2 HUGE myths about NIL (and a few more)

[DomeHolmes]

With all of the change that’s going on on our basketball team, the transfer portal and NIL have certainly changed the game. I’m 50-50 on the transfer portal cause players like Kyle Cuffe should be able to transfer to a better situation than they have, but the “play me more or I will leave” guys are a problem. But since many of them are leaving for more money, not playing time, It’s NIL that is the biggest problem to me. It’s obviously been two huge topics of discussion recently, and I would love to shed some light on the subject (Though many will likely disagree).

If you are for unlimited NIL and think the kids are getting ripped off and they are victims of something, that’s not what I’m here to debate. I’m just stating facts, (not emotions) about the situation almost every school who is not a big state school in the SEC or Big Ten, is dealing with. The $20 million schools are now literally forced to spend on NIL (or get left behind) Is a travesty.

Myth 1: players were making “all this money” for their universities and not getting anything out of it. Here are the facts. I will cite two examples on opposite ends of the spectrum. First, the University of Nebraska in 2015 made $102 million in revenue. That’s about the last time their football team was any good at all. After 10 years of their football team sucking and probably being the most under performing school in the country in that time, the revenue jumped from $102 million to $220 million! Despite their crappy football team, their revenue more than doubled. The quality of their football players couldn’t possibly have LESS to do with the huge revenue increase coming into the school.

Syracuse is the other example. (And an example probably more similar to other teams like us). Last years revenue was $106 million. Last year in football with a 10 - 3 team, we averaged about 5000 people more per game than the crappiest teams we had under Scott Schaffer. With six home games, that’s about 30,000 extra tickets, most of them in the cheap seats for non-season-ticket holders. At $50 apiece that’s about 1.5 million in revenue, plus with concessions, etc. maybe a $2 million difference in revenue between good players with a good team, and bad players with a bad team. (And when DeVito was quarterback, because of expectations, we still sold more tickets for a crappy team anyway ). Same with basketball, our (paid) attendance was about 1500 people per game fewer than what we’ve averaged over the last 10 years, (times 17 games) and you might be looking at another $2 million in revenue between our best teams and our worst team. So with good football and bad basketball we are at $106 million. If both were bad, maybe $104 million and if both were good maybe $108 million. Those are just facts. The quality of our players have almost nothing to do with the revenue generated by the school. And the same is true for most schools. Period. Going forward, when at best, the players are contributing $2 million to overall revenue, we will be paying them $20 million. It’s absurd.

Myth 2 : the players are the valuable assets, the schools don’t matter. Wrong. What gives players value is the pedigree of the school, the conference they are aligned with, the NCAA as an entity, the schools history, the passion of their fan base, etc. Without those, the players are nothing. If college basketball did not exist, 98% of the players would be in the G league making $40,000 a year, or not playing basketball at all past high school. Period. North Carolina is a great example. This year they had their worst team in years. They sold just as many tickets and made more money than they did a few years ago in their championship year. Armando Bacot was making $2 million in NIL at North Carolina , and today for the Memphis Hustle, he makes $40,000 with, in all likelihood, next to zero compensation for commercials, selling his jerseys, etc. If he really had NIL “value“, why arent the people of Memphis packing their stadium and clamoring for his jerseys and hiring him for commercials? Why do they average 1074 people per game with him, when North Carolina without him is averaging 20,500? The 10th guy on the bench for any random college team now has more “NIL value“ than the NCAA all-time double double leader. It’s all the great things about college basketball that give these players their value. Period. Unless he makes the pros, Bacot now has about zero name, image and likeness value WITHOUT college basketball. With Bacot the Hustle still loses money. Without Bacot, North Carolina is still selling tickets. Every G league team would destroy North Carolina. Yet it’s North Carolina selling 20,000 tickets a game and the G league “hoping” for 2000.

Other myths: #1. “maybe it’s bad for the small schools but power, conference schools all make money”. Wrong. More power conference schools lose money than make money. So if you were losing 20 million before, now you’re losing 40 million and if your Rutgers and were losing 80 million now you’re losing 100 million. #2. “Players were being taken advantage of”. For jersey sales and video games, YES! For everything else, NO. A free education and maybe a ticket out of the ghetto is a great deal for the 98% of players who were never going to go pro. The simple laws of supply and demand dictate that it was a GREAT deal, as there were/are 50 times more players who want a scholarship, than get a scholarship. And many that dont get one are willing to walk onto a team and go through everything the scholarship players do, even though they know they will likely never play, and it will be a burden on their time they could use to study. (If you posted a job that there were 50 times more qualified applicants for the job than you could hire, it’s probably a pretty good job!). Anyone arguing to the contrary is ignoring reality. With so many people who wanted in on the deal that used to be a full ride and the perks that go along with it, you cannot argue anyone was being taken advantage of. If you took away NIL tomorrow, you would not change the number of people wanting to go play football or basketball in college at all. #3. “All schools are playing on the same “playing field“ as far as NIL, we just suck at it and the SEC is good at it”. Wrong. Big state schools have the entire state behind them. Small private schools for the most part have their alumni behind them. People underestimate how bad the average sports fan in Memphis wants Tennessee to win or the average guy in Toledo wants Ohio State to win, even though they’re hundreds of miles away and didn’t go to the school. Teams that are fortunate enough to have a whale like we had with Adam W will be more equipped to compete, but they are a few and far between. Huge state support is a tremendous advantage. My friends from Villanova and Seton Hall, feel just as pessimistic for their futures as many of us do, for the exact same reasons.

