Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="Horn88, post: 5355692, member: 7087"]
My understanding and some of the main concepts on how this will all look in the future from different conversations with people I trust on this in no specific order:

As some said in this thread, booster fatigue is a very real concern and fairly uniform for schools across the country. You can only keep asking people for money so many times before it strains the relationship. Many schools view the $20M revenue share set up as a positive.

As predicted, schools don’t like competing with their athletes for booster dollars and would prefer to have everything brought back in house.

Schools will very likely start to detach from current NIL collectives. There are some that already have done so.

NIL will probably be more constricted moving forward and be actual NIL not pay for play like we see now.

I can’t remember the exacts but all NIL deals I think will be run through an actual clearinghouse process where they’ll use a third party major accounting firm to assess the terms of each NIL agreement. Maybe Deloitte?

The first one to be denied will sue and then that’s where we see how things will go. It’s much different suing a toothless NCAA as opposed to suing a reputable firm with plenty of experience in the valuation space and reputation risk at stake.

Overall, there will still be big gaps between the haves and have nots. The blue blood football programs will still be able to leverage their fan base and program notoriety to offer bigger actual endorsement and NIL opportunities, but it won’t be as much of a free for all moving forward.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?