The NIL State of Oklahoma State Athletics - Coaches Won't Say It, But It Impacts Results

$500,000 is a lot spread over 9-10 players. MBB an FB are both professional sports now and NIL is strictly pay for play. The coaches are not recruiting as much as they are making job offers. These new professional sports need contracts and salary caps.

I'm sure some will disagree, but it in the current state of college athletics OSU FB and MBB are basically dead in the water.

Not dead in the water but destined for mediocrity unless there are meaningful and enforceable salary caps. Otherwise the teams with a wealthier fan base will hire better players.

This once diehard fan is now just a casual observer until administrators retake college athletics over from the athletes and their lawyers/agents. I used to "care" about the athletes and their journey through life and competition while pursuing a degree. Now, I couldn't care less about them as a whole.

Here's a counter to RAs opinion that revenue sharing will help. It won't. Even IF there is (a) revenue sharing, (b) a collective bargaining agreement between an athletes union and the schools, and (c) a cap on the amount athletes can be paid under such agreement, it won't change how much athletes can make under an NIL arrangement. Thus we're right back to where we are today - NIL$ will be the difference in determining which schools get the best players. IMO, the only thing that will save college athletics is a change in the transfer rules. If players can't chase $$$ by transferring there's a chance we could get this thing sorta back on track. However, the lawyers will probably just find a way to sue under some sorta restraint of employment basis, the schools will cave and we'll be right back where we are today. If the networks and/or Congress don't step in and be part of the solution (which I can neither envision happening nor conjur the fix), they're just gonna sit on the sidelines and watch the goose that gifted us a massive golden egg slowly die a painful death.

RodeoPoke said:

---

if college kids are getting $250k bonus with no contract and no commitment, it's probably time for me to choose some other form of entertainment.

Some dumb kid getting more for showing up to college than half of America makes in 5 years.

it just ain't right.

---

The QB who transferred to Duke from
Tulane is getting $8M for 2 years. Pretty sure the OU transfer from WSU is getting similar ($4M/year). Its ridiculous.

Gumby, contracts will also be required, just like in all other professional sports. Also, NIL must not be pay for play. It will have to be restricted to actually marketing a commercial product marketed by a for profit business. Make the players employees of the school and require their salary to come from the school. I think this is the only way to monitor a team salary cap.

CowboyKip said:

---

Gumby, contracts will also be required, just like in all other professional sports. Also, NIL must not be pay for play. It will have to be restricted to actually marketing a commercial product marketed by a for profit business. Make the players employees of the school and require their salary to come from the school. I think this is the only way to monitor a team salary cap.

---

Yes, there will be contracts. Yes, they will be employees. And, yes as I pointed out, there will likely be a salary cap - a salary paying for their services, not their NIL. Thus NIL$ will still be out there - outside of the school's control and outside of the terms of a collective bargaining agreement. Heretofore, every thought or move to limit NIL$ and how they're generated and distributed by rule or law since its inception has been fraught with the likelihood of legal challenges and ultimate defeat. That ain't changing just like there's no way to limit what pro athletes get for their "NIL". As I supposed above, the only hope is to make it impossible to transfer and maintain eligibility. I know you're probably thinking an athlete's contract (the form of which was collectively bargained) would not allow a transfer. I hope that's the case but there is a problem. IF athletes are required to be students AND maintain certain academic standards (which differ school to school) and make measurable progress towards a degree, I suspect the athlete's union will not agree to a contract that will not allow transfers and thus the ability to pursue their academic careers at the school of their choice. The union's lawyers will take the position that limiting school choice within the period of eligibility violates something or other. In my opinion, the athletes and their lawyers will never give up the ability to transfer, ever. The genie is out of the bottle and the toothpaste is out of the tube. There's no going back. Accordingly, we'll be right back where we are now. NIL$ will determine the pecking order.

