For those who know NIL, are scholarship limits even relevant any longer?

Given the recent news, are we still holding up Texas A&M as the NIL gold standard, or has that gone up in smoke?

This would seem to be a theoretical way around scholarship limits. But as a recruit, would you rather go to a school where your compensation is directly tied to your performance and a good chunk of your earnings go to your school, or would you rather go to a school where your tuition and fees are paid for (regardless of on-field performance) and any NIL money goes directly into your pocket? Also seems to me the guys who can't earn both a scholarship AND NIL are unlikely to get significant NIL alone.

I don't know. I just don't see any 5-star or high 4-star athlete essentially taking an offer as a walk-on. There are enough top schools out there where they could get a scholarship and a good NIL deal.

Also, in the end, there is no way for the athlete to be sure that this NIL money will be guaranteed for 4 years. If the money dried up, it's not like they could go to the NCAA or the courts because they'd basically be admitting that they took money for pay-to-play, which is still not allowed.

What's to stop them? Nothing. The NCAA is useless. 

It would be theoretically possible, and it also would be hard to pull off.

I think the realistic version of NIL that is settling in is that for most programs outside of a select few is that you can use it to swing a handful of recruits that otherwise would have gone elsewhere or maybe keep a couple guys on your roster that may have thought about going pro. Otherwise you still need to coach and develop players and get them performing on the field and into the pros, and kids are looking at that (sorry Jimbo).

I'll worry about the SuperTeam when it happens, but you can only play 11 v 11 on the field and if you have 100 five stars on your team, some of them boys are gonna wanna see some snaps and go elsewhere. Most elite players arent in it just for the payday. They want to prove it on the field too.  We know what it looks like when a program has a two deep of five and high four stars. It's OSU and Alabama and Georgia. 

My understanding is that the benefits of scholarships go beyond tuition and room and board.  I believe that auxiliary benefits like meal plans (team table) and some of the specialized academic support is also tied to scholarships.  Could a donor set up a "private" facility that just happened to run parallel programs for walk-ons?  Probably.  Is that super likely to happen?  Not in my opinion. 

85 scholarships in football is a lot, and even the Alabamas and Georgias of the world have guys at the bottom of that 85 who aren't major contributors.  Raising that limit either de jure or de facto (as OP suggests) probably won't change the balance of power in a meaningful sense, IMO.  Guys who are that good want to play, not get buried just to snub another team.  

Cost of tuition is far from nominal, especially for the 86th player on the roster.

That said, there's a strong feeling that in the near future, individual conferences will be deciding their own rules and scholarship limits may become a thing of the past.

The reason some schools have been more hands off with NIL rather than embracing it whole heartedly is because it is a new type of financial relationship - and everyone is trying to figure out all of the angles. They fear an unintended consequence.

It seems laughable now but when Don Canham first started licensing UM gear and stuff, it was hailed as brilliant business acumen. Once he did that everyone else followed. People are waiting to see what models of NIL work and what doesn't.

What maybe spooking some of the schools is that big deep pocket donors fund some kid or kids and then expect something in return - like getting their phone calls returned and getting "inside" info, and all sorts of stuff very rich people expect and feel entitled to when they give some one or some institution a lot of money.

At places mentioned, those people with the deep pockets probably are ALREADY a nuisance at times to the coaches and AD, so making the situation more complex is probably not worth it to them - yet. All of the deep pocket "help" hasn't yet helped Texas come back to relevance.

The reason the NCAA is "toothless" is because all the programs that would like to play by a fixed set of rules are in the same "association" as schools that really REALLY want to win, at any cost.

It's simply not true that school presidents "only care about the money" -- but some do, and the rest are forced to try and compete best they can, either complying with rules that aren't actually enforced, or reluctantly lowering their own standards.

I'd love to see those school who care enter into a *new* league, committing to an unbiased enforcement mechanism. If the Alabamas and Texas A&Ms want to continue their race to the bottom, God-speed. (It might, actually, have the effect of shaming them into joining the new league themselves, but who knows).

