ADVERTISEMENT

NIL and boosters?

maysvilleky

All-American
Aug 13, 2003
14,906
4,017
113
With the NIL ruling, will booster involvement be rampant? How do you prevent a booster from handing out thousands of dollars for a signature or photo, etc?
 
With the NIL ruling, will booster involvement be rampant? How do you prevent a booster from handing out thousands of dollars for a signature or photo, etc?
You basically don't have any control...so it's all good now.

If a business person wants to pay a kid $30k to endorse his car dealership for nothing...they can.
If you want to pay a kid $20 bucks for their autograph.....you can.
If you want to pay a kid $100 bucks to show up at your kids birthday....you can.

I think the issue is how do you get the money guys out along with Stoops/Marrow when trying to recruit. This part will come to play...so how you organize your pitch to these kids will be interesting to see how that works.
 
Better question is what booster is willing to give $20k for a recruits signature right after us receives said recruits signature.
Maybe a booster that's sending the message to the next kid that UK wants his signature.. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: jauk11
This was my immediate reaction to this decision, although I think the SCOTUS ruled correctly on Constitutional grounds, this ruling basically opens the door for recruits to start signing with the highest bidder, unless the NCAA and the schools can come with some legally enforceable restraints.

To be continued. . . . .
 
This was my immediate reaction to this decision, although I think the SCOTUS ruled correctly on Constitutional grounds, this ruling basically opens the door for recruits to start signing with the highest bidder, unless the NCAA and the schools can come with some legally enforceable restraints.

To be continued. . . . .

What is so bad about players signing where they can get the most sponsorship dollars? It's not like the playing field was even before this
 
This was my immediate reaction to this decision, although I think the SCOTUS ruled correctly on Constitutional grounds, this ruling basically opens the door for recruits to start signing with the highest bidder, unless the NCAA and the schools can come with some legally enforceable restraints.

To be continued. . . . .

That is exactly where I am afraid we are heading. Not only with kids coming out of HS, but with the free 1 time transfer, what is going to deter booster from contacting a player who exploded on the scene as a frosh or soph and become dominant? Kids can now legally accept payment, they can transfer without sitting a year. The only limit is the number of boosters a school has that wants to buy a championship. Scholarships may have to turn into contracts with buyouts and non commit clauses.
 
I can also foresee in the future that if a rating service drops a star off of some kid, kid and their parents are gonna sue for the $$$ the rating service cost them….

time to separate ones thoughts and feelings from this process, it’s gonna get good for entertainment
 
What is so bad about players signing where they can get the most sponsorship dollars? It's not like the playing field was even before this

Nothing if you have 35-40 boosters willing to sponsor 35-40 of th he best players in the country. But quite a bit if your fanbase doesnt have that many boosters willing to win a championship.
 
Contracts have to be submitted 7 days in advance and approved by UK under its policy. But, a “booster” is not denied for being a booster.
 
Who would want to go to the G League when this bonanza allows you to stay in school and make more $$?
 
Nothing if you have 35-40 boosters willing to sponsor 35-40 of th he best players in the country. But quite a bit if your fanbase doesnt have that many boosters willing to win a championship.

But isn't that the same as the situation prior, the only difference is instead of a sponsorship gap it was a financial budget gap. Schools have always had different levels of resources, this won't change that in either direction.

There is no system you can design that will give all schools a fair shot at the top talent. The only difference is now those resources can directly benefit the players. Just look at the football program budgets in the SEC, there is a clear difference in resources.
 
I can also foresee in the future that if a rating service drops a star off of some kid, kid and their parents are gonna sue for the $$$ the rating service cost them….

time to separate ones thoughts and feelings from this process, it’s gonna get good for entertainment

They could try, but that case would get thrown out unless you could prove the recruiting service dropped the kid’s rating maliciously or it was somehow defamatory.

But if it’s the rating changes because that’s the recruiting service’s honest opinion, then there’s nothing you can do about it. It’s no different than a business getting a bad review online or a corporation have their debt rating downgraded. If those were done honestly, then there’s not much you can do about it.
 
But isn't that the same as the situation prior, the only difference is instead of a sponsorship gap it was a financial budget gap. Schools have always had different levels of resources, this won't change that in either direction.

There is no system you can design that will give all schools a fair shot at the top talent. The only difference is now those resources can directly benefit the players. Just look at the football program budgets in the SEC, there is a clear difference in resources.

I am not claiming I am correct, but schools are willing to pay coaches 10m a year, what would they pay Trevor Lawrence or another top QB? A&M has an extremely wealthy alumni and fanbase, gave Jimbo 75m to win a championship, what will they pony up for a frosh AA qb alone with 2-3 WR?

I am just afraid that is where we are headed, UK, UGA or anyone finds a great prospect and a super rich booster comes and gets him for his team, how appealing is that and how invested can a fan get?

The system we had previously gave everyone the same opportunity to sign top prospects. Some schools didnt sut the same amount of resources into recruiting as others, that's on the schools that put resources elsewhere. Yes I realize its tougher to pull kids from other places and some places produce more talent. But Cal has a huge budget for BB recruiting, it rivals what Stoops gets for football, at least I think I read that here. He signs a top, if not the top class every year because he has the resources to wine and dine the best players out there. UGA signs a good class in football, because it puts alot into football recruiting, tops in America last I saw well before Covid, i as sc ume it was less with no contact for more than a year.