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

Here's a counter to RAs opinion that revenue sharing will help. It won't. Even IF there is (a) revenue sharing, (b) a collective bargaining agreement between an athletes union and the schools, and (c) a cap on the amount athletes can be paid under such agreement, it won't change how much athletes can make under an NIL arrangement. Thus we're right back to where we are today - NIL$ will be the difference in determining which schools get the best players. IMO, the only thing that will save college athletics is a change in the transfer rules. If players can't chase $$$ by transferring there's a chance we could get this thing sorta back on track. However, the lawyers will probably just find a way to sue under some sorta restraint of employment basis, the schools will cave and we'll be right back where we are today. If the networks and/or Congress don't step in and be part of the solution (which I can neither envision happening nor conjur the fix), they're just gonna sit on the sidelines and watch the goose that gifted us a massive golden egg slowly die a painful death.

---

The only way revenue sharing with a salary cap would work is if they banned NIL collectives. Players could still partner directly with companies that want to use their name, image, & likeness for advertisements, but the collectives wouldn't be able to pay them as a way to get around the salary cap.

Professional sports have safeguards in place to ensure level competition. I don't see why collegiate sports can't as well.

NIL collectives are not for profit commercial enterprises and will have to be barred.

LS1Z28 said:

---

Professional sports have safeguards in place to ensure level competition. I don't see why collegiate sports can't as well.

---

Professional sports get told what order they get to "select" their HS kids, if they have any selections. Professional sports determines who is placed in which league, which teams they will play, and requires profit sharing "among the teams, not the players".

College football is not the NFL, and will never be anything like the NFL, it is simply too big to be managed in that manner, and the Pro teams have OWNERS, not a BOR and Donors.

everybody please just stop with any NFL comparisons or suggestions.

CowboyKip said:

---

NIL collectives are not for profit commercial enterprises and will have to be barred.

---

Barred by whom? The law? No way. By NCAA rule? The NCAA can't regulate an entity that doesn't operate under NCAA rules. Athletes barred from receiving compensation from an entity not controlled by the NCAA? The courts have already ruled in favor of the athletes.

I knew when the courts originally ruled in the athletes favor it would eventually kill the sport. I also predicted any efforts by the NCAA to limit how and how much an athlete could be paid would also fail. It was clear to me 2025 was coming back in 2019 or 2020 when the first states passed NIL laws. Don't fool yourself, NIL is here to stay. There's just no way you're going to prevent someone by law or rule from paying a professional athlete if they so choose.

The key to bringing sanity back to college sports is limiting or not allowing transfers. Transferring is the mechanism by which an athlete can generate the demand that allows him to be paid more than his salary.

You hit the nail on the head. Until someone steps up like chad richison did for wrestling......basketball and football will be bottom half of the conference. There is no excitement in the basketball sphere.....enough to make guys want to donate the money necessary to be successful. Football isn't as bad off but it's in a downward spiral.

Changes are supposedly coming in July.....a few sports analysts talked about it. As of July of this year......teams have to cut their rosters from 135 to 105. A spouse of an OK State coach was telling my father that they are also forcing a 20.4 million dollar cap per university atgletic department. 75% will be allocated to football, 15% to basketball and the remaining 10% to all other sports. The cap will increase by 2 or 4% each year.

AT4Pokes said:

---

Changes are supposedly coming in July.....a few sports analysts talked about it. As of July of this year......teams have to cut their rosters from 135 to 105. A spouse of an OK State coach was telling my father that they are also forcing a 20.4 million dollar cap per university atgletic department. 75% will be allocated to football, 15% to basketball and the remaining 10% to all other sports. The cap will increase by 2 or 4% each year.

---

I believe that is all common knowledge at this point, but does not change the discussion about NIL

College football has been trending towards a pro model for the past few years. I don't think we'll ever have a draft, but I expect us to end up with a players union and commissioner eventually.

It may end up looking more like the NFL than you might think, especially if we end up with two super-leagues largely independent of the NCAA.

LS1Z28 said:

---

College football has been trending towards a pro model for the past few years. I don't think we'll ever have a draft, but I expect us to end up with a players union and commissioner eventually.

It may end up looking more like the NFL than you might think, especially if we end up with two super-leagues largely independent of the NCAA.

---

Really doesn't matter what model they adopt or develop. Unless they can fix the transfer for $$$ situation, the sport will only get worse or die. And OSU doesn't have a chance if that's the case.

