CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: 847badgerfan on January 10, 2022, 11:05:13 PM
-
It's not that hard to see a group of schools just plain out breaking off. Do you think it will happen? I mean, the rest of the "P5" really has no shot here. Do they?
UT-A
OU
USC
ND
UGA
UA-T
AU
UF
LSU
aTm
OSU
PSU
UM
Clempsum
Any others? Not sure UNL or Tenn would be welcome anymore. FSU? Miami?
The above could still play, and murder, their old mates in the OOC schedule.
Half (or more) of the "P5" does not even belong in the conversation anymore.
The days of KSU or WSU or Wake or NU or oSu shocking the world are over.
Schools like mine, and others similar, could rise up and compete once in a while.
Competing is different from winning it all, at all costs.
Schools like mine are not going to win 2-3 games to win a CCG and MNC. It's just not possible.
-
They don't have any reason to break away from the rest of the P5. There would have to be some sort of proposal where they would get more money, and I don't necessarily see it. It. Is there more money in watching a dozen colleges exclusively playing against each other? And would those 12 schools fan bases be okay knowing that every year couple of them are going to have 2-10 type seasons?
It's almost as though in seeking a true national champion, all we wound up doing was exposing all of the cracks in the system, and that the best teams, are substantially better. And if you give them a chance to erase a mistake from a random Saturday in mid October, and/or force the second tier teams to beat them a couple of times in a playoff environment, it's not going to happen. You have eliminated every goal except for one, and then given teams multiple chances to prove which team is actually the best. Which I guess is fine if that is your goal, but it certainly detracts from the entertainment value
-
I think they'll find a reason to break off, but it'll be to their detriment.
One of the perks of this sport is that wins go up from unpopular to popular. A break off group means some big money school goes 6-6 a bunch, and that's not the world they want.
-
gotta have the little guys to pick on and take their lunch money
-
I think they'll find a reason to break off, but it'll be to their detriment.
One of the perks of this sport is that wins go up from unpopular to popular. A break off group means some big money school goes 6-6 a bunch, and that's not the world they want.
Exactly.
It's sort of like booting all of the lettuce-pickers out of the country. No one wants $15 heads of lettuce.
-
Competing is different from winning it all, at all costs.
Schools like mine are not going to win 2-3 games to win a CCG and MNC. It's just not possible.
Yeah, the road to the NC is improbable for even the very best team, which makes it basically impossible for the have-nots (including the G5).
-
Tight. For every great player Wisconsin has, Georgia has 2. You can't beat that.
It's been UW's problem with OSU for a decade+. There's just to much to go against.
-
gotta have the little guys to pick on and take their lunch money
Everyone should go back to the corners - and like it
-
I'm actually curious if the opposite happens, the smaller schools / conferences break off to make their own league? (and takes some of the big boys with them?)
I've heard a rumor recently floated out to FOX sports about a B1G/P12/ACC/G6 championship tournament and let the SEC Big boys play in their own ESPN sand box.
-
They don't have any reason to break away from the rest of the P5. There would have to be some sort of proposal where they would get more money, and I don't necessarily see it. It. Is there more money in watching a dozen colleges exclusively playing against each other? And would those 12 schools fan bases be okay knowing that every year couple of them are going to have 2-10 type seasons?
It's almost as though in seeking a true national champion, all we wound up doing was exposing all of the cracks in the system, and that the best teams, are substantially better. And if you give them a chance to erase a mistake from a random Saturday in mid October, and/or force the second tier teams to beat them a couple of times in a playoff environment, it's not going to happen. You have eliminated every goal except for one, and then given teams multiple chances to prove which team is actually the best. Which I guess is fine if that is your goal, but it certainly detracts from the entertainment value
This, exactly.
