NIL Overview and Assessment
I have seen posts on this subject occasionally, and I certainly may have missed a more thoughtful piece. It seems this topic warrants a deep dive from someone in the legal or sports marketing/branding world to assess A) what is happening at the state level B) what is happening at the conference level, and C) what strategy is Michigan pursuing, along with relative strengths Michigan may have leveraging this tool when it comes to recruiting.
Deeper still, what are the thoughts about how this changes the environment and game of college football over the next 3-5 years.
If there are resources on the board who have the insight, please share your perspective.
Thanks.
I mean... there is a search bar. Type in "NIL". The very first hit is titled "Change is Coming: NIL and the effects on college football."
The date of that very well written post was 12/22/20. Since that time, multiple states, including all in SEC country have passed legislation on NIL. The pace of change is quickening. It appears to be a significant change in the way players, and schools may behave. And for our "big brand" school, it may mean opportunities to differentiate ourselves.
Posting a request five months later, to entice the minds on this board to weigh in on this dynamic change, does not seem to pass the test for a snarky response. But here we are.
It would be interesting if a regular contribution was created to track the progress of Michigan and other BIG schools.
Summary of what to expect during any NIL discussion:
20-30% of posters clutching pearls about ‘slippery slopes’, how an education and skill development is plenty of compensation for the athletes, and threatening to stop watching because ‘it will be just like pro sports, which I don’t watch’
50-60% - it’s about time and given the money cannon at UM’s disposal, Hopefully this will ‘close the gap’
10-20% - who cares, basketball school
50-60% - it’s about time and given the money cannon at UM’s disposal, Hopefully this will ‘close the gap’
If that many people think that NIL has anything to do with a money cannon from a school, God save us.
You know we are referring to the fanbase & not the university itself, right?
We just need more fans like WD.
I doubt that NIL will result in many changes in the top 25 rankings over time. The rich programs will continue to be rich and I would think that a handful of smaller athletic departments will get really creative and find some success.
I do suspect that the current rule breakers will continue to break the rules, just in a different way. NIL doesn’t do anything as far as providing a remedy for recruiting violations, which is pretty much just enforcing current recruiting rules.
Bottom line, I have no idea, I’m just a dude with a bacon bomb avatar.
If you have a bacon bomb.... you have something......
I tend to agree. The changes in the top 25 in the last several decades correspond, mostly, to the changes we have seen in population. I don’t believe that is coincidence. Kids like to play close to home, even with NIL that will likely continue. Michigan is unlikely to gain such an advantage through NIL to overcome this.
if it was just about how much money you threw at recruits, Hugh Freeze might have more championships.
I doubt that NIL will result in many changes in the top 25 rankings over time. The rich programs will continue to be rich and I would think that a handful of smaller athletic departments will get really creative and find some success.
I suspect that the majority of CFB fans don't care if the bottom feeders of the P5 ever make any meaningful progress into a perennial top 25 teams. But, my hunch is folks are interested in getting some more diversity beyond Bama, OSU, Clemson. Something needs to change that for other teams to compete. More parity would be beneficial for the sport and CFB fans as a whole. Only 5 teams have won a NC in the last 10 years, two teams have won multiple NCs, and Bama has won 5 of them alone. In the 10 years before that 7 teams won a NC and no one won more than 2.
My opinion is that there will be a bump in total revenue when NIL starts, as boosters and companies start to pay the players for advertisements, video games, autographs, NFTs, and other NIL uses. However, over the long term, money that goes directly to the players is going to cannibalize the contributions currently going to the Athletic Departments. For example, Al Glick probably has a set budget to spend on Michigan athletics, and if he can contract the Michigan QB to do an Alro Steel billboard, whatever he spends on the QB is going to reduce the direct payments to the school.