NIL is a disaster. Rant over.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

A “free” education is the biggest fallacy of the system. A “free” education would be welcome to our school. You have no requirements of your time other than attending classes. The players have a 20-30 hour a week commitment just to have the ability to do their other 40 hour job, which is school.

Then there is the toll on the body, especially for FB, participation in which leaves players with lifetime injuries, such as CTE, early arthritis, and for some, shortened life expectancy.

This is just a quick search. I didn’t bother to grab the studies.

Key Findings from Research:


1. Professional Football Players (NFL):


• Reduced Life Expectancy: Several studies have shown that NFL players, particularly linemen, have shorter life expectancies than the general population.


• A study in JAMA (2022) found that former NFL players had a 4.1-year lower life expectancy than the general U.S. population.


• Linemen are particularly at risk due to repeated head trauma, high BMI, and cardiovascular issues.


2. Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE):


• Repeated concussions and sub-concussive hits in football are strongly associated with CTE, a degenerative brain condition linked to depression, aggression, cognitive decline, and early death.


• A 2017 study of 111 deceased NFL players’ brains found CTE in 110 of them (JAMA Neurology).


3. Youth and High School Football:


• The data is less conclusive. Some studies suggest that youth football, when played with proper safety protocols, does not significantly impact life expectancy or long-term cognitive function.


• However, early exposure to tackle football (before age 12) may increase risks of cognitive issues later in life.


4. Cardiovascular and Metabolic Health:


• Former football players, especially linemen, often have a higher prevalence of obesity, sleep apnea, and metabolic syndrome, contributing to increased risk of heart disease and diabetes.





Nuanced View:


• Elite-level participation in football is associated with higher risks of neurodegenerative disease, cardiovascular issues, and reduced life expectancy.


• Moderate, recreational, or youth participation (especially with modern safety standards and training) appears to carry less long-term risk, though long-term studies are ongoing.

You should break down the revenue increases between: media revenue/ticket sales/merchandise and other. It appears that you cherry picked Nebraska. Their rise in revenue is almost certainly attributable to the Big 10 media deals profit sharing.

Lastly, if NIL wasn’t of value, schools and the NCAA wouldn’t use individual players’ likenesses when promoting events. It wouldn’t be “ watch Cooper Flagg and Duke…”. It would just be “ watch Duke”.

The school’s sports brands have been and always will be built by the players. If it was just about supporting the schools, every game every where would be sold out.

 

[OttosShoes]

Going forward, when at best, the players are contributing $2 million to overall revenue, we will be paying them $20 million. It’s absurd.

Hold up. I hear you. But two important things here.

1. What you've described is the differential value. Scott Schafer's team may have lost too often, but they were still playing at a very high level and had no trouble stomping on the Central Michigans and Wagners of the world. I am comfortable in saying if we swapped Fran's 2025 team for an intramural one, we'd lose out the season--all blowouts--and drop a lot more than $2M in revenue.

2. Nobody said we had to pay $20m. We have an option to pay up to that and are exercising it. I don't think we're paying $20m looking to keep from being left behind, exactly. We're paying $20m because there's a super league forming, and we want to be on that boat whenever it leaves port.

 

[cliftonparksufan]

With all of the change that’s going on on our basketball team, the transfer portal and NIL have certainly changed the game. I’m 50-50 on the transfer portal cause players like Kyle Cuffe should be able to transfer to a better situation than they have, but the “play me more or I will leave” guys are a problem. But since many of them are leaving for more money, not playing time, It’s NIL that is the biggest problem to me. It’s obviously been two huge topics of discussion recently, and I would love to shed some light on the subject (Though many will likely disagree).

If you are for unlimited NIL and think the kids are getting ripped off and they are victims of something, that’s not what I’m here to debate. I’m just stating facts, (not emotions) about the situation almost every school who is not a big state school in the SEC or Big Ten, is dealing with. The $20 million schools are now literally forced to spend on NIL (or get left behind) Is a travesty.

Myth 1: players were making “all this money” for their universities and not getting anything out of it. Here are the facts. I will cite two examples on opposite ends of the spectrum. First, the University of Nebraska in 2015 made $102 million in revenue. That’s about the last time their football team was any good at all. After 10 years of their football team sucking and probably being the most under performing school in the country in that time, the revenue jumped from $102 million to $220 million! Despite their crappy football team, their revenue more than doubled. The quality of their football players couldn’t possibly have LESS to do with the huge revenue increase coming into the school.

Syracuse is the other example. (And an example probably more similar to other teams like us). Last years revenue was $106 million. Last year in football with a 10 - 3 team, we averaged about 5000 people more per game than the crappiest teams we had under Scott Schaffer. With six home games, that’s about 30,000 extra tickets, most of them in the cheap seats for non-season-ticket holders. At $50 apiece that’s about 1.5 million in revenue, plus with concessions, etc. maybe a $2 million difference in revenue between good players with a good team, and bad players with a bad team. (And when DeVito was quarterback, because of expectations, we still sold more tickets for a crappy team anyway ). Same with basketball, our (paid) attendance was about 1500 people per game fewer than what we’ve averaged over the last 10 years, (times 17 games) and you might be looking at another $2 million in revenue between our best teams and our worst team. So with good football and bad basketball we are at $106 million. If both were bad, maybe $104 million and if both were good maybe $108 million. Those are just facts. The quality of our players have almost nothing to do with the revenue generated by the school. And the same is true for most schools. Period. Going forward, when at best, the players are contributing $2 million to overall revenue, we will be paying them $20 million. It’s absurd.

