NJAggie said:No most NIL money comes from boosters through the collectives not from advertisers. The advertisements are not the problem.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 $.
I don't think one could ever enforce a ban on paying kids to transfer.
The toothpaste is out of the tube, and it's not going back in.
Those donations to be token NIL will be shifted back to the AD under the House Settlement. So the toothpaste is going to be restored to the tube by allowing schools to pay players directly and not needing to hide it via the collectives.
Will some schools still have some of it, sure the Ole Miss's of the world are not going to stop pushing the edge to finish 3rd.
Currently, almost all NIL$ are distributed by non-profit collectives. This set-up has two huge benefits. First, donations are a charitable contribution which is how the collectives attract $ from a wide array of donors which makes the donation just as efficient as donating to the school. Second, a single collective (Pokes with a Purpose) allows a more controlled allocation of funds with input from the school.
As for the future and the potential for those donations to go directly to the AD, that ain't happening. If the money goes to the school for distribution, it can then be regulated, thus leveling the playing field. Theoretical regulation could, and probably would prohibit providing incentives to transfer. But having money available to pay a potential transferee, or to pay a current player not to transfer will be what every school will need - the same thing that's happened, and progressively increased, to every program since 21-22. Those funds will have to be administered outside the direct control of the school - ie a collective.
We're always going to wind up in the same place, with regards to NIL$ and its impacts on the winners and losers, as we have today unless the transfer issue is solved.