From a policy standpoint, the changes are going to be incremental and probably dissatisfying to most. Already, the laws that have been passed are pretty narrow. They override NCAA rules against NIL compensation, but only that, and still leave a lot of power with the schools to restrict and control how much the players can do. The school can prevent a player from making a deal with a competitor, or a sin company - no gambling or alcohol endorsements. The Georgia law famously lets the school make the players agree to share the income with other student athletes. There are going to be fights over what's allowed and not allowed, and what's fair vs what's unfair, from now into the future. This isn't going to be settled anytime soon, and I plan to be patient as the institutions gradually get on board with a market for players to earn money while playing in college.
Already, the laws that have been passed are pretty narrow
How would you characterize the Colorado law then?
Asking because Colorado pretty much leaves NIL up to the student athlete as long as it doesn't interfere with the program or cause a conflict of interest for the university.
Then I see the Georgia law where the school pools the money and distributes to both the athlete and the rest of programs.
Well, compensation for NIL is itself a narrow slice of income possibilities for student athletes. Basically all of the state bills that allow for NIL comp still prohibit the schools from paying the players directly.
I just read the Colorado law and to my reading the conflict of interest clause is broad enough to still severely restrict the NIL options to the student athletes. The school can assert CoI on many potential "sponsors" that are competitors of the official school sponsors. I hope they do not, and for competitive reasons I think they will not, but it's possible, and there will be edge cases to test it. For example, could CU-Boulder say that athletes should not do marijuana shop endorsements?
is broad enough to still severely restrict the NIL options to the student athletes.
Not the point I was making.
The GA law vis-a-vis the CO law are widely different. You said it was narrow.
Your analysis of the CO law is pure speculation.
We don't know how it's going to play out other than what's in black and white, GA is much more restrictive.
The school can assert CoI on many potential "sponsors" that are competitors of the official school sponsors. I hope they do not, and for competitive reasons I think they will not
Why not?
It happens in the pros... take for example the Dream Team when Reebok made the uniforms but the players were under contract for Nike. The players covered up the Rebook logos during the medal ceremony.
Or in the NFL where only certain brands are authorized.
If there's precedent for that at one level, it seems reasonable to say that CU is going to look hard at student-athlete to sign an adidas deal. Especially if Nike has something to say about it.
For example, could CU-Boulder say that athletes should not do marijuana shop endorsements?
I would think that's a given.
Weed endorsements aren't allowed in any league at the moment.
From what I've seen in existing laws or proposed laws, there is so much variability from state to state it may be a little early to assess how this is going to play out.
It may end up like being a UFA in a professional sport and a certain team may be more desirable than another club because of local finances, taxes, market, etc.
Why go to UGA for example where the school controls your allowance when you can go to CU and get paid?!
So it could be a boon to the Texas programs where there's no state taxes? Just like you see all of the big Twitch streamers, Podcasters (Rogan), etc... leaving their states and moving to Texas. If your job is to sit in your home or local studio and make content worth 10's of thousands of dollars a month why not live in the place with the least taxes.
I don't think there will be a huge shakeup at the top in terms of talent distribution - the teams with the best facilities, coaches, tradition, etc. will still attract kids with the biggest licensing opportunities. I could see it help at the margins for schools like UM who have rich alumni and a national brand that maybe stretches a bit beyond schools like, say, LSU that may be somewhat more regional. That doesn't mean people haven't heard about LSU but I think to the casual person they know less about those schools.
But in the end it'll mean men and women will have a chance to earn a piece of the pie that they help contribute to already, and that's a net-positive in my book.
It appears that the NCAA will not adopt a rules change prior to the start of the '21 season which will certainly murky the waters. Some schools will test their resolve to the current rules based on a combination of the fact that they weren't following them to begin with and the impending NLI changes coming, namely the teams in the south. And, some teams will still follow the NCAA's rules until there is an official change in rules, namely the B1G. This will likely put UM at a disadvantage based on their general propensity not to test the NCAA and to instead make all reasonable attempts to follow the rules. I personally hope they decide to push the envelope assuming the change is inevitable, but because MI's law does not go into effect until 12/22/22 I doubt they will. Florida's state law however will go into effect on 7/1/21.
NIL and playoff expansion are two structural reforms that, together, should massively benefit the Michigan football program