- Joined
- Aug 5, 2017
- Messages
- 3,760
- Reaction Score
- 9,796
A little late responding, but we were away for two weeks and I wanted to cover the details that prompted my post.
The issue begins with a dichotomy: most players know they won't make an NFL roster and are OK with that because they love the sport and want to continue playing, while others dream of making it big as professionals.
Also, no need for confusion. The main questions that prompted my comments is who benefits most from NIL money and to what degree will the players benefit?
My belief, overall, is that NIL will be worth little to the vast majority of athletes, but we'll find out over the next few years.
Rationale? Pell Grants and "Full Cost of Attendance (FCA)" money is available in equal amounts to all athletes, while NIL money will vary by the value each player is perceived to bring to the school and its donors, or businesses supporting the school.
Benefiting most from NIL will be the Athletic Departments flush with cash from TV contracts, the Coaching and Support Staffs who get larger contracts for winning and the star players, especially the 5 star recruits, who make up 50% of those drafted in football.
The other 16,000 draft eligible players each year will get a little cash for signing autographs or shaking hands with alums at special events or selling some memorabilia.
Most players will make far more from Pell grants (maximum of $6895 for the 2022-23 school year) or FCA which varies widely depending on the school's policies, travel costs, etc. but is estimated to range from $2,000 to $5,000. Players can get either the Pell Grant or FCA, whichever is larger, and all can get whatever the market will bear from NIL.
Here's a quote from former NC State Athletic Director Kay Yow in 2014 when she was asked about "FCA": A "sizeable competitive advantage" could be gained when one prospect "counts up how much cash he could make by going to school A versus school B."
She was right and many non-P5 schools (like UConn) had to go further into debt offering FCA in order to compete for players. Now, those same schools are having to come up with strategies to get more money from other sources for NIL or they won't get the best recruits and will experience greater losses.
There's no benevolence involved. It'll come down to who has the best TV contracts and donors willing to foot the cost of buying and/or keeping the best recruits. Isaiah Wong at Miami really brought the reality of the issue to the fore and he got paid, but how many kids will be judged worthy of big paydays and how many others will toil in obscurity?
Some think it's great for the players because with coaches and athletic departments awash in cash the players should get their share. While that may be true, how many players on an 85 man roster will get more than a token payment? I guess the potential going forward is better than the nothing of the past, but who besides the average O-lineman's family and friends are buying his jersey?
I can't help but be cynical that NIL is simply another scheme, like FCA, developed by the "haves" to legalize poaching from the "have nots" and only a small percentage of college athletes will meaningfully benefit.
