Leach never did that consistently here. Now he might have but we will never know. Mullen actually did it. You give way too much credit to tactics. Logistics is where it's at.
Some details on the NIL Clearinghouse...
- Thread starter Dawgzilla2
- Start date
Well, you said this wouldn't have happened if the big boys didn't think it would help them, which sounds conspiratorial. It's not good for MSU, but I don't think there is much option. Taking steps to reign in pay-for-play should help us. In theory.
In theory, maybe. In practice? Pandora's Box has been opened. Pay-for-play isn't going away.
Leach and Mullen were similar coaches when it came to results. Bartoo calls it coach effect. And Leach absolutely had it.
Nope, I give credit to results. Leach used scheme, Mullen used development. Both ultimately produced results through selling that brand and the recruits that fit what each wanted to do.
Going forward, people like me, who want a niche, have realized that it's going to be harder for us to do things the way Mullen did with developing guys and getting them older. It will be easier if we had a unique offensive brand to build around, which would also help us in the portal.
The one thing we all can agree on, is that MSU football needs to be older. We're not going to have success with freshmen and sophomores.
The elephant in the room with all of this is social media. Does a player with 500,000 followers command a much higher endorsement price tag than one with 1,500? You’re damn right they do. How about 1 million? 2 million? Ultimately, following players on social media is something that doesn’t cost anything. Schools can throw hundreds of thousands of followers at any given player with both real fans and dummy accounts in a very short period of time. The second that one kid with a huge social media following gets a megadeal questioned by the clearinghouse, it’s going to be all over with. Anti-trust attorneys will have a field day with it. And that’s not even considering the multiple state laws that would be violated by this
They will most certainly have an opinion on that, and they will likely determine that FMV is whatever a cash buyer is willing to pay for the “endorsement”. Just like buying a house. Someone offers 6 figures over list on a house, non-contingent on appraisal. Appraisal comes in much lower. Buyer doesn’t care, because he doesn’t need lender approval. The deal goes through. If somehow any regulatory entity tried to block said transaction from occurring between a willing buyer and a willing seller, they’d get taken to the cleaners. This is no different.
The only way he’d have to prove that is by proving he conducted whatever product / service endorsement was agreed to as part of the deal…..which could just be some social media posts or YouTube content or whatever else. And even that may not be necessary. He may just have to prove he maintained employment status with the endorsing company throughout the time period that he received payments. That’s it.
Probably not, but the burden of proof is on them (the NCAA) to prove it was pay for play, not the other way around. Deloitte is simply doing the consulting work. They aren’t making the final determination. Article says that 90% of NIL deals over X number would have been denied under the old system. Well, they only have to find some commonality with one of the 10% that were not in order to get a favorable ruling.
The bigger concern is again the social media impact. A player is not restricted to only cashing in on his/her NIL in the region where they will participate in sports. It’s going to be quite easy for the big / influential schools to turn this knob wherever it needs to go to allow the “appraisal” to come in where it needs to be. The smaller schools will be forced to do the same, which is going to keep driving the whole market way up.
There is a reason why the NCAA had this hard line stance on amateurism for so long. Criticized as they were, they knew what would happen on this slippery slope if even the slightest allowances were made. And now we’re seeing it.
The crux of everything is that an athlete’s skill / ability to play a sport is assumed to be something that is totally separate from their Name, Image, and Likeness. That’s the only way any of this holds up. I think what happens eventually is that players argue that if they are wearing a uniform with their name on it, they are performing on television, running down the field, doing their own end zone dances, etc….all that IS part of their name, image, and likeness. They are one in the same. And if they don’t opt in to the revenue sharing settlement, they are not granting that portion of those rights (and any revenue from them) to the school in exchange for the revenue sharing payments, and are deciding to pursue their own deal. And that’s going to be the final domino that falls to give officially euthanize college football (and perhaps basketball as well).
That or a Collective Bargaining Agreement is the only way this ends, and I don’t see any of the big money school’s athletes gaining anything from a CBA. So that seems very unlikely.
Last edited:
I don't disagree with much of that. But I do think the determination of FMV is more complex than you state.
