• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Roll The Quad - Wake Forest NIL with noteworthy support

Why does the 85 scholarship matter any more? NIL a player enough money to 'walk-on' and he pays his own tuition, etc. makes the team, and doesn't count in the 85. Didn't NCSU's qb do this the past season?
 
NC State back up QB Jack Chambers was a walk-on, but if it was NIL money that brought him to the Pack, the payor may want their money back. He was absolutely terrible.
 
Not if he was a walk-on. Not aware of any rule that prohibits walk-ons from getting NIL deals. Again, NIL deals are not between the school and the athlete. They are between the athlete and third parties. If Pep Boys wants to pay a WF walk-on to hang out at the garage, they can do that.
 
raldeac said:
Why does the 85 scholarship matter any more? NIL a player enough money to 'walk-on' and he pays his own tuition, etc. makes the team, and doesn't count in the 85. Didn't NCSU's qb do this the past season?
Click to expand...

I think this is a great question. I see this whole situation getting so far out ahead of the NCAA, it will never be brought back into line. Make your starting 22 all walk-ons, pay them $500K+ and then recruit 85 guys who get a full scholarship and maybe some money and are willing to be tackling dummies for a free education.
 
TheAbster said:
I think this is a great question. I see this whole situation getting so far out ahead of the NCAA, it will never be brought back into line. Make your starting 22 all walk-ons, pay them $500K+ and then recruit 85 guys who get a full scholarship and maybe some money and are willing to be tackling dummies for a free education.
Click to expand...
Agree. It’s a great question and also points to some of the flaws of NIL. Im glad NIL happened in principle, but it was the first step and there’s a lot more that needs to happen for a viable long-term solution. The downside so far is that it appears the rich are going to get richer. NIL was meant to be a ‘wealth distribution’ play, but it’s turning into a ‘wealth consolidation’ play for a lot of the big time programs who could also give a shit about the NCAA, academics and the broad rules. It’s the Wild West.
 
In theory, a program could have a star recruit not accept a scholly and just commit as a walk-on, but what if the NIL payor back's out of the deal or goes bankrupt? Also, walk-ons can leave open their recruitment until they actually set foot on campus, unlike recruits that sign a LOI, who can't not accept another scholly offer unless the school releases them. Micah Mays is one of WF's top FB recruits, wouldn't feel great about having him commit as a walk-on and allowing every other school to recruit him until he reports over the Summer.

While it's value has been reduced, it's still meaningful for both the school and the recruit to have the binding LOI which requires the school to offer the scholly and keeps the recruit from leaving for another school for one year.
 
Pilchard said:
In theory, a program could have a star recruit not accept a scholly and just commit as a walk-on, but what if the NIL payor back's out of the deal or goes bankrupt? Also, walk-ons can leave open their recruitment until they actually set foot on campus, unlike recruits that sign a LOI, who can't not accept another scholly offer unless the school releases them. Micah Mays is one of WF's top FB recruits, wouldn't feel great about having him commit as a walk-on and allowing every other school to recruit him until he reports over the Summer.

While it's value has been reduced, it's still meaningful for both the school and the recruit to have the binding LOI which requires the school to offer the scholly and keeps the recruit from leaving for another school for one year.
Click to expand...

I think these are also great points. But if NIL is willing to guarantee some poor (literally) kid $2 million up-front for two years of play, I'm not sure he's going to be worried about a binding LOI from a school. He's got his $2 million before the first fall practice. But there will be those that also fall into your scenario as well.
 
Pilchard said:
There seems to be a disconnect here about what NIL is.

While athletic programs (specifically football, and to a smaller extent men's hoop) benefit by keeping and attracting players via NIL deals, NIL deals are, by their nature, financial agreements between athletes and third-parties -- not between the schools and the athletes.

Opposing NIL freedom for college athletes, the NCAA argued that it had the authority to ban such deals because they arose from the fact that the athlete was in position to receive these deals because they played for Bama in football or Kentucky in basketball. Among other things, the NCAA argued that it was in the public's interest to allow the NCAA to ban or regulate NIL deals because without NCAA oversight, competitive balance would be destroyed, NIL deals would not be fairly administered (as in male athletes getting paid more) and that it violated the founding principle that college athletes are amateurs. The Supreme Court rejected those arguments and ruled that the NCAA can't stop college athletes from negotiating NIL deals with these third parties.

In light of the NIL ruling, schools, conferences and the NCAA can not:

  • Cap the amount an athletes receive
  • Act to ensure that male and female athletes receive the same amount
  • Regulate the NIL deals in any meaningful way
Schools are pretty much limited to reviewing the proposed NIL contracts with the athletes to ensure they comply with applicable law and don't violate the remaining NCAA rules which are in place. While there is no doubt that NIL has been predictably perverted to favor schools with rich boosters as a way to pay recruits, potential transfers and their own players to help their favorite college program (typically football), the essential purpose of NIL is to allow the individual athlete to exploit the available market to maximize his (or her) value. This never was and never will be about making sure all athletes (male or female; football or cross country) get paid a minimum amount or don't exceed a maximum amount. So, there will never be a cap, and there will never be a system to ensure that there is equality in pay.