We can all name plenty of great teams that didn't even play for the NC because of a "mistake from a random Saturday in mid October". Ohio State in 1998 springs to mind. That team was incredible but one Saturday in early November they had an off day and/or Michigan State had a REALLY good day so they didn't even get to play for the NC. In today's world that team still would have easily won the B1G-E and gotten to the B1GCG where they'd have been a prohibitive favorite over the B1G-W Champion (Wisconsin) and with a win there they'd have headed to the CFP.
As a fan of Ohio State it sucked to lose that game but the set-up made games like that exciting because you KNEW going in that a bad week against PSU, IL, MN, NU, IU, MSU, or Iowa could doom your NC dreams.
Now, as an Ohio State fan I know that my team has at least a 50/50 shot with one loss and at least some chance with two losses so the intensity isn't there anymore. If I miss a random mid-October game I'm not nearly as perturbed because I KNOW that even if the Buckeyes lose they'll still be in the race.
The CFP also has SUBSTANTIALLY reduced the chances for teams like Cincy and even for teams like Wisconsin and Michigan. In the old days Bama's loss to aTm would have basically eliminated them and UGA's loss to Bama would have basically eliminated them. An undefeated team from the Big Ten would have played Utah for the NC. Cincy might have even snuck in with a bowl win.
Now that undefeated Cincy/Wisconsin/Michigan at the end of the regular season still needs to win back-to-back-to-back games against increasingly tough opponents. The chances are near zero.
-
I am curious as to how the money now changes these things. I tend to think the NIL money will make things more even - TAMU used it to break the stranglehold on recruiting this year, and there is no reason other schools can't follow suit. Wisconsin, Nebraska, etc. have been mostly hurt by not being near the best talent. Now they have another bullet to change that equation.
-
Teams with a lot of fans will be able to support large NILs, teams without won't.
-
As I've pondered, does NIL lead to more concentration at the top, or does it lead to more parity? Is there more NIL value in being a role contributor at a helmet than being an outright star at a midlevel P5 team? I don't know.
That said, NIL isn't even profiting off your name, image, likeness as I envisioned it... It's just pay for play via boosters. So to an extent schools doing what Texas boosters are doing, basically setting up an endowment to pay all athletes equally (and then the stars having additional NIL value outside of it), is something that I doubt schools like Purdue can ever come close to matching.
-
I am curious as to how the money now changes these things. I tend to think the NIL money will make things more even - TAMU used it to break the stranglehold on recruiting this year, and there is no reason other schools can't follow suit. Wisconsin, Nebraska, etc. have been mostly hurt by not being near the best talent. Now they have another bullet to change that equation.
To be clear, TAMU didn't use NIL for that-- they used bags of cash paid directly under the table to the players and/or "representatives" of the players. They just did it on a scale we've never seen before. Even Hugh Freeze and Ole Miss boosters are blushing at what the ags just pulled off.
But your greater point stands-- NIL money is going to dwarf dirty money once people understand how it can be used within the system, and schools with lots of boosters and/or companies that are favorable to them (Nike with Oregon, Under Armor with Mryland, etc.) will be able to capitalize on it.
-
To be clear, TAMU didn't use NIL for that-- they used bags of cash paid directly under the table to the players and/or "representatives" of the players. They just did it on a scale we've never seen before.
But your greater point stands-- NIL money is going to dwarf dirty money once people understand how it can be used within the system, and schools with lots of boosters and/or companies that are favorable to them (Nike with Oregon, Under Armor with Mryland, etc.) will be able to capitalize on it.
No doubt many schools can't compete directly with Texas. However, if Texas (and the other bigger schools) at least compete with each other, then that weakens the very tip top. If Georgia had, say, 9 five star players on the roster instead of 19, that changes the equation. They are still better than Purdue, but not so far and away better that the whole season becomes academic.
-
No doubt many schools can't compete directly with Texas. However, if Texas (and the other bigger schools) at least compete with each other, then that weakens the very tip top. If Georgia had, say, 9 five star players on the roster instead of 19, that changes the equation. They are still better than Purdue, but not so far and away better that the whole season becomes academic.
