Found this article while doing some research:
https://www.sportico.com/leagues/college-sports/2022/college-athletic-departments-should-manage-nil-1234679445/
I myself have not taken a huge interest in NIL. I just felt that all the aggressive early adopters were using it as a license to fully indulge in a pay to play structure that was dissonant with the identity of Cal Athletics especially given the current administration.
We've already seen Stanford administratively wash their hands of any responsibility or connection to NIL.
What is the ideal role for the AD in terms of NIL?
For the AD to be totally proactive, he would basically have to create an entire effort that was internally competitive to their current fundraising efforts over which they have way more discretion on how funds are allocated. They would also need to build an administrative capacity to connect donors with athletes and coordinate scheduling for appearances, photoshoots etc. And the more you choose to take on the more liability to create if things go wrong or rules are broken.
Sounds like a huge nightmare for even the most gung-ho AD.
So most of them are going to do what Cal seems to be doing. Be open to the idea of the benefits of donor backed and run NIL groups and adopt some stance about how influential these activities will be over their decision making. After all if NIL donor groups encourage you to make a decision that doesn't turn out well, are they going to endure the consequences of that decision?
I'm choosing to post on the basketball board because given this reality, I can see why coaching candidates that came too hard and heavy on leveraging NIL would not have the impact on the AD that many fans and donors would expect.
Given this reality, it is easier to see how the choice that was made could have been the result of a sounds, principle-driven process.
https://www.sportico.com/leagues/college-sports/2022/college-athletic-departments-should-manage-nil-1234679445/
I myself have not taken a huge interest in NIL. I just felt that all the aggressive early adopters were using it as a license to fully indulge in a pay to play structure that was dissonant with the identity of Cal Athletics especially given the current administration.
We've already seen Stanford administratively wash their hands of any responsibility or connection to NIL.
What is the ideal role for the AD in terms of NIL?
For the AD to be totally proactive, he would basically have to create an entire effort that was internally competitive to their current fundraising efforts over which they have way more discretion on how funds are allocated. They would also need to build an administrative capacity to connect donors with athletes and coordinate scheduling for appearances, photoshoots etc. And the more you choose to take on the more liability to create if things go wrong or rules are broken.
Sounds like a huge nightmare for even the most gung-ho AD.
So most of them are going to do what Cal seems to be doing. Be open to the idea of the benefits of donor backed and run NIL groups and adopt some stance about how influential these activities will be over their decision making. After all if NIL donor groups encourage you to make a decision that doesn't turn out well, are they going to endure the consequences of that decision?
I'm choosing to post on the basketball board because given this reality, I can see why coaching candidates that came too hard and heavy on leveraging NIL would not have the impact on the AD that many fans and donors would expect.
Given this reality, it is easier to see how the choice that was made could have been the result of a sounds, principle-driven process.