I guess I am afraid we are about to have an explosion of free agency hit college football and we have 2-3 teams become the Yankees of college football.
 
Last edited:
But isn't that the same as the situation prior, the only difference is instead of a sponsorship gap it was a financial budget gap. Schools have always had different levels of resources, this won't change that in either direction.

There is no system you can design that will give all schools a fair shot at the top talent. The only difference is now those resources can directly benefit the players. Just look at the football program budgets in the SEC, there is a clear difference in resources.

You're both right. This just makes it easier and likely more rampant.
 
You basically don't have any control...so it's all good now.

If a business person wants to pay a kid $30k to endorse his car dealership for nothing...they can.
If you want to pay a kid $20 bucks for their autograph.....you can.
If you want to pay a kid $100 bucks to show up at your kids birthday....you can.

I think the issue is how do you get the money guys out along with Stoops/Marrow when trying to recruit. This part will come to play...so how you organize your pitch to these kids will be interesting to see how that works.
and make sure their head is at practice and in the game and not busy worrying that another player is getting more than them.
Jealousy will be a problem, these aren't 30 year old men, that understand business...oh that's until (non-sports) agents get inolved.
it's gonna be a ****in mess for a while... stupid NCCAA, smh; throwing this out there without some type of rules and sanctions
 
You basically don't have any control...so it's all good now.

If a business person wants to pay a kid $30k to endorse his car dealership for nothing...they can.
If you want to pay a kid $20 bucks for their autograph.....you can.
If you want to pay a kid $100 bucks to show up at your kids birthday....you can.

I think the issue is how do you get the money guys out along with Stoops/Marrow when trying to recruit. This part will come to play...so how you organize your pitch to these kids will be interesting to see how that works.
So you think paying high school players is the same as after they sign. This will be a disaster next year. Why not pay 8th graders
 
Better question is what booster is willing to give $20k for a recruits signature right after us receives said recruits signature.
Simple ~ money's held in escrow until kid signs w/Booster's school at which time money's released. Kid can see the money while in escrow, he just can't touch it. Booster didn't get rich giving money away for nothing. BTW, kid totally understands 'cause his attorney explained thoroughly months before.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ky grandpa
From what is being said, it is now fine to have an agent. Will a kid be able to declare for the draft and return to college if he falls below where he thought, or goes undrafted? From all the new rules, he should be able to come back to college with his agent shopping him around for the best deal. With this agent, will a no sit transfer in his pocket, be able to shop him around after his first or 2nd year in college? These kids have less restrictions on their team swapping that professionals.
 
From what is being said, it is now fine to have an agent. Will a kid be able to declare for the draft and return to college if he falls below where he thought, or goes undrafted? From all the new rules, he should be able to come back to college with his agent shopping him around for the best deal. With this agent, will a no sit transfer in his pocket, be able to shop him around after his first or 2nd year in college? These kids have less restrictions on their team swapping that professionals.
It's my understanding that the things you mention are agreements between the NFL & NCAA. I don't think the kid would win that in court, if challenged.

However, if the NFL were to find a way to get out of that agreement with the NCAA, I think the kid could leave early (after one, or two years) but not return once he left. The kid would still need to declare for the draft (after one, two, three, four years), and if undrafted run the undrafted free agent process.
 
That is exactly where I am afraid we are heading. Not only with kids coming out of HS, but with the free 1 time transfer, what is going to deter booster from contacting a player who exploded on the scene as a frosh or soph and become dominant? Kids can now legally accept payment, they can transfer without sitting a year. The only limit is the number of boosters a school has that wants to buy a championship. Scholarships may have to turn into contracts with buyouts and non commit clauses.
How many of you have ever considered paying any money to a kid to come to Kentucky? You act like there are all these people sitting around with buckets of money who's only lot in life is to secure a top recruiting class at Kentucky. Rich people generally got their money and kept it because they aren't stupid. Giving tons of money to an 18 year old that may or may not pan out is not a smart way to spend money. All of you unrich people on here underestimate what the rich people will do.
 
How many of you have ever considered paying any money to a kid to come to Kentucky? You act like there are all these people sitting around with buckets of money who's only lot in life is to secure a top recruiting class at Kentucky. Rich people generally got their money and kept it because they aren't stupid. Giving tons of money to an 18 year old that may or may not pan out is not a smart way to spend money. All of you unrich people on here underestimate what the rich people will do.

Rich people are giving millions to improve facilities all over the country. Now that doesnt mean they will do the same to lure athletes to a particular school, but wouldnt it be a tax write off just like a donation to build a new facility? In the last 6 years UGA has spent 160m on facility and stadium upgrades, all donated, so alot of people give alot of money for sports facilities.

