with competition for talent will have to be sacrificed, as long as it's clear the institution is bringing in significant money based on that talent.  In other words, amateurism will not be allowed to be an excuse for the maintenance of any rule that keeps out players making money (from whatever source) on their play.  Not overnight, but eventually, the bidding war will result in players becoming fully professional.  Eventually the schools involved will realize, "Why should we limit eligibility to students?", whereupon they'll hire non-matriculated players.  Soon after that they'll just license their institution's name to a professional team, but after not long the pro team will realize the association's not worth the licensing fee.  The colleges will still have tax advantages, but they won't be enough to overcome the flexibility of arrangements by independent clubs in the long run.

There is no reasonable stopping point I can see on that slippery slope.  Each step will look like a small one -- no telling how long it'll take -- but the overall effect will be the end of substantial money-making intercollegiate sports.  It will have no effect on the vast majority of intercollegiate sports, i.e. the ones that aren't major money makers, since most of them are at institutions where they aren't subsidized significantly from the money makers.  At the ones where they are, they'll be down-budgeted into the range of the sports at the schools where there were no revenue-generating sports.  Participant-oriented sports aren't a big money drain, so don't expect them to suffer.

Is there a change antitrust law will change to derail this whole process?  Sure.  Congress is always there as a wild card to be played, and who knows what picture will result?  Depending on who's an alumnus from where in Congress or among their donors, they might intervene to stop this process -- or to go the other way and speed it by amending the tax laws to eliminate the income tax advantages colleges have.  Or they could modify it in ways unforeseen.

There are reasons the college bubble in the USA will burst anyway that will make the sports issue look like peanuts.  We have a ridiculous number of people in intrinsically useless 4-year degree programs.  We have an enormous amount of overly expensive marking of time at both the low-age and high-age ends of schooling.

Coach, why do you think that this will somehow affect the talent divide more than already exists?  Were kids choosing Kansas over Texas before, but now will choose UT because of NIL policy?  

The real winners right now are the female athletes with large social media followings.   There may not be many, but those are the ones who will make the big splashes. 

But is that any different than it already is?  Was someone with legitimate  offers to UT and A&M choosing Texas Tech or TCU before July 1 of this year? As someone mentioned above, were players choosing to be Bobcats over Buckeyes?  To play at Louisiana Lafayette instead of LSU?  South Alabama over Auburn or Bama? UCF over Florida? 

I just don't see how this will make much of a difference.  There is already a divide like we all realize.  I don't see how this would increase it that divide.  The "haves" aren't really losing recruiting battles to have nots right now. 

Wouldn't scholarship limits and the fact that you can only put 11 on the field mitigate those concerns? This isn't 1968 where Bear Bryant would offer scholarships as a preventative measure to keep potential athletes from playing against him.

If you have a great kid and being compensated for his name, image, and likeness are a concern for him and his family, is he going to Bama  or Clemson and splitting time or worse, sitting behind the next Najee Harris or Travis Etienne for 3 years? There is no brand building in that.  Is he going to go split time or sit behind J.K Dobbins at Ohio State? Is your stud quarterback going to OU to sit behind Spencer Rattler until he leaves?


It is all about building a brand. Larrymoe mentioned Kofi Cockburn- maybe the premiere NCAA mens's basketball player. He has 93 followers on tik tok. There are several accounts in which people are impersonating the The Cavinder twins (a set of sisters who play for Fresno State) which have 10 TIMES THAT. For fake accounts. The REAL account of those ladies has over 4 MILLION followers. They just signed a deal with Boost Mobile among other companies. LSU gymnast Olivia Dunne has over 1 million on Instagram and 4 million on tik tok. HER SISTER has over a quarter million followers on tik tok with an account named "FORGOTTEN SIBLINGS- LIVVY'S SISTER"!!!

That is where this is headed.
I don't think the football powers are feeling very secure right now, because this NIL is opening things up to the best strategies, not necessarily the biggest football power. You know where those 3 young women were on July 1st? Times Square. I think LSU may have struck the first blow nationally, by unveiling their NILSU marketing campaign. But thats just luck and happenstance because of the initials. Has nothing to do with them as a sports power. Which university comes up with the next best strategy?




The wildcard in all of this- how do the businesses adjust to the college athletic landscape. First hurdle :RIVALRIES. Milo’s tea is learning that lesson- partnered with Auburn’s QB Bo Nix- and instantly might regret it as Bama fans are now rallying against Milo’s lol