LS1Z28 said:

---

College football has been trending towards a pro model for the past few years. I don't think we'll ever have a draft, but I expect us to end up with a players union and commissioner eventually.

It may end up looking more like the NFL than you might think, especially if we end up with two super-leagues largely independent of the NCAA.

---

Well then, it will no longer be the NCAA then, will it - it will actually be a Pro league then, with fewer teams - which now makes it manageable similar to the NFL

We have a commissioner already. Unions don't really change anything, and could actually hamper any efforts to split the union members into 2 leagues (possibly)

Naw --- it's just not ever going to happen. Gawd I hope not anyway.

The attitude of "I'm not excited about it therefore I won't donate or contribute" only makes it worse, the same as canceling season tickets because people want to wait til it improves before they buy back in. It's the very definition of fair weather fans and we have way too many of them now days. I've missed 3/4 home games in the last 37 years so I put my money where my mouth is and my ass in my seat - no matter what.

Cdub234 said:

---

The attitude of "I'm not excited about it therefore I won't donate or contribute" only makes it worse, the same as canceling season tickets because people want to wait til it improves before they buy back in. It's the very definition of fair weather fans and we have way too many of them now days. I've missed 3/4 home games in the last 37 years so I put my money where my mouth is and my ass in my seat - no matter what.

---

well, I see that you've totally missed the point... it is NOT like that at all.

It's not a question of "excited about", it a question of my moral character and whether I believe my money would be better spent somewhere besides my entertainment budget.

You can blindly pay increasingly more for a diminishing return, and that is your choice, but it has nothing to do with how others make their decisions on how to use their money.

At present, I'm just sitting idle waiting to see what this mess morphs into, hopefully something that I could support, like moving down to 1-AA and reducing costs.

(How about that Division III NCAA Championship game last night, pretty exciting. Some of those kids are really fun to watch. The Div 1-AA NCAA National Championship is tonight!)

The whole thing should be turned over to the NCAA. Our FBS league does not even have a freaking NCAA National Championship - so what the heck are we even be paying for, some sort of bloated ESPN challenge match?.

I respect your attitude and support of the athletes, program and school. But as a 40+ year fan and donor, I have a different viewpoint.

Several years ago I made a 7 figure commitment to OSU athletics. That commitment is still outstanding but not yet due. I made that commitment to both benefit the athletes and various athletic programs. However, the current direction of college athletics has me searching for ways to amicably alter and maybe even withdraw my commitment. Athletes (many, not all) no longer play for the University or the program they participate in. They play for money, and only money. That is not a college sports model which excites me and not one that I am willing to help facilitate or fund. And playing for money only is not changing until all pay for play contracts are the same for every school, and, the ability to capitalize on NIL$ by transferring is eliminated.

Yes, I know my intended lack of support is not enough to change anything and only hurts the university. But until we can get back to a place where athletes attend and play for the University while accruing the same benefits that all athletes in their sport equally enjoy across college (within their school's division classification) athletics, I'll probably just casually follow OSU competitions instead of rabidly supporting such competitions with my $$$ and attendance.

My $0.02

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

I respect your attitude and support of the athletes, program and school. But as a 40+ year fan and donor, I have a different viewpoint.

Several years ago I made a 7 figure commitment to OSU athletics. That commitment is still outstanding but not yet due. I made that commitment to both benefit the athletes and various athletic programs. However, the current direction of college athletics has me searching for ways to amicably alter and maybe even withdraw my commitment. Athletes (many, not all) no longer play for the University or the program they participate in. They play for money, and only money. That is not a college sports model which excites me and not one that I am willing to help facilitate or fund. And playing for money only is not changing until all pay for play contracts are the same for every school, and, the ability to capitalize on NIL$ by transferring is eliminated.

Yes, I know my intended lack of support is not enough to change anything and only hurts the university. But until we can get back to a place where athletes attend and play for the University while accruing the same benefits that all athletes in their sport equally enjoy across college (within their school's division classification) athletics, I'll probably just casually follow OSU competitions instead of rabidly supporting such competitions with my $$$ and attendance.

My $0.02

---

Perhaps you could ask to have it dedicated to NEW facilities only (e.g. wrestling), or perhaps endowed scholarships, we'll need more of those regardless.

