COLLEGE REGENTS HOLD KEY TO ENSURING SMOOTH TRANSITION IN NIL ERA

[This Ain't Chopped Liver]

College Regents Hold Key to Ensuring Smooth Transition in NIL Era

Today’s guest columnist is lawyer and University of Michigan regent Jordan B. Acker. NIL is here to stay. Sounds obvious, right? Well, to some it’s not, and there’s one group of important voi…

www.sportico.com

Today’s guest columnist is lawyer and University of Michigan regent Jordan B. Acker.

Trustees, as fiduciaries, are rightly concerned with the economic health and security of the institutions they serve. So how do we live in a world where some of our biggest boosters are funneling those dollars to NIL deals? Quite simply, the long-term nature of trusteeship requires thinking about what happens three to five years from now if we don’t embrace NIL: a talent exodus in the student athlete and coaching ranks, winning less, less creativity in branding, and alumni/student/fan disinterest.

Instead, trustees must grow comfortable with a phrase that’s easily understood in the pros but less so in college sports: revenue sharing. Today’s college sports are a billion-dollar business, with athletes sacrificing time and turning down quintessential college experiences to practice and perform well. With all of the money in college athletics, it was and is simply unsustainable for student athletes not to profit from their talents and contributions. Schools essentially have two options: Work today with their current athletes and create a system that makes sure everyone is compensated fairly, or expect that it will be dictated by the courts, a future players association, or Congress, sooner rather than later.

Finally, while there’s no magic bullet, trustees have to be ready for something that is incredibly difficult in large, legacy institutions: change. Overnight, our system was upended. While we can absolutely be concerned about what that looks like, we have to be adaptable and ready to help steer our institutions through this time of great change.
….
The prospect of collectives and donors bundling money directly to student athletes has the potential for chaos, especially when many schools believe these dollars could go to development. Frankly, this short-term thinking will cause schools’ athletic departments (and eventually their fundraising) to nosedive. Let’s be clear: The schools that embrace NIL and do this well are going to be the ones winning championships for the next 20 years.

 

[Eight]

College Regents Hold Key to Ensuring Smooth Transition in NIL Era

Today’s guest columnist is lawyer and University of Michigan regent Jordan B. Acker. NIL is here to stay. Sounds obvious, right? Well, to some it’s not, and there’s one group of important voi…

www.sportico.com

Today’s guest columnist is lawyer and University of Michigan regent Jordan B. Acker.

Trustees, as fiduciaries, are rightly concerned with the economic health and security of the institutions they serve. So how do we live in a world where some of our biggest boosters are funneling those dollars to NIL deals? Quite simply, the long-term nature of trusteeship requires thinking about what happens three to five years from now if we don’t embrace NIL: a talent exodus in the student athlete and coaching ranks, winning less, less creativity in branding, and alumni/student/fan disinterest.

none of what he wrote matters unless you get the schools and the conferences working together which i just don't see happening.

 

[HG73]

College Regents Hold Key to Ensuring Smooth Transition in NIL Era

Today’s guest columnist is lawyer and University of Michigan regent Jordan B. Acker. NIL is here to stay. Sounds obvious, right? Well, to some it’s not, and there’s one group of important voi…

www.sportico.com

Today’s guest columnist is lawyer and University of Michigan regent Jordan B. Acker.

Trustees, as fiduciaries, are rightly concerned with the economic health and security of the institutions they serve. So how do we live in a world where some of our biggest boosters are funneling those dollars to NIL deals? Quite simply, the long-term nature of trusteeship requires thinking about what happens three to five years from now if we don’t embrace NIL: a talent exodus in the student athlete and coaching ranks, winning less, less creativity in branding, and alumni/student/fan disinterest.

Instead, trustees must grow comfortable with a phrase that’s easily understood in the pros but less so in college sports: revenue sharing. Today’s college sports are a billion-dollar business, with athletes sacrificing time and turning down quintessential college experiences to practice and perform well. With all of the money in college athletics, it was and is simply unsustainable for student athletes not to profit from their talents and contributions. Schools essentially have two options: Work today with their current athletes and create a system that makes sure everyone is compensated fairly, or expect that it will be dictated by the courts, a future players association, or Congress, sooner rather than later.