Myth 2 : the players are the valuable assets, the schools don’t matter. Wrong. What gives players value is the pedigree of the school, the conference they are aligned with, the NCAA as an entity, the schools history, the passion of their fan base, etc. Without those, the players are nothing. If college basketball did not exist, 98% of the players would be in the G league making $40,000 a year, or not playing basketball at all past high school. Period. North Carolina is a great example. This year they had their worst team in years. They sold just as many tickets and made more money than they did a few years ago in their championship year. Armando Bacot was making $2 million in NIL at North Carolina , and today for the Memphis Hustle, he makes $40,000 with, in all likelihood, next to zero compensation for commercials, selling his jerseys, etc. If he really had NIL “value“, why arent the people of Memphis packing their stadium and clamoring for his jerseys and hiring him for commercials? Why do they average 1074 people per game with him, when North Carolina without him is averaging 20,500? The 10th guy on the bench for any random college team now has more “NIL value“ than the NCAA all-time double double leader. It’s all the great things about college basketball that give these players their value. Period. Unless he makes the pros, Bacot now has about zero name, image and likeness value WITHOUT college basketball. With Bacot the Hustle still loses money. Without Bacot, North Carolina is still selling tickets. Every G league team would destroy North Carolina. Yet it’s North Carolina selling 20,000 tickets a game and the G league “hoping” for 2000.

Other myths: #1. “maybe it’s bad for the small schools but power, conference schools all make money”. Wrong. More power conference schools lose money than make money. So if you were losing 20 million before, now you’re losing 40 million and if your Rutgers and were losing 80 million now you’re losing 100 million. #2. “Players were being taken advantage of”. For jersey sales and video games, YES! For everything else, NO. A free education and maybe a ticket out of the ghetto is a great deal for the 98% of players who were never going to go pro. The simple laws of supply and demand dictate that it was a GREAT deal, as there were/are 50 times more players who want a scholarship, than get a scholarship. And many that dont get one are willing to walk onto a team and go through everything the scholarship players do, even though they know they will likely never play, and it will be a burden on their time they could use to study. (If you posted a job that there were 50 times more qualified applicants for the job than you could hire, it’s probably a pretty good job!). Anyone arguing to the contrary is ignoring reality. With so many people who wanted in on the deal that used to be a full ride and the perks that go along with it, you cannot argue anyone was being taken advantage of. If you took away NIL tomorrow, you would not change the number of people wanting to go play football or basketball in college at all. #3. “All schools are playing on the same “playing field“ as far as NIL, we just suck at it and the SEC is good at it”. Wrong. Big state schools have the entire state behind them. Small private schools for the most part have their alumni behind them. People underestimate how bad the average sports fan in Memphis wants Tennessee to win or the average guy in Toledo wants Ohio State to win, even though they’re hundreds of miles away and didn’t go to the school. Teams that are fortunate enough to have a whale like we had with Adam W will be more equipped to compete, but they are a few and far between. Huge state support is a tremendous advantage. My friends from Villanova and Seton Hall, feel just as pessimistic for their futures as many of us do, for the exact same reasons.

NIL is a disaster. Rant over.

The education aspect is being glossed over. We know it's only a very small percentage who are going pro and even a much smaller amount who will make multi generational type money.

D1 athletes work hard and have such a huge demand on their time, but the ones that are great at time management are going to be great in their chosen field post athletics.

That said, how many of these kids playing at three or four universities are going to end up with a degree. It's a full time job just keeping track of eligible credits.

Not sure anyone knows where NIL will be in ten years. But, if you look at the original plans of it: NAME, IMAGE and LIKENESS, where a kid would be paid for jersey sales, or appearing in a print ad or commercial, right now the current iteration of NIL, is the furthest thing from that.

Yes, they might benefit short term, and selected athletes like Amando Bacot or Hunter Dickinson will be paid much more than they will at any other point in their life, but I can't see how long term it will benefit the athletes who are just going for the money grab.

 

[Chip]

The biggest myth is calling it NIL in the first place. You allude to it in myth 2. The kids are getting paid leaps and bounds above what the market value would be for some of these "NIL spots" they do.

I don't care that it's the case, I just hate that the powers that be try to avoid calling it what it is, pay for play.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

We have different definitions for the words facts and myths I suppose.

 

[Knicks411]

The way I think about it is some of these sports and schools are generating an incredible amount of money and of all the people involved I would prefer to the actual players see a lot of that money.

 

[DomeHolmes]

A “free” education is the biggest fallacy of the system. A “free” education would be welcome to our school. You have no requirements of your time other than attending classes. The players have a 20-30 hour a week commitment just to have the ability to do their other 40 hour job, which is school.

Then there is the toll on the body, especially for FB, participation in which leaves players with lifetime injuries, such as CTE, early arthritis, and for some, shortened life expectancy.

This is just a quick search. I didn’t bother to grab the studies.

Key Findings from Research:


1. Professional Football Players (NFL):


• Reduced Life Expectancy: Several studies have shown that NFL players, particularly linemen, have shorter life expectancies than the general population.


• A study in JAMA (2022) found that former NFL players had a 4.1-year lower life expectancy than the general U.S. population.


• Linemen are particularly at risk due to repeated head trauma, high BMI, and cardiovascular issues.


2. Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE):


• Repeated concussions and sub-concussive hits in football are strongly associated with CTE, a degenerative brain condition linked to depression, aggression, cognitive decline, and early death.


• A 2017 study of 111 deceased NFL players’ brains found CTE in 110 of them (JAMA Neurology).


3. Youth and High School Football:


• The data is less conclusive. Some studies suggest that youth football, when played with proper safety protocols, does not significantly impact life expectancy or long-term cognitive function.


• However, early exposure to tackle football (before age 12) may increase risks of cognitive issues later in life.


4. Cardiovascular and Metabolic Health:


• Former football players, especially linemen, often have a higher prevalence of obesity, sleep apnea, and metabolic syndrome, contributing to increased risk of heart disease and diabetes.





Nuanced View:


• Elite-level participation in football is associated with higher risks of neurodegenerative disease, cardiovascular issues, and reduced life expectancy.


• Moderate, recreational, or youth participation (especially with modern safety standards and training) appears to carry less long-term risk, though long-term studies are ongoing.

You should break down the revenue increases between: media revenue/ticket sales/merchandise and other. It appears that you cherry picked Nebraska. Their rise in revenue is almost certainly attributable to the Big 10 media deals profit sharing.

Lastly, if NIL wasn’t of value, schools and the NCAA wouldn’t use individual players’ likenesses when promoting events. It wouldn’t be “ watch Cooper Flagg and Duke…”. It would just be “ watch Duke”.

The school’s sports brands have been and always will be built by the players. If it was just about supporting the schools, every game every where would be sold out.

I didnt “cherry pick“ Nebraska because they were an anomaly. Their $112 million rise in revenue is 3x what their increase in TV revenue was. So no, it’s not “mostly TV revenue”. I educate myself before “speculating”. But even if it was 100% TV revenue, that further illustrates my point that the quality of players has very little to do with overall revenue. They are a well known EXAMPLE of lousy results not affecting revenue negatively. That’s why I used them. EVERY power 4 (and BIG and SEC especially) team has seen huge revenue increases, regardless of their on field success, not just Nebraska. Show me one that went backward.

No one forces players to play. They are not victims.

If they did not say “Cooper flag and Duke”, Duke would still be in the game and they would still draw huge numbers and sell lots of tickets. That is my point. Sure there is value in using his name, but it is negligible in the overall $ produced from that game.

If it’s about the players, why do better players in the G league draw flies? Once they leave their COLLEGE no one cares about them If they don’t make the NBA.

I don’t mean to flame on you, but the numbers say something totally different than you are claiming. The numbers are factual, your arguments are emotional.

But if you want to convince me, please explain to me why Armando Bacot and several other famous, talented former all-conference players on his G league team, that would completely destroy just about every college team, only draw 1000 fans. When you answer the question to yourself, you will understand why I am right. But please take the time to explain that to me if it’s something other than what I know it to be. I look forward to an articulate response on that question.

 

[DomeHolmes]

Hold up. I hear you. But two important things here.

1. What you've described is the differential value. Scott Schafer's team may have lost too often, but they were still playing at a very high level and had no trouble stomping on the Central Michigans and Wagners of the world. I am comfortable in saying if we swapped Fran's 2025 team for an intramural one, we'd lose out the season--all blowouts--and drop a lot more than $2M in revenue.

2. Nobody said we had to pay $20m. We have an option to pay up to that and are exercising it. I don't think we're paying $20m looking to keep from being left behind, exactly. We're paying $20m because there's a super league forming, and we want to be on that boat whenever it leaves port.

I believe I said that in my post. We either pay $20 million or we get left behind.. Many of the schools that will get left behind will not be left behind because they are not somewhat competitive. It will be because they are already losing money and don’t want to lose $20 million more.

no school is fielding intramural teams, but many are fielding non-competitive teams that still create very similar revenue to good teams.

 

[DomeHolmes]

The way I think about it is some of these sports and schools are generating an incredible amount of money and of all the people involved I would prefer to the actual players see a lot of that money.

The key word is “some”. But ALL must pay 20 million or get left behind, even if they are losing money.

And generating money and turning a profit are two different things. Ask Rutgers and UConn.

Should only sports that generate positive revenue get paid? By your logic, yes.

Should athletic departments that lose money, (90% of colleges) not be able to offer NIL? By your logic, yes.

Women’s field hockey players have the same responsibilities of balancing practice and game time with academics. They work just as hard as football and basketball. They risk injury. Their sports lose money. How much should they be paid?

 

[OrangeinNH]

I appreciate the well constructed arguments on both sides of this equation.

 

[Brooky03]

I don’t feel like wading into all of this or really even offering an opinion on NIL. I would just like to point out that I can’t think of a single person who legitimately considered college a 40 hour a week commitment. I’m sure it depends on major and some other factors, but it was generally a 20-25 hour commitment per week. This includes class time, study time, time writing papers and collaborating on projects, etc. Most of the kids I knew could work 20 hours at McDonald’s and get their school work done without burning out.

Is being a college athlete a lot more grueling than serving burgers and fries? Absolutely, but these athletes also get access to tutors that other students don’t get as easily. They have structured study time to keep them on track, which a lot of other students could benefit from. They get special accommodations from professors (unofficial and official).

A free education isn’t enough to offset the money these players bring in. It’s not insignificant, though. And that’s ignoring the value of it for many of these athletes who would not get into these schools in the first place if they didn’t play ball.

 

[Scooch]

We have different definitions for the words facts and myths I suppose.