I think a lot more schools will be able-- and more importantly willing-- to compete with NIL financial enticements, than currently compete with cheater bag tactics.
I think the winners will be the schools that previously avoided cheating, but can create ways to organize their efforts using NIL. The losers will be schools that relied on cheater bagman tactics, but don't really have the financial support and capability to create robust NIL programs. You know, schools like Ole Miss.
-
I think the winners will be the schools that previously avoided didn't get caught cheating, but can create ways to organize their efforts using NIL.
FIFY
-
FIFY
Nah. There are plenty of schools that have tremendous resources. If they were cheating like that, you'd know it...
-
I've heard a rumor recently floated out to FOX sports about a B1G/P12/ACC/G6 championship tournament and let the SEC Big boys play in their own ESPN sand box.
That would be the most pathetic thing in the history of sport.
-
Nah. There are plenty of schools that have tremendous resources. If they were cheating like that, you'd know it...
I'm suspicious of A&M's class this year, a la Ole Miss' back under Freeze.
A&M? Best class ever? After an average season?
It doesn't add up on the face of it.
-
That would be the most pathetic thing in the history of sport.
It's actually kind of interesting. Boxing had a similar thing going on where a lot of boxers end up with one of the few promoters and never fight guys from other promoters. It's not, like, good, but given college football has mostly stopped caring about anything but making more money and there is no centralized body making rules, I could see it happening.
-
Indycar racing split into 2 leagues in the early 90s. Ratings and attendance plummeted for both. They eventually reformed into one league again but there was permanent damage to the sport. They've never fully recovered.
-
I'm suspicious of A&M's class this year, a la Ole Miss' back under Freeze.
A&M? Best class ever? After an average season?
It doesn't add up on the face of it.
The difference is that now it's legal.
It's actually kind of interesting. Boxing had a similar thing going on where a lot of boxers end up with one of the few promoters and never fight guys from other promoters. It's not, like, good, but given college football has mostly stopped caring about anything but making more money and there is no centralized body making rules, I could see it happening.
I've noticed that when I listen to Alt Nation on SiriusXM and then listen to Alt98.7 here locally (an IHeartRadio station), it's amazing that some artists show up on ONLY one of those platforms. I had never thought before that perhaps some of those artists are actually sponsored by the platform and being directly promoted by them, and that the other platform basically stays away from playing them unless they get so popular that they can't avoid it.
-
The Champions League broke away like 30 years ago, and honestly European soccer might be the closest thing we have in terms of imbalance of talent and resources, and it worked out ok for them. Then the top Euro clubs tried to to break off last year, and the backlash caused them to reverse course quickly. Even the fans of the teams didn't seem to like it. I think that's closer to what we'd have here, in that all of the P5 schools are in healthy shape, but then there are a handful of behemoths, and I simply don't think there is more money in telling Michigan or Notre Dame fans they are going to have to stomach 2-10 type seasons, but that every game will be against Alabama, Clemson, Georgia, etc...
-
The B1G/ACC/PAC/G6 won't break off. It would be a clear admission of weakness in the face of the SEC to split off, like they KNOW they have an inferior product.
Now, what MIGHT happen is that as a whole, they'll try to influence rulemaking and other off-field actions to kneecap SEC dominance, and then the SEC plus anyone that they favor (~10-12 other P5 teams) will break away from the rest of the NCAA to create their own super-league.
But there's no way that the other leagues will break off in an attempt to duck the SEC. The optics of that move are terrible.
-
The difference is that now it's legal.
I've noticed that when I listen to Alt Nation on SiriusXM and then listen to Alt98.7 here locally (an IHeartRadio station), it's amazing that some artists show up on ONLY one of those platforms. I had never thought before that perhaps some of those artists are actually sponsored by the platform and being directly promoted by them, and that the other platform basically stays away from playing them unless they get so popular that they can't avoid it.
