Jaden the Journeyman
- Thread starter onewoof
- Start date
Bro basically being paid to sign and never play. Genius.
Are recruits across the country really signing NIL deals left and right that only require them to commit to a school but never enroll in or even sign with the school?
True NIL deals are different from collective deals. Very few athletes have meaningful independent NIL deals, most are on collective deals.
See chat gpt's thoughts:
A "NIL deal" refers to any individual agreement where a college athlete monetizes their "Name, Image, and Likeness" (NIL) by partnering with a brand for promotional activities, while a "collective deal" is when a group of donors pool money through an independent organization to create NIL opportunities for athletes at a specific school, essentially offering a wider range of potential deals to multiple athletes from that institution; the key difference lies in the structure - a NIL deal is a one-on-one arrangement with a brand, whereas a collective deal involves a larger group of donors supporting a wider pool of athletes through a collective entity.
For example Livvy Dunne may have a NIL deal with a makeup company. The company probably doesn't care if she's going to LSU or USC. A collective deal will be with boosters of an individual school. If Livvy is on a collective deal the entity paying is more concerned with here she is enrolled. If is my understanding that for a big time NIL deal, the athlete needs a huge SM following.
Yeah, pretty sure we all know this.
'NIL' is just commonly accepted shorthand for collective plus endorsements. Ita's blanket term.
Clarifying things doesn't actually answer my question though.
In response to a post listing all his commitments, decommitments, and transfers, @onewoof said he is being paid to sign and never play.
So I asked if that's widespread. If onewoof was referring to just asu and uga since he played att hose schools, I don't see how that's any different from all the other transfers who are on their 3rd school.