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

NJAggie said:

---

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.

---

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.

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

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.

---

Corporate endorsements should be between the players and corporations. Otherwise, the Corp donations will be less because they are usually multi-year, and they cannot guarantee the kid will remain at that program, and also, Corporations (like Nike) can still contribute to a program, like they always have, but that is not NIL$, per se. (it could be, or not)

The "transfer issue" will be solved when all teams have the same "budget" ($22 Mil) to allocate among ALL ATHLETES, thereby reducing the outrageous amounts schools can offer kids. Huge NIL donations will need to be between the kids and their sponsors (Corporations) for their IMAGE, not for pay-for-play.

Transfer rules do not seem to be the big problem, so-called adults trying to distribute the funds appears to be the main problem.

Sure some schools would offer $! Mil more for some kid out of their "budget money", but that money would mean less money would be available to that school to distribute to other athletes. (creating an internal issue about equal pay, like every workplace faces today).

Corporate sponsorships could follow the kid to other schools, and/or to the NFL, because it would not be controlled by the collective.

Could it lead to a situation where, let's say, every athlete at Oregon gets a stipend from Nike to "represent" their products? Sure, I guess, but that would be a lot of advertising money for questionable returns.

Could Phil Knight pay them all with his own donations? No. There is actually no reason to have a collective. Individuals could donate to the AD just like they always have.

You clearly don't understand how NIL$ are raised and distributed. For profit corporations play a very small, almost insignificant role in the collection and payout of NIL$. Non-profit collectives handle the vast majority of all NIL$.

Schools do not possess or control NIL$, and never will. Further, it's highly unlikely any CBA would even allow a university to allocate and payout NIL$.

Schools may at some point be required to share TV revenue with the athletes. But that has nothing to do with who gets or doesn't get NIL$. The athletes and their agents and lawyers would never want the school to posses, allocate or distribute NIL$.

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

You clearly don't understand how NIL$ are raised and distributed. For profit corporations play a very small, almost insignificant role in the collection and payout of NIL$. Non-profit collectives handle the vast majority of all NIL$.

---

I'm not going to argue with you about it, I posted the link to support my statement.

It was not my opinion, it was reported to be MORE.

and.... we're talking about what N$L's will do AFTER the pay-for-play profit sharing ruling is implemented.

There is a whole lot yet to be determined about a whole lot of things.

There is probably some simple solution, like once a school implements P4P, then they cannot receive money from the Collective to distribute to the players. The NCAA maketh the Collective and the NCAA takes it away.

All other N$L sponsorships are by the players and/or through their agents.

That seems pretty reasonable.

RodeoPoke said:

---

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

You clearly don't understand how NIL$ are raised and distributed. For profit corporations play a very small, almost insignificant role in the collection and payout of NIL$. Non-profit collectives handle the vast majority of all NIL$.

---

I'm not going to argue with you about it, I posted the link to support my statement.

It was not my opinion, it was reported to be MORE.

and.... we're talking about what N$L's will do AFTER the pay-for-play profit sharing ruling is implemented.

There is a whole lot yet to be determined about a whole lot of things.

There is probably some simple solution, like once a school implements P4P, then they cannot receive money from the Collective to distribute to the players. The NCAA maketh the Collective and the NCAA takes it away.

All other N$L sponsorships are by the players and/or through their agents.

That seems pretty reasonable.

---

We're back you not understanding. Schools don't distribute NIL$. That's a clear violation of NCAA rules. And the NCAA has no authority to regulate collectives and cannot prevent players getting compensated for their NIL - the courts are pretty clear on this.

Oh, btw. The transfer portal is the problem. Money being collected, allocated and distributed by the collectives is only for two reasons. One, to attract players from the portal. Two, to pay current players from entering the portal.

If there were no transfers, there would be little to no need for collectives or NIL$.

That's reality. Ignore it at your own risk. Your choice.

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

We're back you not understanding. Schools don't distribute NIL$. That's a clear violation of NCAA rules. And the NCAA has no authority to regulate collectives and cannot prevent players getting compensated for their NIL - the courts are pretty clear on this.

---

Dude, try to keep up. I know how things work now, I was only pointing out that REPORTEDLY corporate sponsorships represent most of the NIL money.

Then we're on to what could be. What needs to change. How it might work (or not work).

It's not really helpful to keep telling me what can't be done, when the ruling has not even been implemented yet. Pay for Play (revenue sharing) changes the entire payment model, including what is N$L money and whether it ....

the rules are changing bud,

Pay for play compensation from the school will be salary, unrelated to NIL$ in any way. NIL$ have nothing to do with pay for play. That's why they're paid by the collectives.

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

Pay for play compensation from the school will be salary, unrelated to NIL$ in any way. NIL$ have nothing to do with pay for play. That's why they're paid by the collectives.

---

LOL.... keep banging your head against that wall....

I'm off to some other topic. SMH


Catch up with me in a few months when this stuff transpires and we'll compare notes.