9.5 million NIL DEAL

[Cougar14.2]

On 6/30/2022 at 1:07 PM, PirateNole984 said:

Not a very good comparison.  A "tech nerd" that creates an app and sells it for millions has proven that their product works.  A high school athlete has NO guarantee that his or her game will translate to the college game.  Don't get me wrong, I'm all for student athletes being able to make money....BUT I believe NIL endorsements should be capped.

It's literally the perfect example of capitalism. The app the tech nerd creates is only as valuable as the purchaser deems it to be. One purchaser may be willing to pay $1M for the app, the next purchaser might think there are equivalent apps and only be willing to pay $1k for it. Prime example is the old My Space platform. It was sold for $580M in 2005 and I'm sure the buyer thought they would get a huge return. It just sold for $35M a few weeks ago. The original buyer took a risk just like someone would purchasing any other stock without a guaranteed rate of return, even if that stock has performed in previous years. 

It's the same for NIL deals. Kids are only getting them because of proven performance in the past. If someone deems that past performance is worth taking a gamble on a kids' future performance they're now allowed to do so at whatever cost they see fit. NIL isn't supposed to be tied to performance anyway(even though we know it is), it can simply be for social media influence. There's a gymnast at LSU who has NIL deals worth about $1M and it's not because she's the next Simone Biles, it's because she looks good. In a free market you can spend your money however you see fit. 

[Cougar14.2]

On 6/30/2022 at 3:32 PM, PirateNole984 said:

1. NIL really only benefits power 5 athletes.

2. Capping NIL endorsements levels the playing field for student athletes in non-power 5 conferences.  OR have levels of capping.  Incoming freshman can make x- amount, sophomores can make a little more, etc... 

3. Financial responsibility. Some of the kids that will make the big NIL deals aren't like an Arch Manning who comes from money.  They need guidance, their families need guidance.  All too often you hear of athletes that made millions during their playing careers that end up broke once their career on the field is over.

4. Agents / Marketing Firms... IF hired by a student athlete or by family do they have the player/s in his or her best interest OR are they just looking for a paycheck? 

Again, I'm all for students athletes being able to make money off their abilities I just think it should be limited till or if they turn pro. The above is my less than 2 cents and everyone will have different ideas and thoughts. 

 

I don't think capping NIL mitigates any of that. 

1. It can benefit athletes and teams at every level. A bunch of colleges are in small towns and have cult followings. North Dakota State is an FCS school and has had two QBs drafted in the top 5 in recent years. It's extremely likely that Carson Wentz and Trey Lance would've gotten NIL deals from those oil and gas donors up there. In this current climate being able to offer them NIL deals would've also helped their teams by potentially keeping them at school while others offered them NIL deals to leave similarly to the way USC money-whipped Jordan Addison to pull him away from Pittsburg this offseason. Furthermore it allows kids like one of the guys I went to school with at South Dakota State, who was a good country singer, to earn money off his performances without the NCAA deeming it additional benefits due to his playing status.  

2. Capping NIL won't level anything. UT donors are working with a vastly different budget than UH already. Say you cap incoming freshman at $100k, all that means is that the UT collective can pay all 25 kids $100k while UH can only afford to pay 5 kids that amount. How is that helping UH? Now, it does allow schools like Eastern Michigan to offer a $1M NIL deal to a QB which would've most likely changed the team's fortunes. In general it mostly has the opposite effect though. A kid ranked at the bottom of a Power 5 class is a lot more likely to take a $50k NIL deal to attend that school knowing they'll never play now versus signing with a non-P5 school that they would be one of the top recruits in. That hurts those non-P5 schools. 

3. A lot of those broke athletes you're eluding to would've done a lot better financially if they would've learned to manage money earlier in their lives. In most cases you don't become a good welder by waiting until you're 25 to start learning. As far as guidance, what better resources to have than dozens of economics, accounting and business professors on campus? 

4. When and at what level are agents and marketing firms not just looking for a paycheck? Sometime they even ruin kids' eligibility by contacting them too early. Drew Rosenhaus doesn't hit up the potential 6th round pick and say "Hey, I want to offer my services pro bono." He has his "people" reach out like they did to my co-worker about his son who was potentially going in the first round and offer their services at a premium cost.  

I'm for kids getting their money when they can. Too many times I've seen situations like Marshawn Lattimore's where kids had catastrophic injuries an never got an opportunity to maximize the money they were in line for when they turned pro. Not to mention, if athletic departments are going to make $100's of millions off kids' name, image and likeness then that kid should be able to get compensated also. 

[NoNeckNic479]

3 hours ago, Cougar14.2 said:

It's literally the perfect example of capitalism. The app the tech nerd creates is only as valuable as the purchaser deems it to be. One purchaser may be willing to pay $1M for the app, the next purchaser might think there are equivalent apps and only be willing to pay $1k for it. Prime example is the old My Space platform. It was sold for $580M in 2005 and I'm sure the buyer thought they would get a huge return. It just sold for $35M a few weeks ago. The original buyer took a risk just like someone would purchasing any other stock without a guaranteed rate of return, even if that stock has performed in previous years. 

It's the same for NIL deals. Kids are only getting them because of proven performance in the past. If someone deems that past performance is worth taking a gamble on a kids' future performance they're now allowed to do so at whatever cost they see fit. NIL isn't supposed to be tied to performance anyway(even though we know it is), it can simply be for social media influence. There's a gymnast at LSU who has NIL deals worth about $1M and it's not because she's the next Simone Biles, it's because she looks good. In a free market you can spend your money however you see fit. 

Perfect example...far from it.  You're comparing a product that has been researched, tested, and tried for countless hours against a product (student athlete) that for most of their career has played against inferior competition...the exception being the big powerhouse 5A/6A schools and private schools (IMG, Mater Dei, etc.).  The decision makers that are deciding to purchase apps from these "tech nerds" have done their research, compared the app against all other apps before making the decision to buy.  When you decide to endorse, buy an athlete you're paying in hopes that athlete can make the transition from high school to college, hoping that the athlete does slip up along the way... make a stupid social media post, get caught with drugs, underage drinking, etc.  IF the app slips ups... no harm no foul.  Fix the the glitch, provide app updates, rewrite software to keep up with changing times.  You can rewrite a player. 

Don't try to lecture me on a free market.  Everyone of us that has a smartphone, tablet, computer are all a few clicks away from making purchases....for JUST about anything.