Best of luck.

RodeoPoke said:

---

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

I respect your attitude and support of the athletes, program and school. But as a 40+ year fan and donor, I have a different viewpoint.

Several years ago I made a 7 figure commitment to OSU athletics. That commitment is still outstanding but not yet due. I made that commitment to both benefit the athletes and various athletic programs. However, the current direction of college athletics has me searching for ways to amicably alter and maybe even withdraw my commitment. Athletes (many, not all) no longer play for the University or the program they participate in. They play for money, and only money. That is not a college sports model which excites me and not one that I am willing to help facilitate or fund. And playing for money only is not changing until all pay for play contracts are the same for every school, and, the ability to capitalize on NIL$ by transferring is eliminated.

Yes, I know my intended lack of support is not enough to change anything and only hurts the university. But until we can get back to a place where athletes attend and play for the University while accruing the same benefits that all athletes in their sport equally enjoy across college (within their school's division classification) athletics, I'll probably just casually follow OSU competitions instead of rabidly supporting such competitions with my $$$ and attendance.

My $0.02

---

Perhaps you could ask to have it dedicated to NEW facilities only (e.g. wrestling), or perhaps endowed scholarships, we'll need more of those regardless.

Best of luck.

---

At the end of the day, any donation to OSU Athletics is either directly or indirectly supporting a model I oppose. I'm probably going to either attempt to redirect to academics or non- sports facilities.

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

At the end of the day, any donation to OSU Athletics is either directly or indirectly supporting a model I oppose. I'm probably going to either attempt to redirect to academics or non- sports facilities.

---

Yep, very sad days for college football.

Here's an observation (okay, maybe opinion) that I have not heard in so many words - every single FBS player that is a has been a meaningful contributor to his program either has or is being paid to (a) transfer, or (b) to not transfer, ie stay. Think about that.

Here's another thought. Athletes (their lawyers) have been crying for years to be paid their fair share of TV revenue. There is currently somewhere between $500 million and $1 billion dollars being paid yearly to athletes via NIL. Not $0.10 of that money is from TV revenue. Think about that.

Absolute s**tshow. Makes me want to puke.

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

Here's an observation (okay, maybe opinion) that I have not heard in so many words - every single FBS player that is a has been a meaningful contributor to his program either has or is being paid to (a) transfer, or (b) to not transfer, ie stay. Think about that.

Here's another thought. Athletes (their lawyers) have been crying for years to be paid their fair share of TV revenue. There is currently somewhere between $500 million and $1 billion dollars being paid yearly to athletes via NIL. Not $0.10 of that money is from TV revenue. Think about that.

Absolute s**tshow. Makes me want to puke.

---

That is about to change with the House settlement as at that point the schools will have $22M they can pay out directly from the overall dept revenue. If the settlement is accepted and set starting this summer it will be a different world, although NIL will still loom out there.

The NIL ruling had nothing to do with TV revenue and was based on the no outside income rule of the NCAA that had done things like chase Olympic athletes out of college. It is also based on the legal principle that you can't deny someone the ability to make money from selling rights to their image and likeness. I don't like the effects, but the reality is colleges shouldn't limit the kids chance to earn money because they can't keep their donors from turning any opening into pay for play. And yes their are bad actors like OU, Alabama, ND, etc... that lead the corrupt practices, but almost everyone was doing some of it.

I agree it's caused problems, but legally it is correct at this time as the whole concept of the amateur athlete has been wiped off the face of the earth. Jim Thorpe had his Olympic medals taken for taking bus fare for playing in a baseball game so he could get home. We have "amateur" athletes now that regularly make 7 figure salaries, so the fact that bs finally showed up in college is not surprising.

I understand all the legal proceedings and the whys and wherefores of athletes getting paid and don't disagree in theory. I'm waaaay past that.

But here's the deal that most everyone is ignoring or simply not thinking through - the House settlement will only change one thing - it will facilitate the schools' ability to pay athletes their share of TV revenue directly. What the House settlement will not do is fix anything. There will still be $500 million to $1 billion (or more) of donor money available annually as "talent acquisition and retention" funds that can and will be distributed in the name of "NIL". That's the problem. TV revenue will only be an athletes school funded and paid base salary. It will be NIL$ from donors that will determine where he plays each year.