Satellite radio is notorious for that when it comes to new music of all genres.
-
The B1G/ACC/PAC/G6 won't break off. It would be a clear admission of weakness in the face of the SEC to split off, like they KNOW they have an inferior product.
Now, what MIGHT happen is that as a whole, they'll try to influence rulemaking and other off-field actions to kneecap SEC dominance, and then the SEC plus anyone that they favor (~10-12 other P5 teams) will break away from the rest of the NCAA to create their own super-league.
But there's no way that the other leagues will break off in an attempt to duck the SEC. The optics of that move are terrible.
I could see them also refusing to sign bowl agreements or OOC games against SEC teams
-
I think it's a matter of the lower level schools deciding what they want to be.
Do they want to me Bama? If so, act like it. If not, then do something different.
-
I could see them also refusing to sign bowl agreements or OOC games against SEC teams
I think the B1G/ACC/PAC scheduling alliance is somewhat of a way to freeze the SEC out of OOC scheduling. If all three leagues drop to 8 games, and set up two OOC games annually with the other two conferences, there won't be a lot of room to fit the SEC in.
I saw something a few days ago about the PAC head guy (maybe?) saying they'd be willing to drop to 8 games and create annual scheduling with the other conferences.
I'm not sure they'd try to freeze the SEC out of bowl scheduling though... I don't think they could pull that off, especially with some of the serious history of those games.
Again, the optics of trying to freeze them out of bowl games are a lot worse than setting up a scheduling alliance and just "oh, we don't have enough time in the schedule for you, 'Bama..."
-
I don't see a need to freeze out the SEC. There is no basis for it.
If you can't/won't compete, just say so and move on. The SEC is not at fault here. It's the other conferences.
B1G and PAC want to pretend they are Ivy League.
The SEC doesn't give a rip about that stuff.
Is the playing field level? Of course not. But that is not the SEC's fault.
-
But there's no way that the other leagues will break off in an attempt to duck the SEC. The optics of that move are terrible.
I don't think it is much about an admission of weakness as opposed to negotiating the ongoing playoff format. I believe the SEC is pushing hard for more teams but keeping the same basic system, i.e., a committee which just ranks the best teams. The other leagues want autobids and guaranteed inclusion.
-
To be clear, TAMU didn't use NIL for that-- they used bags of cash paid directly under the table to the players and/or "representatives" of the players. They just did it on a scale we've never seen before. Even Hugh Freeze and Ole Miss boosters are blushing at what the ags just pulled off.
But your greater point stands-- NIL money is going to dwarf dirty money once people understand how it can be used within the system, and schools with lots of boosters and/or companies that are favorable to them (Nike with Oregon, Under Armor with Mryland, etc.) will be able to capitalize on it.
You’ve spouted that shit for weeks now with nothing to back it up other than message board rumors.
And why would we do this under the table when it can be done legally and above board.
Either put up proof or shut your yap about it.
-
I don't think it is much about an admission of weakness as opposed to negotiating the ongoing playoff format. I believe the SEC is pushing hard for more teams but keeping the same basic system, i.e., a committee which just ranks the best teams. The other leagues want autobids and guaranteed inclusion.
Well that's a big difference compared to breaking off to form their own playoff system not including the SEC...
And threatening to break off and form their own playoff/championship is an empty threat and the SEC will laugh in their faces. "Oh, you want to create your own playoff because you're not consistently good enough to make it into the one with the best teams? That seems like a wonderful idea, bless your heart."
Truth is that if the playoff expands, the SEC will NOT be able to stop auto-bids. But they know in a 6+2 they can have three teams in an 8-team playoff, something they're not going to get in a 4-team playoff. If the playoff goes to 12 teams, it's quite possible the SEC can get 4 teams in. I don't see them fighting auto-bids as long as it gives them their ability to continue getting multiple teams in.
