Saw an article earlier this week (it wouldn't let me attach it), it was on the OU insider board (Oklahoma Football board, *similar to this) from a staff board member with the username "Sliced bread" stating that Texas A&M dished out between 25 million to 30 million dollars to football recruits during the first signing period. According to the writer, A&M donors were working with the coaching staff and would identify players they wanted to target and then use a "point donor" who would work with various other donors to create an LLC to basically funnel money to that said recruit. The blogger also stated that in the contract they structured it as multiple-year with clauses stating if you transfer, the contract is broken and then you leave the money behind.
Idk about everyone else, but this was my initial fear when the NIL rule got passed, just seems unfair to smaller teams, with fewer donors. I am all for the kids getting paid, I've been an advocate for it on others' posts, but this just seems like an unfair advantage. I would guess this is happening in one way or another at all the major programs. How is a middle-tier team supposed to sway a kid from one of the powerhouses, when they are getting offered the opportunity to be on said powerhouse and millions of dollars? To me, it seems like recruiting is just turning into Free Agency.
I've always thought that NIL should be run through the school's DIA with guidelines set by their conference, if donors want to sponsor athletes then they have to donate to a fund that is for all athletes. Then the athletic program can prorate it out. Instead of forming an LLC for the player and basically just handing him money for playing well.
Ex. The fund has $1million dollars --> 50% goes to the football team, 25% goes to the basketball team, 5% goes to baseball/softball, 4% goes to gymnastics...etc for all sports boys and girls.
And then could be divided up in football from position group etc... or however the conference guidelines allow you to.
That way if you wanted to support your team and players you would have to support every student-athlete and it would be harder to just give one kid millions of dollars to come to your school as the money you gave to the fund would be going to every athlete, would make it so all sports are motivated to do well, as the better each sport is the more willing donors would be to donating. If I was a donor and loved tennis but our tennis team was terrible would I donate my money? No, they suck why would I help them. or Yes, they suck, I need to donate more, the more I donate the better chance they have to get better recruits because the kids will be paid more.
Thoughts?
Idk about everyone else, but this was my initial fear when the NIL rule got passed, just seems unfair to smaller teams, with fewer donors. I am all for the kids getting paid, I've been an advocate for it on others' posts, but this just seems like an unfair advantage. I would guess this is happening in one way or another at all the major programs. How is a middle-tier team supposed to sway a kid from one of the powerhouses, when they are getting offered the opportunity to be on said powerhouse and millions of dollars? To me, it seems like recruiting is just turning into Free Agency.
I've always thought that NIL should be run through the school's DIA with guidelines set by their conference, if donors want to sponsor athletes then they have to donate to a fund that is for all athletes. Then the athletic program can prorate it out. Instead of forming an LLC for the player and basically just handing him money for playing well.
Ex. The fund has $1million dollars --> 50% goes to the football team, 25% goes to the basketball team, 5% goes to baseball/softball, 4% goes to gymnastics...etc for all sports boys and girls.
And then could be divided up in football from position group etc... or however the conference guidelines allow you to.
That way if you wanted to support your team and players you would have to support every student-athlete and it would be harder to just give one kid millions of dollars to come to your school as the money you gave to the fund would be going to every athlete, would make it so all sports are motivated to do well, as the better each sport is the more willing donors would be to donating. If I was a donor and loved tennis but our tennis team was terrible would I donate my money? No, they suck why would I help them. or Yes, they suck, I need to donate more, the more I donate the better chance they have to get better recruits because the kids will be paid more.
Thoughts?