As I said before, the price someone is willing to pay is FMV only in an arm's length deal. The focus is going to be on deals involving businesses and individuals associated with the University. Most deals with uninterested third parties will not be challenged and will serve to set FMV.
As for your house buying example, if I want to overpay for your house because I really like your house then we have essentially reset FMV. But if I overpay for your house because you are in position to swing a big business deal my direction, then it's not FMV; it's a bribe, and likely illegal.
When a case goes to court over FMV, I'm not sure who the Defendants will be...probably the NCAA, the conference, and the new College Sports Commission. They will rely on the findings by Deloitte as their proof the contract exceeded FMV.
[I edited this paragraph because I didnt like the way I wrote it] The burden of proof will be on the plaintiff, the athlete, to show that his deal was unfairly rejected by showing a flaw in Deloitte's conclusion and/or show that the business is actually receiving promotional value equal to what they are paying...probably present other advertising efforts by the company and the calculations they used to come up with the value they were willing to pay. (I suppose an athlete who opted out could argue the whole process is an anti trust violation, but I don't think that goes very far).
As for athletes granting the school's right to use their NIL, they are. That's what the revenue sharing payments are for. I don't know the nuts and bolts of when the athletes give the schools the right to use their NIL, but that's been part of the process for many years. It used to be an exclusive right the athletes granted.
Last edited:
I dont see how the part in red can be reasonably determined. Value is subjective and therefore differs between people.
While its clearly not an exact science, there are/will be thousands of endorsement deals involving college athletes to use as comparators. Anyone who pays above what is perceived as FMV should have a reason...it's possible they just believe that athlete is about to explode on the market and is a perfect fit for their business, but show your work.
Businesses don't cut advertising deals based on what feels right...they have to believe they will receive advertising value for that deal. They aren't always right, of course, but they should have some reason to believe the deal will help increase their profits in an amount that makes the deal worthwhile.
Last edited:
That's why Deloitte is involved. Yes FV is very complex and can be subjective but that kind of work is a big part of their business. They'll be able to snuff out the BS deals pretty quickly. True NIL means there's a commercial transaction happening with the name, image, or likeness.
If a kid gets a million dollar deal and he's not appearing in advertisements (or selling jerseys, autographs, etc) in similar ways that a population of other million dollar deals are structured, that should be a red flag and potentially kill the deal as the substance of the million is to pay him for a non-NIL service - in this case, playing football and skirting rev share caps.
You have a lot more faith in this process than I do.
NIL means Name, Image, and Likeness.
Someone should be able to be paid simply for their image being of value to the person paying. If that deal is 'I pay you $1MM for you to play on MSU's football team', then that is a deal based on someone's Name, Image, and Likeness. That player is being paid for their Name, Image, and Likeness having value.
Making players do car commercials with DeLois Price and Peso Little to 'earn' their NIL money is performative and a waste of time. Tracking how much value a poster with a player's face next to Florida Oranges is worth is performative and a waste of time. Declaring someone's value is less than what a person or company is willing to pay, in an effort to 'even the field' is performative and a waste of time.
It doesnt accomplish anything. Its just a newly created hoop that everyone will have to jump thru while loopholes and inconsistencies are exploited. It is performative.
Hot take- there are no BS deals when it comes to NIL. Someone's name is worth whatever others are willing to pay. That is literally the first letter in NIL.
NIL is short for using someone's Name, Image, or Likeness (i.e., their identity) for commercial purposes. That is a property the law protects. People don't have to pay you to use your NIL for non commercial purposes, although they might be violating privacy laws.
Your employer is not paying for your NIL (unless you are a model). Your employer is paying for the work you do.
The buyer in an NIL deal is purchasing the right to use the athlete's identity for commercial purposes. Step 1, the buyer has to be providing goods or services that can be promoted using the athlete's identity. Otherwise, it's not an NIL deal.
A contract that says "I pay you X to play football for MSU" is clearly pay for play, which is not allowed under NCAA rules and is currently illegal in Mississippi. It is NOT an NIL deal. I don't think voiding such a deal would be an anti trust violation, and I'm not sure such a contract would even be enforceable under contract law due to lack of consideration. It's essentially a bribe.