If the other conferences can get a 6+2 system, then they don't have a leg to stand on limiting how many at-large come from any individual conference, because they got what they want--a seat at the table.
Literally there is NO reason that any of the other conferences would float the idea that they're going to create a non-SEC championship. Which is why it's just some rumor on Fox Sports that has no credence.
-
You’ve spouted that shit for weeks now with nothing to back it up other than message board rumors.
And why would we do this under the table when it can be done legally and above board.
Either put up proof or shut your yap about it.
Lulz. Defensive much?
We recruit the same players, and they talk. Everyone knows what's what.
The good news is, going forward, the legit NIL money will make the bags largely irrelevant.
-
I saw something a few days ago about the PAC head guy (maybe?) saying they'd be willing to drop to 8 games and create annual scheduling with the other conferences.
As I said before, I'd love this. I think it would be beneficial for all of us. I'm trying to think through the implications for basically all teams so input from you and others but particularly fans of teams other than mine is encouraged.
I'm thinking that the new schedule for all B1G teams would be:
- Four Conference Home Games
- Four Conference Away Games
- One ACC/B12/PAC Home Game
- One ACC/B12/PAC Away Game
- Two TBD (probably at least one MAC type home game, not sure about the other).
Then I'm thinking that the match-ups for the scheduling alliance games would be either based on preseason expectation or perhaps one of the games would be later in the year and based on mid-season (ish) performance. That way those two should always be "reasonably" competitive games. Ie, if Ohio State is a NC contender, they'd get high-end ACC/B12/PAC opponents. In years when Ohio State is more mediocre they'd get more mediocre opponents. If Purdue is having a good year they'd get good ACC/B12/PAC opponents. If they are struggling for bowl eligibility they'd get similarly situated ACC/B12/PAC opponents.
-
Lulz. Defensive much?
We recruit the same players, and they talk. Everyone knows what's what.
The good news is, going forward, the legit NIL money will make the bags largely irrelevant.
So I know a guy that told me that UT has been paying their players for years. It was always present, but it really ramped up when Mack Brown took over. You think Ricky Williams really played one more year for free? Of course this went beyond his minor league paid baseball contract.
Our coach at the time refused to play the game and lost 4 of the next 5 to Mack.
You see how this works? It’s easy to hurl dirt. Maybe it’s the truth, maybe it’s pure bullshit. It’s really just rumors and bull jive from people who have no idea of the truth.
-
Lulz. Defensive much?
We recruit the same players, and they talk. Everyone knows what's what.
Well if they're going after the same players that may work out for you 😁
-
So I know a guy that told me that UT has been paying their players for years. It was always present, but it really ramped up when Mack Brown took over. You think Ricky Williams really played one more year for free? Of course this went beyond his minor league paid baseball contract.
Our coach at the time refused to play the game and lost 4 of the next 5 to Mack.
You see how this works? It’s easy to hurl dirt. Maybe it’s the truth, maybe it’s pure bullshit. It’s really just rumors and bull jive from people who have no idea of the truth.
You can believe what you want, my old friend. Doesn't make a bit of difference to me.
-
Pretty good article here from Wetzel. I think this is where we are all at. I can't blame the SEC at all, but if you love all that is college football, it's also a problem
https://sports.yahoo.com/se-cs-chokehold-on-football-will-tighten-if-rose-bowl-sunsets-and-other-trivialities-are-prioritized-over-cfp-expansion-001608263.html
I like the last line
These are perilous times for those who want a true national sport, where a measure of parity exists. For many, it’s the diversity of the sport that makes it so fun, so rich, so worth the time. College football is a game, but it’s also life to millions. The idea of 60-plus kickoffs each Saturday, or traditions even at losing programs. Of MACtion and Blue Turf and Paul Bunyan’s Axe and a buffalo rumbling pregame across a field in Boulder.
Give more teams a chance to compete for a title, give more recruits more options to play in big playoff games and even contend for national championships, make more conference races and more postseason contests matter.