Let me couch it differently. If players were not allowed to transfer, for any reason, there would be no demand for NIL$. None whatsoever. Sure some athletes might get paid to advertise a product, but those type of arrangements are what NIL was originally intended to address and don't impact or determine roster quality.

In summary there's really only one major problem with college sports. It's not NIL, it's not paying players, its not the NCAA, it's not the donors, the TV networks or the advertisers. The problem is the transfer rules. Fix the transfer rules and we have a chance at getting this thing back on track. Keeping the transfer rules will kill the sport, IMO.

Boy, I hope I'm wrong.

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

I understand all the legal proceedings and the whys and wherefores of athletes getting paid and don't disagree in theory. I'm waaaay past that.

But here's the deal that most everyone is ignoring or simply not thinking through - the House settlement will only change one thing - it will facilitate the schools' ability to pay athletes their share of TV revenue directly. What the House settlement will not do is fix anything. There will still be $500 million to $1 billion (or more) of donor money available annually as "talent acquisition and retention" funds that can and will be distributed in the name of "NIL". That's the problem. TV revenue will only be an athletes school funded and paid base salary. It will be NIL$ from donors that will determine where he plays each year.

Let me couch it differently. If players were not allowed to transfer, for any reason, there would be no demand for NIL$. None whatsoever. Sure some athletes might get paid to advertise a product, but those type of arrangements are what NIL was originally intended to address and don't impact or determine roster quality.

In summary there's really only one major problem with college sports. It's not NIL, it's not paying players, its not the NCAA, it's not the donors, the TV networks or the advertisers. The problem is the transfer rules. Fix the transfer rules and we have a chance at getting this thing back on track. Keeping the transfer rules will kill the sport, IMO.

Boy, I hope I'm wrong.

---

While the House settlement doesn't provide equal budgets, it does provide for more equal budgets. OSU will have to cut back in some behind the scenes areas, but currently we have a budget of approximately $5M for NIL. Under House we go to having up to about $15M. I don't see the collectives continuing at the same rate as I think the schools will try to route more of that money in house instead of in NIL. So yeah the 5* is less likely to wind up here, because aTm will still have NIL for some signing bonuses and a salary budget of $27M. Still that is closer than currently. I'd say that its pretty much what we had resource wise before NIL.

Basically we'll be tripling our payouts and aTm will be getting a slight bump.

Long term I don't see how moving to a CBA with the athletes doesn't happen. I know the schools don't want to take them on as employees, but its the only way to do it realistically. Just as the courts have gotten us here, the only place they've left for it to go is a CBA. The CBA should allow for multi-year contracts and I would hope the ability to sell the contract to the pro leagues if kids wanted to go while still under contract. That should stabilize the rosters, not where it was, but back towards a place where it's manageable. I don't like CBA's but when the system says its the only solution you need to go there.

Yes, there will have to be a CBA. Therein lies multiple issues. Such as:
- year to year or multi-year?
- cut or no-cut contracts?
- one CBA for all athletes, by sport, by conference, by division?
- revenue sharing by conference? By division?
- transfers allowed or not allowed? Within conference? Within division? To a different CBA school?
- salary by individual? Position? Classification? Incentives?

We're a long way from any solutions, much less answers.

That aside, you are absolutely kidding yourself if you don't think NIL will still be as big or bigger after the athletes begin to get their share of tv revenue. NIL$ are now and will be forever be funds available from donors for "talent acquisition and retention". That is now and will always be how a school can elevate and differentiate itself to attract the athletes they want. Once the NCAA began allowing donors to pay athletes, there was and will be no turning back. Do you think for a second aTm or UT won't have funds or hesitate to offer a future or current star at OSU to transfer? November-foxtrot-whiskey!!!!!

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

Let me couch it differently. If players were not allowed to transfer, for any reason, there would be no demand for NIL$. None whatsoever. Sure some athletes might get paid to advertise a product, but those type of arrangements are what NIL was originally intended to address and don't impact or determine roster quality.