Yes, I understand that 'commercial activities' are part of NIL. I am saying that if it is performative, which it is, then just change the rules to account for reality.
If I create a company that pays MSU athletes to promote that company, and the company's purpose is to pay MSU athletes for their NIL value, then its a constant loop that pays MSU athletes to promote a company that pays MSU athletes.
How the 17 can that be reasonably valued and audited? How can anyone seriously claim an athlete isnt worth $X?
Its all just performance to create the illusion of 'legitimacy', as it is currently defined by those in charge.
A workaround to this will be a bunch of smaller deals that really just roll into a large deal, in order to have the deals comply with what an algorithm states max value for a deal can be based on the player, school, etc.
And to be very clear, this is all terrible sounding to me. I hate what has happened to college athletics over the last decade. But if players can be paid for their value as a brand, then they must be allowed to be paid whatever the market determines and not constrained by an outside auditing agency's algorithm.
That just leads to more obvious issues, imbalance, and lawsuits.
Well first off, it will be extremely easy to pass money through multiple entities that exist between boosters and other interested parties to the athletes to give the illusion of an arm’s length deal. Like, super easy. Deloitte’s 90% number from their algorithm is looking at rejections that would have occurred on previous collective NIL deals. They didn’t meet the criteria because quite simply, they didn’t have to. Now that the legal framework is somewhat set (with multiple hanging chads still out there of course), the money is going to flow as it needs to, through whatever channels are required to pass the smell test.
Secondly, even if the above is handled somewhat carelessly, the booster or player or both will be able to argue (correctly) that a player who chooses to simply enroll at the same school that the booster represents does not prohibit said player from being reasonably qualified to engage in an unrelated business transaction with the business that the booster has dealings with. It’s easy enough for boosters to even cease operations in that capacity, and stop giving money to the university altogether if that’s what it takes.
This whole thing is tantamount to trying to build a dam in the middle of the ocean, 50 miles from the shore, and thinking at some point you’re going to be able to keep the entire Florida panhandle dry. The dam is going to get bypassed on both sides, and have holes knocked through it before it’s even remotely functional. The money is going to go where it wants to go. The price discovery has already happened.
The players aren’t in any position to swing any business deals. And no schools are going to be dumb enough to have major sponsors or other such entities offering questionable deals. If they are qualified to do advertising / endorsement work (which pretty much anyone is, it’s not some unique skill), then it will be a clear cut way to prove they are worth the money based on nothing beyond social media following, which can be artificially manipulated to be practically infinite, or however high it needs to be in order to be viewed as legit.
It’s just going to be the NCAA. Deloitte is an unattached 3rd party acting in a consulting capacity. They are saying whether or not they believe the deal exceeds FMV….not proposing any recommended actions beyond that. Hard to prove negligence or harm being done from a cursory analysis. They’d have to be able to prove targeted malice in some capacity with the case worker for Deloitte, such as a personal vendetta against a particular player. The conferences are going to publicly stump for “reform”, but will side with the players within their league when the rubber meets the road. They have nothing to gain from not doing so, and a lot to lose.
And this will be easy to do. Look, I think everyone knows that Deloitte is perfectly capable of reaching sound conclusions and will be able to call a spade a spade, but they are simply behind the 8-ball to begin with. It’s totally uncharted territory. Legally speaking, paying college athletes is pretty new. Social media is pretty new. Gigantic TV contracts are relatively new, as is the expanded CFP postseason. It’s the tyoe of environment that’s ripe for attorneys to prove a total lack of any standard protocol, which should default to the deals standing. Chaos is a ladder, and the players and the big boosters are both climbing together.
But they aren’t granting that right if they opt out of the revenue share….which every 4* / 5* stud player is probably going to do, unless they also have an under the table deal already in place. There’d be no other reason to opt out of the share agreement unless they felt it undervalued their NIL. If they opted out and then got a deal rejected by the clearinghouse, that’s a whole additional can of worms, because they’d be able to claim lost wages from the revenue share portion as part of an additional damage claim if they are ruled ineligible.