Or watch the sport wither over obstinance, tribalism and mismanagement.
It’s not just SEC v. SEC that is overwhelming college football now, and even more so in the future.
It’s the Alliance v. Common Sense.
-
Literally there is NO reason that any of the other conferences would float the idea that they're going to create a non-SEC championship. Which is why it's just some rumor on Fox Sports that has no credence.
Well, there is a reason, and that is that creating a playoff system requires an agreement among the various parties involved. The current system is under such an agreement and runs until 2025 (I think). They were set to expand the playoffs, and then the SEC poached Texas and Oklahoma, and now the trust among these parties has gotten a lot lower. So if they can't get it figured out, it makes sense that the parties that get along make their own systems.
-
Pretty good article here from Wetzel. I think this is where we are all at. I can't blame the SEC at all, but if you love all that is college football, it's also a problem
https://sports.yahoo.com/se-cs-chokehold-on-football-will-tighten-if-rose-bowl-sunsets-and-other-trivialities-are-prioritized-over-cfp-expansion-001608263.html
I like the last line
These are perilous times for those who want a true national sport, where a measure of parity exists. For many, it’s the diversity of the sport that makes it so fun, so rich, so worth the time. College football is a game, but it’s also life to millions. The idea of 60-plus kickoffs each Saturday, or traditions even at losing programs. Of MACtion and Blue Turf and Paul Bunyan’s Axe and a buffalo rumbling pregame across a field in Boulder.
Give more teams a chance to compete for a title, give more recruits more options to play in big playoff games and even contend for national championships, make more conference races and more postseason contests matter.
Or watch the sport wither over obstinance, tribalism and mismanagement.
It’s not just SEC v. SEC that is overwhelming college football now, and even more so in the future.
It’s the Alliance v. Common Sense.
As I've said before I don't think expansion will help but I do think it is inevitable.
Since I think that expansion is inevitable, I hope it is done in the best way possible. As much as I like your 5+1+2X5 proposal, I think the best way would be to have the top-4 league champions host the first round. I think this would help for at least three reasons:
- "Regular" fans could attend a lot more games. If the first round is a home game for 1/2 the teams then at least some fans wouldn't need to pay travel costs for each CFP game.
- All the fun traditions of local on campus stadiums would be added to the CFP mix.
- Over time you'd get some really fun match-ups in places where they'd otherwise rarely or never be played.
On #3, this year's first round match-ups would have been:
- #12 Pitt (ACC Champ) @ #1 Bama (SEC Champ)
- #11 Utah (PAC Champ) @ #2 Michigan (B1G Champ)
- #5 Notre Dame @ #4 Cincy (G5 Champ)
- #3 Georgia @ #7 Baylor (B12 Champ)
2020 match-ups would have been:
- #25 Oregon (PAC Champ) @ #1 Bama (SEC Champ)
- #8 Cincy (G5 Champ) @ #2 Clemson (ACC Champ)
- #5 aTm @ #3 Ohio State (B1G Champ)
- #4 Notre Dame @ #6 Oklahoma (B12 Champ)
2019 match-ups would have been:
- #17 Memphis (G5 Champ) @ #1 LSU (SEC Champ)
- #7 Baylor @ #2 Ohio State (B1G Champ)
- #6 Oregon (PAC Champ) @ #3 Clemson (ACC Champ)
- #5 Georgia @ #4 Oklahoma (B12 Champ)
2018 match-ups would have been:
- #9 Washington (PAC Champ) @ #1 Alabama (SEC Champ)
- #8 UCF (G5 Champ) @ #2 Clemson (ACC Champ)
- #5 Georgia @ #4 Oklahoma (B12 Champ)
- #3 Notre Dame @ #5 Ohio State (B1G Champ)