Of course, that would also require the FANS to accept that their team may not actually be the "best" -- but only the best of this league.

It would, in short, be the Ivy League, or Division 2, or whatever ... but with TV contracts and scholarships and even (within reasonable limits) NIL money.

I'd be ok with that. We could play the Stanfords and Minnesotas and Penn States and UCLAs of the world, and I'd be fine.

Bushwood:

Schools do not offer NIL agreements; individual or corporate entities offer NIL agreements/contracts.

Schools offer scholarships, which number of scholarships is capped. That capped number remains relevant.

There’s still only 11 guys who can be on the field at a time. Unless that’s changing, don’t see kids willingly staying to be buried on the depth chart

On the margins, sure, Michigan and others can get/keep more good walk-ons this way.

There are various restrictions on walk-ons and guys looking rosters/depth charts so the upside is somewhat limited.  Not sure of all the restrictions but believe a guy can't official visit then walk-on in addition to the training table/support benefits others have mentioned above. 

I’ve missed the wildly implausible slippery slope NIL threads. Thanks OP.

A student athlete has two "basic" options, from my perspective.   I'm not sure if Covid, and it's lingering impact, affects this - but, without Covid the direction seems pretty clear.

First, receive a scholarship that will count against a football team's allotment of 85 scholarships.  

Second, the student athlete could participate as a Walk-On, or PWO (Preferred Walk On).  My understanding is that the costs associated with Tuition, Room & Board, Books / Supplies, etc. - are the responsibility of the student athlete with no funding received from the school (for academic / merit based) or athletic department.   

As for schools providing NIL monies for this, that is prohibited.  The institution cannot provide NIL monies to a student athlete.  The collectives can, the school / institution / athletic department cannot.

So, what might an NIL deal look like for a PWO?   Well, you probably need to look at this from an "after tax" perspective, since the NIL monies the student athlete would receive would (again, to my knowledge) be considered taxable income.  As a "swag", if out of state tuition, R&B, etc. would be $ 75K / year, the NIL value just to cover this would have to be in excess of $ 100K - and, that would just be breaking even.

As others point out - the best / better players - want to play.  And, I would assume, the scholarship would be the starting point, and NIL would add to what the student athlete could earn / gain.

There's a good comment about figuring this out - the dust settling, etc.   It will take a bit of time.  At first glance, A&M appeared very successful in signing players; however, recent articles indicate that development is a question, as is the cohesiveness of the team / locker room.

NIL is a mess.  And, the NCAA, as usual, has done nothing to clear the air.

I saw a video clip of a BYU booster giving all walk-ons a full ride. 

Obviously, this would take a bit of coordination between programs and their NIL benefactors

I think the coordination is the part that's not supposed to happen, but I also don't think there's anything to stop said wealthy benefactor from offering a contract to a H.S. player to represent their business in a university town, with a tuition assistance clause, and have them walk on.

I think the OP is onto something. Those questioning "Why would I take an NIL only deal versus a scholarship + NIL deal?" Are missing the point. It will come down to total $. If one school offers a $X scholarship and $X of NIL while another school offers a $4X NIL deal, I'm taking the 4X because even after paying tuition I am making more money. 

Setting aside the inducement and other rules, I could easily see blue chip players being more likely to be on pure NIL deals as many bagman boosters like to throw their money at the shiny objects leaving the school to foot the bill for scholarships for the developmental 3-stars that the coaches like.  

Only to the extent they try to persuade an athlete to be a walk-on with NIL to free-up scholarships.  I haven't seen much abuse yet.  It could be argued that we skirted scholarship limits with Jace Howard because the university pays the father's salary.

This is a extensively discussed theoretical loophole. However, until 5-stars or 4-stars become walk-ons at a rate that is--at first, existent, and, later--consistent, the max it will ever be is a theory.