The whole thing is a mess. It’s still not even clear what happens if a case gets rejected. Is the athlete forever ineligible? I’m thinking not likely, because the athlete has done nothing wrong. That’s an easy lawsuit to win for a player that gets 4 years of potential earnings stripped away by something that somebody else did. It’s not their job to determine the fair market value of their service. So on that note, you really can’t punish the player at all. Maybe you say that player can’t enroll at that school. But then they are just taking a similar deal from someone else. Eventually, they’ll get cleared. Does the school that was essentially found guilty of offering a bribe get any punitive action? Again, I’m thinking not likely. You’re going to give a postseason ban to Alabama for one player’s deal getting rejected, even for 1 year? Hell no. The acronym is so appropriate, because the end result on pay-for-play reform from all this will be nil.
Last edited:
Deleted my response because, Holy **** I couldn't do this properly on my phone.
Last edited:
You are making this way too complicated. I agree that money is still going to flow to the athletes, but I think it will trend toward under the table payments rather than convoluted faux NIL deals.
No matter how many shell games boosters try to play with various entities, the bottom line will still be whether the NIL deal passes the FMV test. If it doesn't, then there will be some 'splainin' to do, and if the player chooses arbitration the new College Sports Commission will have subpoena power.
I'm sorry you misunderstood my house buying analogy. I was just trying to tack on to your house buying statement regarding FMV I wasn't saying that the athletes would be swinging any business deals, just pointing out that what looks like FMV isn't always FMV.
The NCAA is trying to remove itself from enforcement and liability in all of this. It will be a named defendant, no doubt, but the College Sports Commission will be the entity accepting/denying the contracts...and the Commission is set up by the conferences. Deloitte may or may not be a defendant, but it's opinion will pretty much be the focus of the suit, along with the arbitration panel if there was one prior to the suit.
I don't think it will be as easy as you seem to think. But I am confident we will find out.
I think every athlete has to grant limited NIL rights to the schools to even participate. I could be wrong.
As for the revenue share payments, the players do no opt in/out for that, the schools do. But I'm pretty sure all of them will. Even if an athlete opts out of the settlement, they can still receive revenue sharing, and I doubt you're going to see many turn it down and refuse to grant the school any NIL rights....but I haven't seen anything on that in writing yet.
The NIL deals are being approved/denied before they even go into effect. So, the player is not responsible for determining his own FMV, but if he accepts money after being told his deal has been rejected, then he can absolutely be punished for that. And, if he accepts money before a decision has been reached, that's on him, too.
The linked article way up in my OP sets out the options if a deal is rejected:
(1) Revise and resubmit the deal so that the compensation amount falls within the algorithm’s range. For instance, if the clearinghouse deems that a submitted $1 million deal should be $500,000, the athlete can resubmit for $500,000 and the school, if it so chooses, can compensate the athlete for the other $500,000 through its revenue-share pool.
(2) Cancel the deal completely.
(3) Request arbitration as an appeals process.
(4) Accept the rejected deal as is. In this case, the athlete “may face enforcement consequences (e.g., loss of eligibility),”
Maybe it's just because I'm an attorney who deals with NIL and the right of publicity, but I don't see this as performative at all. (FTR, I'm not in the athletic realm, unfortunately).
To me, there is a clear distinction between legit NIL deals and pay for play. The former is only fair to allow the players to pursue, while the latter upsets any semblance of competitive balance and just sucks a lot of fun out of the game.
While I think you're proposed workarounds are ridiculous, I'm not saying this system is going to work well at all.
I think it's legally defensible, and a fair theoretical model, but I think the money will keep flowing to the players in some form.
Professional leagues all have COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. That means the players union, which is the collective that speaks for the players, agrees to the salary cap. That does not exist in college and until it does, they will lose in court every time they artificially limit players earnings.
Exactly. To pinheads in ivory towers, this all makes perfect sense and will cap spending at $20.5M + true NIL. They can’t see any reason this won’t work. But the real world doesn’t work like that. BTW, these are the same pinheads who told us 4 years ago that NIL wouldn't lead to pay-for-play.
Last edited:
I can pay some escorts to market my company by having them show up at my house pool in bikinis and fetch me beers. How can anyone prove I didn't hire these girls to market my company? ***
"Just change the rules...". That is the problem with college athletics and this situation and our society as a whole. Nobody wants to follow rules or have rules or laws for that matter. Just do whatever the hell anyone wants to do.