“Straw man” would cover both of the myths.

 

[Scooch]

For what it’s worth, all of this could have been avoided if the NCAA hadn’t spent the past 15 years trying to fight every case in court. Instead of pursuing a legal strategy that most observers knew was going to fail, and trying to preserve an antiquated system, they could have been working towards designing an equitable solution that benefited all parties while maintaining some semblance of a coherent operating structure.

I truly think the only way to solve this mess is to recognize the players ability to unionize and then craft a collective bargaining agreement. otherwise, the courts will keep coming down with rulings that essentially endorse chaos.

 

[Zelda Zonk]

With all of the change that’s going on on our basketball team, the transfer portal and NIL have certainly changed the game. I’m 50-50 on the transfer portal cause players like Kyle Cuffe should be able to transfer to a better situation than they have, but the “play me more or I will leave” guys are a problem. But since many of them are leaving for more money, not playing time, It’s NIL that is the biggest problem to me. It’s obviously been two huge topics of discussion recently, and I would love to shed some light on the subject (Though many will likely disagree).

If you are for unlimited NIL and think the kids are getting ripped off and they are victims of something, that’s not what I’m here to debate. I’m just stating facts, (not emotions) about the situation almost every school who is not a big state school in the SEC or Big Ten, is dealing with. The $20 million schools are now literally forced to spend on NIL (or get left behind) Is a travesty.

Myth 1: players were making “all this money” for their universities and not getting anything out of it. Here are the facts. I will cite two examples on opposite ends of the spectrum. First, the University of Nebraska in 2015 made $102 million in revenue. That’s about the last time their football team was any good at all. After 10 years of their football team sucking and probably being the most under performing school in the country in that time, the revenue jumped from $102 million to $220 million! Despite their crappy football team, their revenue more than doubled. The quality of their football players couldn’t possibly have LESS to do with the huge revenue increase coming into the school.

Syracuse is the other example. (And an example probably more similar to other teams like us). Last years revenue was $106 million. Last year in football with a 10 - 3 team, we averaged about 5000 people more per game than the crappiest teams we had under Scott Schaffer. With six home games, that’s about 30,000 extra tickets, most of them in the cheap seats for non-season-ticket holders. At $50 apiece that’s about 1.5 million in revenue, plus with concessions, etc. maybe a $2 million difference in revenue between good players with a good team, and bad players with a bad team. (And when DeVito was quarterback, because of expectations, we still sold more tickets for a crappy team anyway ). Same with basketball, our (paid) attendance was about 1500 people per game fewer than what we’ve averaged over the last 10 years, (times 17 games) and you might be looking at another $2 million in revenue between our best teams and our worst team. So with good football and bad basketball we are at $106 million. If both were bad, maybe $104 million and if both were good maybe $108 million. Those are just facts. The quality of our players have almost nothing to do with the revenue generated by the school. And the same is true for most schools. Period. Going forward, when at best, the players are contributing $2 million to overall revenue, we will be paying them $20 million. It’s absurd.

Myth 2 : the players are the valuable assets, the schools don’t matter. Wrong. What gives players value is the pedigree of the school, the conference they are aligned with, the NCAA as an entity, the schools history, the passion of their fan base, etc. Without those, the players are nothing. If college basketball did not exist, 98% of the players would be in the G league making $40,000 a year, or not playing basketball at all past high school. Period. North Carolina is a great example. This year they had their worst team in years. They sold just as many tickets and made more money than they did a few years ago in their championship year. Armando Bacot was making $2 million in NIL at North Carolina , and today for the Memphis Hustle, he makes $40,000 with, in all likelihood, next to zero compensation for commercials, selling his jerseys, etc. If he really had NIL “value“, why arent the people of Memphis packing their stadium and clamoring for his jerseys and hiring him for commercials? Why do they average 1074 people per game with him, when North Carolina without him is averaging 20,500? The 10th guy on the bench for any random college team now has more “NIL value“ than the NCAA all-time double double leader. It’s all the great things about college basketball that give these players their value. Period. Unless he makes the pros, Bacot now has about zero name, image and likeness value WITHOUT college basketball. With Bacot the Hustle still loses money. Without Bacot, North Carolina is still selling tickets. Every G league team would destroy North Carolina. Yet it’s North Carolina selling 20,000 tickets a game and the G league “hoping” for 2000.

Other myths: #1. “maybe it’s bad for the small schools but power, conference schools all make money”. Wrong. More power conference schools lose money than make money. So if you were losing 20 million before, now you’re losing 40 million and if your Rutgers and were losing 80 million now you’re losing 100 million. #2. “Players were being taken advantage of”. For jersey sales and video games, YES! For everything else, NO. A free education and maybe a ticket out of the ghetto is a great deal for the 98% of players who were never going to go pro. The simple laws of supply and demand dictate that it was a GREAT deal, as there were/are 50 times more players who want a scholarship, than get a scholarship. And many that dont get one are willing to walk onto a team and go through everything the scholarship players do, even though they know they will likely never play, and it will be a burden on their time they could use to study. (If you posted a job that there were 50 times more qualified applicants for the job than you could hire, it’s probably a pretty good job!). Anyone arguing to the contrary is ignoring reality. With so many people who wanted in on the deal that used to be a full ride and the perks that go along with it, you cannot argue anyone was being taken advantage of. If you took away NIL tomorrow, you would not change the number of people wanting to go play football or basketball in college at all. #3. “All schools are playing on the same “playing field“ as far as NIL, we just suck at it and the SEC is good at it”. Wrong. Big state schools have the entire state behind them. Small private schools for the most part have their alumni behind them. People underestimate how bad the average sports fan in Memphis wants Tennessee to win or the average guy in Toledo wants Ohio State to win, even though they’re hundreds of miles away and didn’t go to the school. Teams that are fortunate enough to have a whale like we had with Adam W will be more equipped to compete, but they are a few and far between. Huge state support is a tremendous advantage. My friends from Villanova and Seton Hall, feel just as pessimistic for their futures as many of us do, for the exact same reasons.