Finally, while there’s no magic bullet, trustees have to be ready for something that is incredibly difficult in large, legacy institutions: change. Overnight, our system was upended. While we can absolutely be concerned about what that looks like, we have to be adaptable and ready to help steer our institutions through this time of great change.
….
The prospect of collectives and donors bundling money directly to student athletes has the potential for chaos, especially when many schools believe these dollars could go to development. Frankly, this short-term thinking will cause schools’ athletic departments (and eventually their fundraising) to nosedive. Let’s be clear: The schools that embrace NIL and do this well are going to be the ones winning championships for the next 20 years.

Wonder what Alabama's collective looks like? Has it changed?

 

[This Ain't Chopped Liver]

Wonder what Alabama's collective looks like? Has it changed?

Ha, no idea

 

[Fosterpark Squatter]

Wonder what Alabama's collective looks like? Has it changed?

Not good enough compared to Aggies according to Saban.

 

[Endless Purple]

How is revenue sharing with the athletes going to improve college football? It will simply give the B1G and SEC athletes even more money over the other conferences on top of NIL furthering the divide.

Already looks like the broadcast airwaves will be dominated by B1G games on Saturdays, which I will not watch. Now even more money to buy players which smaller revenue schools can't compete with.

 

[Eight]

Wonder what Alabama's collective looks like? Has it changed?

 

[Virginia Frog]

Already looks like the broadcast airwaves will be dominated by B1G games on Saturdays, which I will not watch. Now even more money to buy players which smaller revenue schools can't compete with.

Why in the world do TV executives believe that their viewers (eyeballs) out there in TV Land WANT to see B10, B10, B10 football?

With their "roll up" of a few premier programs (PennSt, Nebraska, USC and maybe UCLA --- a "directional" school really that in the past who we'd talk about with distain a decade or so ago --- but that's for another rant - and definitely NOT Maryland & Rutgers) there may have more games of universal interest than in the past but really the B10 has some very second-tier/yawner football programs to which bore to the mass of hard core, non-affiliated college football fans.

Aren't people out here just interested in the BEST games with the BETTER squads?

Just BECAUSE it's B10, by definition, it's good and worthy of our viewership?

I'm not spending my time watching their leftover programming. They can try to "force feed" the viewing public, but it'll be a "fail."

This whole concept of the P2 or "Super 2" is stupid. They will have any some good teams and some very good games. We'll watch THEM. But Indiana vs Minnesota, Maryland vs. Illinois, on and on are "day old donuts."

 

[Eight]

Why in the world do TV executives believe that their viewers (eyeballs) out there in TV Land WANT to see B10, B10, B10 football?

With their "roll up" of a few premier programs (PennSt, Nebraska, USC and maybe UCLA --- a "directional" school really that in the past who we'd talk about with distain a decade or so ago --- but that's for another rant - and definitely NOT Maryland & Rutgers) there may be more games of universal interest than in the past but really the B10 has some very second-tier/yawner football programs to which bore to the mass of hard core, non-affiliated college football fans.

Aren't people out here just interested in the BEST games with the BETTER squads?

Just BECAUSE it's B10, by definition, it's good and worthy of our viewership?

I'm not spending my time watching their leftover programming. They can try to "force feed" the viewing public, but it'll be a "fail."

This whole concept of the P2 or "Super 2" is stupid. They will have any some good teams and some very good games. We'll watch THEM. But Indiana vs Minnesota, Maryland vs. Illinois, on and on are "day old donuts."

i would guess that somewhere the numbers say otherwise

 

[Virginia Frog]

i would guess that somewhere the numbers say otherwise

Yep, research says otherwise. I'm calling that B.S.

Purdue vs. Rutgers, Iowa vs. N'Western, UCLA (in their recent state) vs. Nebraska, et.al. is NOT compelling to THIS discriminating buyer. Old downtrodden Wake Forest would beat any one of them!

 

[Endless Purple]

Why in the world do TV executives believe that their viewers (eyeballs) out there in TV Land WANT to see B10, B10, B10 football?

Arrogance? people will watch what we tell them is good to watch.....
Any other way to explain a P2?

Considering how many people I saw complain about an all SEC championship game, then said they would watch anyway. They may have something.

Also marketing.

 

[HG73]

It sure looks like the University of California regents hold the key in B1G realignment.