Scholarship limits no longer matter

[Mikey 16,550]

Forget about the annual limit of 25 or the overall limit of 85. As I speculated on this forum several days ago, a school's boosters can now pay for as many players as they want to pay for.

Here's a link borrowed from the "Rivals" branch of the main football forum. There are other examples there too. https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/every-byu-walk-on-football-player-receives-nil-deal-from-sponsor-covering-cost-of-scholarships/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

I think maybe the smartest thing to do is don't sign the top recruits, just pay them. "Look here, Son: A scholarship is worth, oh say, $25,000 a year. Never mind that. We have a group of boosters who will buy one autographed photo from you every month for $3,000. You've already beat the scholarship by $11,000 a year. That will be paid every month you are in good standing on the team. It's a no-brainer".

So, if the 'crutin' is looking a little short on numbers, or we've got commitments from the 25 and need a few more, just pay eight or ten more prospects to walk on. eezy-peezy. It's so simple even BYU can do it.

Then there's the Miami booster who has promised every Hurricane scholarship player $500 cash each month on top of their scholarship, but that's not creative thinking enough. Hell, you don't need any scholarships at all, just some boosters with deep pockets. If the NCAA slaps scholarship restrictions on your team? Laugh and pay 5* walkons out of pocket. No problem at all.

This will also be a great way to avoid the NCAA's academic progress requirements. Put the best students on scholarship and pay the lesser students out of pocket as walkons.

The opportunities are endless and we're just getting started down this road. What genius scheme lurks just around the next corner?

[Rednilla 5,383]

Of course, this begs the question of how many players a coach can convince that he's going to give them playing time. And it gives the athletes a readymade way to have unlimited transfers with no eligibility penalty if you don't put them on scholarship, so you're playing an even more dangerous game than you would with the 85 scholarship rule. 

Oh, I'm sorry. What were you saying, Mike? The sky is falling. The sky is falling. College football is wilting away and there will be no semblance of the game left.

There, that should fill the doom and gloom quota for this thread.

[AuburnNTexas 7,127]

Mikey has some legitimate points, by allowing the NIL and not putting any real boundaries on it there is room for literally buying players.  The counter argument has some points also if not on scholarship can go anywhere at anytime.  It is just beginning but I expect to see a huge change in college sports because of this. Football and Basketball will be impacted but sports like baseball where you have very severe scholarship limits will have the most to gain.  

Next question if male athletes tend to do better with NIL then female athletes will that go to court and what would be the outcome. 

[fredst 9,064]

27 minutes ago, AuburnNTexas said:

Next question if male athletes tend to do better with NIL then female athletes will that go to court and what would be the outcome.

This. I’ve been wondering about what, if any, TitleIX implications there might be with the NIL. The federal government can cause a lot more problems for a school than the feckless NCAA

[gman87 398]

They weren't enforcing the rules on the biggest cheats anyway so what's really changed? Now everybody can do it.

[Gowebb11 9,308]

3 hours ago, AuburnNTexas said:

Mikey has some legitimate points, by allowing the NIL and not putting any real boundaries on it there is room for literally buying players. 

This is correct. But as we all know players have been bought by the major powers for a long time with the NCAA selectively turning a blind eye. I think this is just leveling the playing field. I can’t wait to see what Stanford’s plan is with their money and the power of their business brand. CFB is in trouble in my opinion. 

Edited August 15, 2021 by Gowebb11

[Hank2020 3,195]

3 hours ago, fredst said:

This. I’ve been wondering about what, if any, TitleIX implications there might be with the NIL. The federal government can cause a lot more problems for a school than the feckless NCAA

I don’t believe there are title IX implications, as long as the agreement is with an individual not the university. The laws have “uncoupled” those earnings from scholarship limitations that title IX deals with.

[aublaise 199]

13 minutes ago, Hank2020 said:

I don’t believe there are title IX implications, as long as the agreement is with an individual not the university. The laws have “uncoupled” those earnings from scholarship limitations that title IX deals with.

Yeah, we have a gymnastic that has the potential to "earn" more than any football player

[creed 1,629]

1 hour ago, Gowebb11 said:

This is correct. But as we all know players have been bought by the major powers for a long time with the NCAA selectively turning a blind eye. I think this is just leveling the playing field. I can’t wait to see what Stanford’s plan is with their money and the power of their business brand. CFB is in trouble in my opinion. 

You don’t even need to look that far UofTex possibly has more money (endowment) than the rest of the SEC combined. 

[Hank2020 3,195]

1 minute ago, creed said:

You don’t even need to look that far UofTex possibly has more money (endowment) than the rest of the SEC combined. 

Usually endowments have restrictions on how they can be used, sports not usually one of the stated purposes.

[JBiGGiE 2,488]

5 hours ago, fredst said:

This. I’ve been wondering about what, if any, TitleIX implications there might be with the NIL. The federal government can cause a lot more problems for a school than the feckless NCAA

As long as they're pretty and have a large Instagram following, they're gonna be just fine...