NIL is a disaster. Rant over.

We probably agree a lot on the topic of NIL. It disgusts me, but... your MYTH 1 argument is faulty. Your premise seems to be that players are undeserving of payment because the value of their contribution A) is unknowable; B) is not commensurate with the value of fluctuating program revenues.

You couch this all as being a matter of Facts, not Emotion. While you may be citing facts, you are also drawing conclusions, which are not supported by those facts.

I'm not going to delve into roots and causes of Nebraska income. But, supposing a new tv contract were introduced, paying Nebraska twice as much as before. If one could argue that Nebraska making 100 million is reasonable, and the players on that team contribute to that value, just because the value of that contract doubles without a commensurate performance increase does not mean those players contribute to ZERO, simply because we can't draw an association curve. It simply means the value changed. Does it mean those players 'deserve' to be paid twice as much? No. Unless the rest of the market dictates that's what must be done in order to preserve a roster.

"The quality of our players have [sic] almost nothing to do with the revenue generated by the school." Well, that's not a statement that validates your 'thesis statement.' Ignoring the oversimplification of revenues and not discussing losses/expenses, you still need to consider what happens if you don't pay. I'm not even sure what you're arguing on that front. That individual schools decide not to? Then they field uncompetitive teams and their revenues shrink, no? That the entire NCAA change to go against court rulings? What?

Even in your opening salvo, you represent that the two examples are at " opposite ends of the spectrum." So, obviously you accept that there would be two (or more) examples that invalidate your argument. Does the math have to be 1:1 for every program in order for the model to be valid?

Isn't it more true to say that: Teams have revenues. Players are contributors to that revenue, because without them there would be no revenue. If, back to Nebraska, you accept that the 100 million is 'true' value and 200 million is not, how do you wipe away the 100 million, just because your personal Win/Share calculations don't compute easily? Isn't this all just a 'business decision' for each individual program? If Nebraska had been fine with paying each player 50k when they were making 100 million, or if they decided to hold at 50k because the team still sucked even though they had more money in the coffers, or if they decided to pay 100k because they wanted the team to not suck anymore, isn't that just 'business?'

Another inconsistency in your post concerns your immediate exclusion of "a big state school in the SEC or Big Ten." That's a lot of programs to exclude from a 'fact-only argument.' The economic levels may be different there, but the way math works is still the same.

Myth 2: You are conflating value of a player in one circumstance with the value of that same 'person' in a different circumstance. Bacot can very easily be 'worth' 2 million to North Carolina and $40,000 to a G league team. Apples to Oranges. His contribution to a Memphis G League teams cannot be compared to his contribution and impact to the Carolina college team. You cannot apply those numbers across leagues. You may as well be arguing that an actor in a blockbuster film doesn't deserve $15million for the film because he only makes $100k in a Broadway play.

I'm going to (mostly) ignore the crack about the "ticket out of the ghetto." [Who on our team is from the ghetto?]

Other Myths: A "great deal" should be a clue that you're not really speaking about 'just the facts, m'am.' That's highly editorial. Lebron getting only 10 million instead of 60 could be regarded as still being a "great deal" unless the system could support the 60 million. Unfortunately, the systems are supporting the astronomical money, because consumers have been manipulated into paying for it all.

Yes, NIL is a disaster. Yes, "NIL" is inappropriately named at this point. Yes, i agree that college athletics should be about a collegiate experience, and that the players only build their NBA/pro value on the shoulders of the schools. But, that ship has sailed, and if we're going to make cogent, sound arguments to support that "emotion," it should be with a higher level of logic. Even then, though... again, the ship has sailed.

 

[HyattsCuse]

We probably agree a lot on the topic of NIL. It disgusts me, but... your MYTH 1 argument is faulty. Your premise seems to be that players are undeserving of payment because the value of their contribution A) is unknowable; B) is not commensurate with the value of fluctuating program revenues.

Kudos to you for writing this. I read the original post and thought, “Wow, a lot of logical fallacies happening in this post”. I think you caught most of them!

Seems like NIL will slow down eventually. I read an article recently that described “donor fatigue”. NIL seems analogous to the housing market where we have periods of time where prices increase rapidly, but eventually the bubble will burst and self-correct.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

“Straw man” would cover both of the myths.

It's more fun having arguments in the transfer threads.

 

[bnoro]

The players should be getting more money. All these schools in the tournament are currently producing millions in advertising dollars for the schools, which lead to more admissions, and more money through tuition. When students are deciding between UNC Chapel Hill and UNC Wilmington, I'd guarantee sports make that decision 90% of the time.

NIL will continue to exist after the $25m, as it should. And hopefully it exists more within the spirit of the rules, for appearances and commercials and whatnot.

But as OiG said, the NCAA could've started working on this years ago, to keep such a dramatic dismantling of its systems from occurring.