What could go wrong?*
Yes. I acknowledged that directly somewhere here. Is it likely? Probably not. Probably comes down to what sort of commitment the wealthy programs make to the smaller non-rev sports. If they have a reason to continue subsidizing small sports as part of their mission as a university, then you have a lot of have-not athletes compared to the smaller portion that get the fake NIL deals that have thrown everything into a spiral. Collective bargaining becomes possible then. If NFL/NBA players rationalized a CBA environment then it's certainly not off the table for the college environment either.
Dont go on some rant about what is wrong with society here just because I said 'change the rules'. I am saying that because the rules are being created now and it makes more sense to have rules that will be followed rather than have rules that will be ignored, worked around, and legally challenged.
I am saying the rules that are being proposed should be changed. That viewpoint is not what is wrong with society as a whole. You also claim nobody wants to follow the rules or laws...that is exactly why I think the proposed rules should be changed, because I think they will be followed more than what is proposed.
No doubt about the money continue to flow. I think best case is it pushes the booster pay for play stuff back under the table where it used to be. Get back to this plus some sanity with the transfer rules and we can get back to the days of roster development that made college football more interesting for the supporters of the vast majority of programs. Maybe I'm the minority now, but annual roster turnover is frustrating to watch and takes away something unique that college sports had going for it.
There you go again, that is post #128 you have now made talking about a niche football coach and a niche offense. I've asked a couple times already and you've never responded, just who is this secret niche coach and what niche offense does he run?
Unfortunately it seems several other posters have picked up on the "niche" thing as well now. Can't tell if it's just fun to say and type or what.
I don't know what can be done about the transfer rules. The NCAA settled an antitrust suit brought by severn state AGs by agreeing to permanently allow transfers without making players sit out a year. The Judge had granted a preliminary injunction.
While the conferences were not a party to that suit, there is no reason to believe they would fare any better in anti trust litigation.
The only solution I see at this point is making the athletes employees, letting them unionize, and then including transfer limits as part of a CBA.
You are not in the minority...I posted in another thread that I attended a BAMA alumni event earlier this year, and everyone I spoke to said the constant roster turnover, along with the crazy "salaries", is sucking the fun out of college sports
I don't know if they are all pinheads, but the settlement was hammered out by a crew of attorneys representing the athletes and the institutions, along with input from interested third parties and the athletes themselves. And a judge who seemed to understand what she was doing.
They had a common goal of trying to get fair NIL money to the athletes while attempting to avoid straight pay for play deals. This is what they came up with.
I'll admit I was surprised at how quickly NIL became pay for play. I figured it would be a gradual thing, but it seemed like it took about a month.
NIL - It's not what you say it is. It's what the market will bear.
This is the way.
We better be ready to pay if we really want to play!
This is the way.
We better be ready to pay if we really want to play!
It was obvious from the very beginning what would happen with NIL. And it will happen with the new "market value" NIL too. Immediately. They may try to stop it, but they won't be able to.
I've discussed this in other threads, but settlement of a class action suit is very similar to collective bargaining. Every athlete who opts in to the settlement is agreeing to play by the rules and waive any anti trust claims they may have against the NCAA and the conferences.
The X factor is the players who opt out. I have not been able to find info on how many current players have opted out, and that number will change as new players come along. But enough players opted in that the Judge approved the settlement.
A player who opts out can, presumably, bring an anti trust claim if his NIL deal is rejected. Those suits will likely be settled, and the settlement terms might be confidential. But I don't think it's an anti trust violation to prevent boosters from giving money to players.
Where have I heard that before?
Oh that's right. It was you - on just about every thread that mentions NIL. Give it a break.
Yall gonna give your opinions a break?Where have I heard that before?
Oh that's right. It was you - on just about every thread that mentions NIL. Give it a break.
It doesn't matter anyway. Somehow, alabama, Georgia, Texas, Ohio State, and the other big boys will get their people on the committee that decides what is FMV and we'll get screwed.
Maybe I will if someone brings it to my attention that I'm saying the same exact thing over and over and over and over again on any topic that is remotely related.