[creed 1,629]

8 minutes ago, Hank2020 said:

Usually endowments have restrictions on how they can be used, sports not usually one of the stated purposes.

But it possibly indicates the monetary demographics behind the schools funding. Do you think ta&m has as much pocket change as UofTex? No, because if they did I believe they would have a bigger endowment. 

[Hank2020 3,195]

49 minutes ago, creed said:

But it possibly indicates the monetary demographics behind the schools funding. Do you think ta&m has as much pocket change as UofTex? No, because if they did I believe they would have a bigger endowment. 

Nope, but Harvard does and obviously it’s endowment is not at all a direct indication of how much it is willing to spend toward improving it’s football program. Texas may very well get to the top as you propose but I don’t see the size of it’s Endowment as a direct correlation to that outcome.

[ClaytonAU 4,606]

7 hours ago, AuburnNTexas said:

real boundaries on it there is room for literally buying players.

Schools have been doing this since the 70s now it’s just legal. 

[tinman 305]

5 hours ago, aublaise said:

Yeah, we have a gymnastic that has the potential to "earn" more than any football player

She will probably earn more than any other college athlete of any sport!  I can visualize all the big consumer product companies trying to sign her (under Armor since we are a UA school, Kelloggs, Hershey, and many others).  Hell, I bet she could even sell some 2 X 4's for Yella Fella.😀

[Gowebb11 9,308]

4 hours ago, Hank2020 said:

Usually endowments have restrictions on how they can be used, sports not usually one of the stated purposes.

I think the OP was referringto it as an indicator of the schools overall wealth.  Bigger endowment=more wealthy alumni//business execs=more generous NIL potential.

[Hank2020 3,195]

11 minutes ago, Gowebb11 said:

I think the OP was referringto it as an indicator of the schools overall wealth.  Bigger endowment=more wealthy alumni//business execs=more generous NIL potential.

Thx, I tried to cover that avenue in a later post.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

12 hours ago, Rednilla said:

Of course, this begs the question of how many players a coach can convince that he's going to give them playing time. And it gives the athletes a readymade way to have unlimited transfers with no eligibility penalty if you don't put them on scholarship, so you're playing an even more dangerous game than you would with the 85 scholarship rule. 

Oh, I'm sorry. What were you saying, Mike? The sky is falling. The sky is falling. College football is wilting away and there will be no semblance of the game left.

There, that should fill the doom and gloom quota for this thread.

Sadly I think college FB as I have known and loved it is a thing of the past. It is now going to be more semi-pro. Money is ruling. I wouldn't be surprised to soon see most TV  games pay for view.

[toddc 13,194]

I don’t think Utah has laws about nil like most states do, and I don’t think you could do this in Alabama for instance.

[Mikey 16,550]

1 hour ago, toddc said:

I don’t think Utah has laws about nil like most states do, and I don’t think you could do this in Alabama for instance.

I'm no legalist, but I don't see anything in this link that would prohibit athletes in Alabama from doing the same: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/alabama-becomes-10th-state-to-enact-name-image-and-likeness-legislation-student

[McLoofus 35,182]

23 hours ago, Rednilla said:

Of course, this begs the question of how many players a coach can convince that he's going to give them playing time. 

Exactly. How much are boosters going to pay for dozens of superfluous, marginal players? How many quality players are going to accept short term small potatoes to stand on a sideline instead of going somewhere they can get on the field and give themselves a real shot at an NFL contract?

Not sure why we're even talking about it, though, since several changes that we were assured were going to end college football have already been implemented. I guess it's just the ghost of CFB that we're all talking about these days. 

[gravejd 3,269]

Easily solved by putting a cap on the number of walk ons a team can have or just doing away with the walk on status. But even if they don't pass a rule, i'm not really concerned about a guy going to bama to be the 3rd string LB or QB for the team. If a guy is choosing that over coming to AU to play then he his not the right fit or AU is not doing a good job of developing players.

[McLoofus 35,182]

Also, sounds like this might have potential just to let a lot more kids go to college and get an education. 

[AUBwins 10,064]

35 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Also, sounds like this might have potential just to let a lot more kids go to college and get an education. 

This is definitely a positive of the NIL.  Already seeing it with the gymnasts that would normally skip college to keep the money offered.  Now they can have both the college education and the endorsement money they have earned.  Gymnasts basically retire before 30. There are a lot of years left to occupy your time.  It's great they can be educated enough for a post athlete career. 

[80Tiger 899]

It seems like I remember some type rules associated with this type work around. In other words, if a high school kid was a legitimate prospect being recruited to play football, the school could not give him some type of other aid to get him in school. He would still count against scholarship limits. This rule of course came out of something UA did. Bear Bryant had some type endowment that would allow any of his former players children got to UA on a full scholarship. If that kid happened to be a legit D1 prospect, he would still count against scholarship limits if he went to UA on the legacy scholarship.