 

[baggerbob]

The players should be getting more money. All these schools in the tournament are currently producing millions in advertising dollars for the schools, which lead to more admissions, and more money through tuition. When students are deciding between UNC Chapel Hill and UNC Wilmington, I'd guarantee sports make that decision 90% of the time.

NIL will continue to exist after the $25m, as it should. And hopefully it exists more within the spirit of the rules, for appearances and commercials and whatnot.

But as OiG said, the NCAA could've started working on this years ago, to keep such a dramatic dismantling of its systems from occurring.

There is only so much Millionaire or Billionaires are going to spend without some recognition.
The free money isn't going to last forever.

 

[Zelda Zonk]

Kudos to you for writing this. I read the original post and thought, “Wow, a lot of logical fallacies happening in this post”. I think you caught most of them!

Seems like NIL will slow down eventually. I read an article recently that described “donor fatigue”. NIL seems analogous to the housing market where we have periods of time where prices increase rapidly, but eventually the bubble will burst and self-correct.

I hope donor fatigue leads to change, but I don’t know how long That might take. People will disagree on the principle of the matter, people will do things that contradict a theoretical/intellectual principle, and some will just not attach principle to it at all. Public-paid player salaries is novel and people may feel a sense of empowerment by contributing. Gotta wonder how ROI factors into it all. If your team doesn’t do well, or if you don’t like a coach, do you pay in more or less? I reckon those two situations prolly average out.

Where is the ceiling, though? Watching games these last few years, the best teams still look like NIT teams of yesteryear. Top ten NBA picks average less than 15ppg in their rookie seasons which seems to indicate that overall top talent is down. So what are people paying for in college? A contextually ‘decent’ product with a standard that is trending down?

 

[Knicks411]

The key word is “some”. But ALL must pay 20 million or get left behind, even if they are losing money.

And generating money and turning a profit are two different things. Ask Rutgers and UConn.

Should only sports that generate positive revenue get paid? By your logic, yes.

Should athletic departments that lose money, (90% of colleges) not be able to offer NIL? By your logic, yes.

Women’s field hockey players have the same responsibilities of balancing practice and game time with academics. They work just as hard as football and basketball. They risk injury. Their sports lose money. How much should they be paid?

Not really based on my logic, I am not sure why we are assuming every other cost is fixed. Maybe the coaches don't need to be making quite so much money, for instance. Like, would you say only sports that turn a profit pay their coaches?)

I can't say I really believe a lot of athletic departments actually do lose money. But thats mostly me being a skeptic I guess. (and also a little logical, why do they keep sponsoring all these sports if 90% of them lose money? Because, among other things, as was mentioned upthread, its not just simple accounting things, sports programs can do things that drive enrollment, etc)

 

[Toga]

With all of the change that’s going on on our basketball team, the transfer portal and NIL have certainly changed the game. I’m 50-50 on the transfer portal cause players like Kyle Cuffe should be able to transfer to a better situation than they have, but the “play me more or I will leave” guys are a problem. But since many of them are leaving for more money, not playing time, It’s NIL that is the biggest problem to me. It’s obviously been two huge topics of discussion recently, and I would love to shed some light on the subject (Though many will likely disagree).

If you are for unlimited NIL and think the kids are getting ripped off and they are victims of something, that’s not what I’m here to debate. I’m just stating facts, (not emotions) about the situation almost every school who is not a big state school in the SEC or Big Ten, is dealing with. The $20 million schools are now literally forced to spend on NIL (or get left behind) Is a travesty.

Myth 1: players were making “all this money” for their universities and not getting anything out of it. Here are the facts. I will cite two examples on opposite ends of the spectrum. First, the University of Nebraska in 2015 made $102 million in revenue. That’s about the last time their football team was any good at all. After 10 years of their football team sucking and probably being the most under performing school in the country in that time, the revenue jumped from $102 million to $220 million! Despite their crappy football team, their revenue more than doubled. The quality of their football players couldn’t possibly have LESS to do with the huge revenue increase coming into the school.

Syracuse is the other example. (And an example probably more similar to other teams like us). Last years revenue was $106 million. Last year in football with a 10 - 3 team, we averaged about 5000 people more per game than the crappiest teams we had under Scott Schaffer. With six home games, that’s about 30,000 extra tickets, most of them in the cheap seats for non-season-ticket holders. At $50 apiece that’s about 1.5 million in revenue, plus with concessions, etc. maybe a $2 million difference in revenue between good players with a good team, and bad players with a bad team. (And when DeVito was quarterback, because of expectations, we still sold more tickets for a crappy team anyway ). Same with basketball, our (paid) attendance was about 1500 people per game fewer than what we’ve averaged over the last 10 years, (times 17 games) and you might be looking at another $2 million in revenue between our best teams and our worst team. So with good football and bad basketball we are at $106 million. If both were bad, maybe $104 million and if both were good maybe $108 million. Those are just facts. The quality of our players have almost nothing to do with the revenue generated by the school. And the same is true for most schools. Period. Going forward, when at best, the players are contributing $2 million to overall revenue, we will be paying them $20 million. It’s absurd.