If Jeff Bezos wants to pay only the white male athletes at Princeton (his alma mater) for some BS Amazon promo gig, he can do that. There is nothing that the NCAA, the conferences or the schools can do to stop it, other than to shutdown their program.
Click to expand...
This post clearly defines the future. Count me out. I will support Wake for a while longer but I can see the end. What a shame
 
scooter84 said:
Is there any attempt, real or feigned, to actually tie the money an athlete receives to some aspect of value in their "name, image, and likeness"? In other words, when I think of NIL I think of the athletes monetizing their social media presence - that clearly fits into the intention of allowing athletes to profit from their notoriety. What I don't think of is collectives loosely associated with a school pooling tens of millions of dollars from boosters to hand to athletes to play for their school. That is just pay-for-play, right? Is there any difference contemplated in the current rules? Or, are there any current rules at all?
Click to expand...
The purest examples of what NIL was intended originally is in women's sports like gymnastics, where nobody really cares about the team itself so a gal with a nice rear-end and a bit of personality is is able to create and promote her own brand. And Tera VanDerverr and others can squawk about that all they want, but that's exactly the way NIL was intended, i.e. a chance for an individual to put in the work/effort to create opportunities based on their appeal to the sporting and general public.
NewBernDeac said:
This post clearly defines the future. Count me out. I will support Wake for a while longer but I can see the end. What a shame
Click to expand...
Same here as far as any extra financial support to the athletic dept. beyond (possibly) being interested enough to still buy tickets and attend games. And that's not to disparage the players' getting their share one bit: the powers that-be have allowed college sports to turn into a professional enterprise which in many cases is devoid of any connection to the student-athlete model, but the players deserve to get their fair cut if they're going to be "employed" by the system.
 
SkyDivingDeacon said:
Agree. It’s a great question and also points to some of the flaws of NIL. Im glad NIL happened in principle, but it was the first step and there’s a lot more that needs to happen for a viable long-term solution. The downside so far is that it appears the rich are going to get richer. NIL was meant to be a ‘wealth distribution’ play, but it’s turning into a ‘wealth consolidation’ play for a lot of the big time programs who could also give a shit about the NCAA, academics and the broad rules. It’s the Wild West.
Click to expand...
Agreed. But did anyone really think this wasn't going to happen.
 
DownEastDeac said:
The purest examples of what NIL was intended originally is in women's sports like gymnastics, where nobody really cares about the team itself so a gal with a nice rear-end and a bit of personality is is able to create and promote her own brand. And Tera VanDerverr and others can squawk about that all they want, but that's exactly the way NIL was intended, i.e. a chance for an individual to put in the work/effort to create opportunities based on their appeal to the sporting and general public.

Same here as far as any extra financial support to the athletic dept. beyond (possibly) being interested enough to still buy tickets and attend games. And that's not to disparage the players' getting their share one bit: the powers that-be have allowed college sports to turn into a professional enterprise which in many cases is devoid of any connection to the student-athlete model, but the players deserve to get their fair cut if they're going to be "employed" by the system.
Click to expand...
I would honestly rather drop down to the G5 level than participate in this. I love rooting for Wake because I know our kids are in real classes alongside the rest of the school. They are still real college kids. This has always been different from most places and why I’ve never really enjoyed watching the Bamas and Georgias of the world because it doesn’t even feel like college football. The NCAA better get a hold on this because it will spell the end of college sports. Only a few programs will be able to keep up.
 
College football has always been about the dynasty programs with build-in advantages lording over everyone else. There won't be any sympathy due to lack of competitiveness.
 
And there will still be false hope.
 
A school (can't remember which one) had a booster offer NIL deals worth a year's tuition and expenses to all football walk-ons. Under that scenario, the only constraint is the NCAA 125 man total roster limit.
 
PhDeac said:
College football has always been about the dynasty programs with build-in advantages lording over everyone else. There won't be any sympathy due to lack of competitiveness.
Click to expand...
People keep trying to say that everything is just like it always was and I am not buying it. Maybe the difference is only a matter of degrees - that is there has always been a split between the haves and the have nots but, before, it was a separation of miles and, now, it is of light years... But whatever it is, it feels totally different. And, as has already been said, the combination of the lax transfer rules with the new NIL stuff just makes it that much more different...
 
It feels different because things are out in the open. Yes, the transfer rules are different, but the beneficiaries of the rules haven't changed.
 
I think instant eligibility really moved the transfer/stay put needle way way towards the "transfer" side. NIL certainly added to that by encouraging guys who might otherwise have stayed put to move for big $$$.

It is a lot more enticing to move if you know that as soon as spring practice starts you are competing for playing time instead of it being 15 months until you can do so.
 
Once tv money poured to the schools it became unfair/unjust not to share. Good Lord a $100000 free scholarship per year is not enough for a teenager??!! Nope when multi millions are coming in. So why not tell the teenager to take the scholarship only or take your chances with the pros. I would still pay for college athletics without the current stars. The fun of college athletics would remain the same even without the wannabe pros. The only future for schools like Wake is to go back to reason and let the semipros have their own thing No way can Wake compete in teenage+ professionalism
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top