I dont think the issue will be paying HS kids to attend, but paying kids who have planned out with 1 or 2 years left. Kids can have agents, who's job is to get him as much as he can. Matt Carrall the OM QB is asking 10k for an hour of his time, he is proven, think he wouldn't listen to what other teams were willing to offer?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ky grandpa
With the NIL ruling, will booster involvement be rampant? How do you prevent a booster from handing out thousands of dollars for a signature or photo, etc?

The list of restrictions by UK prohibit any nil from boosters, which likely include significant donors. It can be through a business entity owned by the booster although it sure seems like that will get extra scrutiny from the athletics compliance office (aoc).

UK has a surprising number of restrictions imo. As the market evolves, can't imagine all these sticking because I doubt other schools will have or keep as many.
 
The list of restrictions by UK prohibit any nil from boosters, which likely include significant donors. It can be through a business entity owned by the booster although it sure seems like that will get extra scrutiny from the athletics compliance office (aoc).

UK has a surprising number of restrictions imo. As the market evolves, can't imagine all these sticking because I doubt other schools will have or keep as many.
Not only will they not stick, they'll be challenged in court. Most of the time, but not all, the athlete will win.

It's the Wild West, and the new rules, regulations, and laws are being written (or, revised) daily by each territory (I mean, college). If Louisville wants to let donors be more "kind," then Wildcats better be equally "kind," or "kinder."

What seemed impossible four days ago is now potentially possible.
 
That is exactly where I am afraid we are heading. Not only with kids coming out of HS, but with the free 1 time transfer, what is going to deter booster from contacting a player who exploded on the scene as a frosh or soph and become dominant? Kids can now legally accept payment, they can transfer without sitting a year. The only limit is the number of boosters a school has that wants to buy a championship. Scholarships may have to turn into contracts with buyouts and non commit clauses.
This is the path we are on. Not sure where it takes us. Seems contracts, player association, and collective bargaining aren't too far off.
 
To make it even easier to buy recruits now, all the recruit has to do is set up a crypto currency account and then let the "sponsors" load it up with bitcoin - which is untraceable for the most part.
Genius! However, they must still declare said funds on their tax return, or wait for the IRS to knock on their door. The boys and girls better have good lawyers to navigate those hazards!
 
  • Like
Reactions: FtWorthCat
To make it even easier to buy recruits now, all the recruit has to do is set up a crypto currency account and then let the "sponsors" load it up with bitcoin - which is untraceable for the most part.

Very true for some schools. Which is why I'm fairly certain the ncaa won't even try. So short a school or booster writing a check to a recruit, enforcement won't even be on the radar.
 
Very true for some schools. Which is why I'm fairly certain the ncaa won't even try. So short a school or booster writing a check to a recruit, enforcement won't even be on the radar.
Whatever restrictions there are now will all be gone in the not to distant future. They’re all going to be completely unenforceable, even assuming the NCAA has the resources and the will to police all this, which they don’t. Besides, if it’s all about “capitalism” and “freedom” then why should there be any restrictions at all?
 
Whatever restrictions there are now will all be gone in the not to distant future. They’re all going to be completely unenforceable, even assuming the NCAA has the resources and the will to police all this, which they don’t. Besides, if it’s all about “capitalism” and “freedom” then why should there be any restrictions at all?
So, a basic right granted to all college students, is now granted to athletes. Decades late, and B$ short.
 
Probably best you leave now, anyway...player unionization, and Workman's Comp' claims are right around the corner.
I dont think they ever get over the employee hurdle. If the courts allow it to go that far, schools should simply shut down sports.
 
The list of restrictions by UK prohibit any nil from boosters, which likely include significant donors. It can be through a business entity owned by the booster although it sure seems like that will get extra scrutiny from the athletics compliance office (aoc).

UK has a surprising number of restrictions imo. As the market evolves, can't imagine all these sticking because I doubt other schools will have or keep as many.

Dont tell caveman cat and bigblufanga, they think Mitch is going to kill it with NIL.
The truth is, the Bamas of the world are furiously setting up a system to embrace this, while Mitch is trying to prohibit it. No surprise to anybody paying attention. It's alarming to say the least.
 
I dont think they ever get over the employee hurdle. If the courts allow it to go that far, schools should simply shut down sports.
Justice Kavanaugh seems to believe they can overcome said employee hurdle, and I'm inclined to agree with him. Mutually assured destruction is always an option, but not a very bright one. Some might, but not all will.
 
Justice Kavanaugh seems to believe they can overcome said employee hurdle, and I'm inclined to agree with him. Mutually assured destruction is always an option, but not a very bright one. Some might, but not all will.
You do realize the costs associated with declaring players as employees. UK has 500 of them. It would cost north of 15 million. That would be unsustainable by most schools.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jauk11 and rupp876
You do realize the costs associated with declaring players as employees. UK has 500 of them. It would cost north of 15 million. That would be unsustainable by most schools.
Money makers only are kept: FB & M-BB (100 new employees). The rest are toast, and will be shut down absent the two smallest/cheapest W-Sports (7 for Tennis; 7 for X-C) to ensure Title IX compliance.

Salaries/benefits won't be equal for each new employee ~ they never are. Collective bargaining will fill in the details. It's the future.
 
ADVERTISEMENT