---

I believe that MOST of the money right now comes from advertisers payments for endorsements.
Those companies will still want the elite athletes endorsements, and do pay handsomely, but the player should have a contract with that company, and that contract would go with him/her to a new school.

I think there is a distinct difference between paying players to jump schools, and NIL $.

I don't think one could ever enforce a ban on paying kids to transfer.

The toothpaste is out of the tube, and it's not going back in.

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

Yes, there will have to be a CBA. Therein lies multiple issues. Such as:
- year to year or multi-year?
- cut or no-cut contracts?
- one CBA for all athletes, by sport, by conference, by division?
- revenue sharing by conference? By division?
- transfers allowed or not allowed? Within conference? Within division? To a different CBA school?
- salary by individual? Position? Classification? Incentives?

We're a long way from any solutions, much less answers.

That aside, you are absolutely kidding yourself if you don't think NIL will still be as big or bigger after the athletes begin to get their share of tv revenue. NIL$ are now and will be forever be funds available from donors for "talent acquisition and retention". That is now and will always be how a school can elevate and differentiate itself to attract the athletes they want. Once the NCAA began allowing donors to pay athletes, there was and will be no turning back. Do you think for a second aTm or UT won't have funds or hesitate to offer a future or current star at OSU to transfer? November-foxtrot-whiskey!!!!!

---

I'm saying that the AD's will bring that money in house where they can control it and yes they'll use it, but the gap will become more manageable because its not just the donor base, but all revenue that can be used.

So yes UT will still have a higher payroll, but it will be less than twice ours not three times larger. Right now we don't have enough NIL to do much. Once we have that extra $15-20M in revenue sharing we can at least get in the ballpark. It will not be much different than pre-NIL, we'll just have to manage it well.

Also, there may be other developments that change things as well. Yormark is working hard to find solutions.

RodeoPoke said:

---

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

Let me couch it differently. If players were not allowed to transfer, for any reason, there would be no demand for NIL$. None whatsoever. Sure some athletes might get paid to advertise a product, but those type of arrangements are what NIL was originally intended to address and don't impact or determine roster quality.

---

I believe that MOST of the money right now comes from advertisers payments for endorsements.
Those companies will still want the elite athletes endorsements, and do pay handsomely, but the player should have a contract with that company, and that contract would go with him/her to a new school.

I think there is a distinct difference between paying players to jump schools, and NIL $.

I don't think one could ever enforce a ban on paying kids to transfer.

The toothpaste is out of the tube, and it's not going back in.

---

No most NIL money comes from boosters through the collectives not from advertisers. The advertisements are not the problem.

Those donations to be token NIL will be shifted back to the AD under the House Settlement. So the toothpaste is going to be restored to the tube by allowing schools to pay players directly and not needing to hide it via the collectives.

Will some schools still have some of it, sure the Ole Miss's of the world are not going to stop pushing the edge to finish 3rd.

NJAggie said:

---

No most NIL money comes from boosters through the collectives not from advertisers. The advertisements are not the problem.

Those donations to be token NIL will be shifted back to the AD under the House Settlement. So the toothpaste is going to be restored to the tube by allowing schools to pay players directly and not needing to hide it via the collectives.

Will some schools still have some of it, sure the Ole Miss's of the world are not going to stop pushing the edge to finish 3rd.

---

NIL revenue for athletes is rapidly changing the landscape of college sports. The main sources of this income come from endorsement deals and partnerships, both of which significantly impact student-athletes' financial opportunities. (see reference below)

They can do away with the collectives, and pay players, but only if the ruling (pay) applies to ALL ATHLETES, but that has nothing to do with NIL. Not really.

None of this will work unless the Non-revenue sports are excluded (reportedly) because of Title IX implications, but frankly, I don't believe they will be able to implement revenue sharing with only the revenue sports.

Regardless of everything, Title IX WILL impact this settlement, whether it happens now during its implementation or whether it happens later after they win another NCAA gender lawsuit.

I am of the believe that there is no solution.

This article explains it pretty well.
https://www.collegenetworth.com/where-does-most-of-nil-money-come-from/