Anyone surprised that the NCAA went in the exact opposite direction they should have gone?
I know it won't be easy, but they have to figure out a way to slow down the transfers, put onus on the players, and allow coaches to properly construct rosters..
I don't know the rules well enough to say what can and can't be done but it seems logical that NIL could be tied to longer term "contracts" for the players along with performance incentives, both on the court and in the class room.
Maybe 2 year deals..or even 4, but with incentives as well as buyouts etc, similar to pro athlete contracts. NIL should also be contingent on performing in class as well.
What I'm thinking is similar to a multi year scholarship CONTRACT, where both sides have obligations to perform and I like incentives for performing well, too.
I don't like where any of this appears to be heading but it is what it is and we have to play within the rules and do it better than others to succeed. I also think we are currently way behind other programs in terms of being a leader in the NIL era. I blame Cal as well as Barnhart for this...and the boosters. While they were having a power struggle, aka pissing match for the last few years, the program is now paying the price for it.
I hope we hire a dedicated NIL administrator that knows the rules, processes and intent from maybe the NCAA...someone that has been involved in NIL from day one at the NCAA. Maybe someone who has dealt with these issues in the pros, too, in the front office of a nba or other pro team. Bottom line, people with expertise in paying players. We have a lot of ground to make up in this area, I think and I think the programs that work the NIL best will be very successful.