Myth 2 : the players are the valuable assets, the schools don’t matter. Wrong. What gives players value is the pedigree of the school, the conference they are aligned with, the NCAA as an entity, the schools history, the passion of their fan base, etc. Without those, the players are nothing. If college basketball did not exist, 98% of the players would be in the G league making $40,000 a year, or not playing basketball at all past high school. Period. North Carolina is a great example. This year they had their worst team in years. They sold just as many tickets and made more money than they did a few years ago in their championship year. Armando Bacot was making $2 million in NIL at North Carolina , and today for the Memphis Hustle, he makes $40,000 with, in all likelihood, next to zero compensation for commercials, selling his jerseys, etc. If he really had NIL “value“, why arent the people of Memphis packing their stadium and clamoring for his jerseys and hiring him for commercials? Why do they average 1074 people per game with him, when North Carolina without him is averaging 20,500? The 10th guy on the bench for any random college team now has more “NIL value“ than the NCAA all-time double double leader. It’s all the great things about college basketball that give these players their value. Period. Unless he makes the pros, Bacot now has about zero name, image and likeness value WITHOUT college basketball. With Bacot the Hustle still loses money. Without Bacot, North Carolina is still selling tickets. Every G league team would destroy North Carolina. Yet it’s North Carolina selling 20,000 tickets a game and the G league “hoping” for 2000.

Other myths: #1. “maybe it’s bad for the small schools but power, conference schools all make money”. Wrong. More power conference schools lose money than make money. So if you were losing 20 million before, now you’re losing 40 million and if your Rutgers and were losing 80 million now you’re losing 100 million. #2. “Players were being taken advantage of”. For jersey sales and video games, YES! For everything else, NO. A free education and maybe a ticket out of the ghetto is a great deal for the 98% of players who were never going to go pro. The simple laws of supply and demand dictate that it was a GREAT deal, as there were/are 50 times more players who want a scholarship, than get a scholarship. And many that dont get one are willing to walk onto a team and go through everything the scholarship players do, even though they know they will likely never play, and it will be a burden on their time they could use to study. (If you posted a job that there were 50 times more qualified applicants for the job than you could hire, it’s probably a pretty good job!). Anyone arguing to the contrary is ignoring reality. With so many people who wanted in on the deal that used to be a full ride and the perks that go along with it, you cannot argue anyone was being taken advantage of. If you took away NIL tomorrow, you would not change the number of people wanting to go play football or basketball in college at all. #3. “All schools are playing on the same “playing field“ as far as NIL, we just suck at it and the SEC is good at it”. Wrong. Big state schools have the entire state behind them. Small private schools for the most part have their alumni behind them. People underestimate how bad the average sports fan in Memphis wants Tennessee to win or the average guy in Toledo wants Ohio State to win, even though they’re hundreds of miles away and didn’t go to the school. Teams that are fortunate enough to have a whale like we had with Adam W will be more equipped to compete, but they are a few and far between. Huge state support is a tremendous advantage. My friends from Villanova and Seton Hall, feel just as pessimistic for their futures as many of us do, for the exact same reasons.

NIL is a disaster. Rant over.

Well that's just like your opinion man.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

The players should be getting more money. All these schools in the tournament are currently producing millions in advertising dollars for the schools, which lead to more admissions, and more money through tuition. When students are deciding between UNC Chapel Hill and UNC Wilmington, I'd guarantee sports make that decision 90% of the time.

NIL will continue to exist after the $25m, as it should. And hopefully it exists more within the spirit of the rules, for appearances and commercials and whatnot.

But as OiG said, the NCAA could've started working on this years ago, to keep such a dramatic dismantling of its systems from occurring.

That wasn't me actually, but I graciously accept the credit for it, thank you.

 

[shantydaze]

. . .

The school’s sports brands have been and always will be built by the players. If it was just about supporting the schools, every game every where would be sold out.

Yes and no. Because of the limited time period in which college athletes can or will stay at a school, the brand for most successful programs as been based more on the coach than the player. This is not to ignore the contributions made by the players, but as Seinfeld once pointed out, many fans cheer for laundry. Coaches in college have always been the constant who shape the program.

I think it will become more evident in the transfer portal era. A.J. Storr is the poster child. He played his Freshman year at St. Johns, Sophomore year at Wisconsin, and his junior year at Kansas. I doubt there are many St. Johns' fans that have been rooting for Storrs to do well at Kansas.

A brand is built on success. But due to the number of players that have a role in that success, Syracuse's brand is still more closely associated with Boeheim that with any specific player. This is what makes it difficult and more nuanced than attributing the popularity of a program on the school (true for alumni fans and geographic fans) or the players (true for general fans, which will be more fickle during down years).

 

[shantydaze]

Not really based on my logic, I am not sure why we are assuming every other cost is fixed. Maybe the coaches don't need to be making quite so much money, for instance. Like, would you say only sports that turn a profit pay their coaches?)

I can't say I really believe a lot of athletic departments actually do lose money. But thats mostly me being a skeptic I guess. (and also a little logical, why do they keep sponsoring all these sports if 90% of them lose money? Because, among other things, as was mentioned upthread, its not just simple accounting things, sports programs can do things that drive enrollment, etc)

If I recall correctly, the reason why athletic departments lose money depends on the number of non-revenue programs being supported by the revenue programs. Also, the accounting might depend on whether the athletic department is separate from the university or not.

I have seen conflicting studies as to what benefit a successful sports program has on the academic portion of a school. In the end, though, schools have a finite amount of space for traditional, on campus students. While successful sports programs may drive applications, I am not sure whether it actually materially drives the number of admissions (although for state schools, it might help in draw out-of-state applicants that pay a higher tuition amount).

I say this as someone who picked, in part, both my undergraduate and graduate schools on whether the school had power conference sports programs. That being said, being good at football/basketball did not trump the school's academics, which was a primary consideration.