2017 match-ups would have been:
- #12 UCF (G5 Champ) @ #1 Clemson (ACC Champ)
- #8 USC (PAC Champ) @ #2 Oklahoma (B12 Champ)
- #6 Wisconsin @ #3 Georgia (SEC Champ)
- #4 Bama @ #5 Ohio State (B1G Champ)
2016 match-ups would have been:
- #15 Western Michigan (G5 Champ) @ #1 Bama (SEC Champ)
- #7 Oklahoma (B12 Champ) @ #2 Clemson (ACC Champ)
- #6 Michigan @ #4 Washington (PAC Champ)
- #3 Ohio State @ #5 Penn State (B1G Champ)
2015 match-ups would have been:
- #18 Houston (G5 Champ) @ #1 Clemson (ACC Champ)
- #7 Ohio State @ #2 Alabama (SEC Champ)
- #6 Stanford (PAC Champ) @ #3 Michigan State (B1G Champ)
- #5 Iowa @ #4 Oklahoma (B12 Champ)
2014 match-ups would have been:
- #20 Boise St @ #1 Alabama (SEC Champ)
- #7 MissSt @ #2 Oregon (PAC Champ)
- #6 TCU @ #3 Florida State (ACC Champ)
- #5 Baylor (B12 Champ) @ #4 Ohio State (B1G Champ)
So over the last eight years the B1G would have hosted eight CFP games and travelled to five. The visitors to B1G Country would have been:
- Baylor (@tOSU2x)
- Stanford (@MSU)
- Ohio State (@PSU)
- Bama (@tOSU)
- Notre Dame (@tOSU)
- Texas A&M (@tOSU)
- Utah (@M)
B1G teams meanwhile would have travelled to:
- Oklahoma (IA)
- Alabama (tOSU)
- Penn State (tOSU)
- Washington (M)
- Georgia (UW)
Even the tOSU/PSU rematch would actually have been a very interesting game. Penn State won the first one with 17 unanswered fourth quarter points. A lot of tOSU fans felt that the loss was a fluke. PSU fans said no. Ok, rematch is put-up or shut-up for both teams:
To Penn State: You won the first one so you get home field. Was it a fluke or can you do it again?
To Ohio State: If the first one was a fluke, prove it.
The rest are all great match-ups that are rarely if ever seen.
-
The good news is, going forward, the legit NIL money will make the bags largely irrelevant.
I dunno have to see the way things shake out.Are there Caps on NIL?Say like someone wants to sign 2-3 kids instead of giving one kid 1 MIL the 3 get 333 K apiece.Just ruminating not looking any further into this steaming pile
-
I dunno have to see the way things shake out.Are there Caps on NIL?Say like someone wants to sign 2-3 kids instead of giving one kid 1 MIL the 3 get 333 K apiece.Just ruminating not looking any further into this steaming pile
No, no caps at all. Just the Free Market doing whatever it will do.
Some states do have restrictions on exactly what can be promoted, though. Like in Texas' statutes, there are provisions that they can't promote "dirty" things like sex toys or sex services.
But that doesn't affect the total amounts that can be paid, and in reality if the NIL is used just to funnel money to players without any real marketing/advertising attached to it, then it won't ever be an issue.
-
I dunno have to see the way things shake out.Are there Caps on NIL?Say like someone wants to sign 2-3 kids instead of giving one kid 1 MIL the 3 get 333 K apiece.Just ruminating not looking any further into this steaming pile
There are no caps or regulation that I'm aware of on NIL.
Edit: correction... Some states that have legally approved NIL do have some of their own legal restrictions, i.e. you cannot accept NIL money from a gambling interest, etc... But there are no actual monetary caps.
-
There are no caps or regulation that I'm aware of on NIL.
Edit: correction... Some states that have legally approved NIL do have some of their own legal restrictions, i.e. you cannot accept NIL money from a gambling interest, etc... But there are no actual monetary caps.
Yup, gambling promotion is off-limits in Texas, too.
Seems weird to me that these restrictions can be placed on student-athletes, when they're not placed on the general public.