evanluck said:

---

Gobears49 said:

---

Oakbear said:

---

I'm not a fan of NIL. Wouldn't it be great if it did not exist.

wouldn't it be great if Ego and Greed did not exist .. or for that matter, war/famine/pestilence, etc

---

I think it would be great if NIL did not exist and seemingly is the law of the land, replacing athletic scholarships.

Cal fans would not be happy if the amount of NIL for each college team were announced, as clearly Cal total football NIL would be left in the dust by most Southeastern Conference teams and many Big Ten teams.

In general, which teams are going to get the best talented NIL recruits? Most likely the ones with the biggest NIL budgets. I know there are ratings of the best recruits by organizations which rate sports recruits for football and basketball pn the basis of the sports prowess in those two sports which then can be compared to the list of relative school fan footba;; attendance. Normally, one would expect NIL payments by college football teams should correlate to relative team football attendance. For instance, I think Cal's average football attendance is dwarfed by the average attendance by the top teams in the most powerfull football conferences, which should correlate to NIL footbal payments made by those teams.

Would love to have others comment on what I have stated above and whether they feel NIL could be overturned as the law of the land relating to how rmuch football players are paid. I long for the days when college football players were largely compensated by flast per person football schoarships. I assume, but have not read, that athletic schlarships do not exist anymore for football and basketball by the big schools, as otherwise they would be doubly compensated -- NIL payments plus college scholarships.

I should point out that I have not seen any artricle covering this topic, which really is just a summary of how the flat per person payments to college players using the scholarship method compares to NIL payments and how NIL payments to the most popular teams in terms of their relatball footbal attendance changes how much players are paid in relation to football attendance of some other measurement.

I look forward to your comments.

---

The best teams were always paying the players. I think Rod Benson makes an interesting point on the BI Podcast. He basically argues that the Blue Bloods were always paying players. This put programs like Cal who predominantly played by the rules at an incredible disadvantage.

Now that everyone can pay players, the Blue Bloods are now at a relative disadvantage because their locations are further away from population centers and they should from a numbers standpoint have less wealth to draw from. Of course their history of success gives them a couple hand fulls of willing and committed donors but as a place like Cal gets organized and energized the numbers game should work in our favor. We have more wealth in the surrounding areas. It just needs to be energized by people with vision who can back their words up with enough success to get people excited.

We should not be lamenting NIL, we should be celebrating it. It is not the death of college athletics it is an leveling of the playing field which over time should produce more parity and a better chance for most committed programs.

---

This is what I think but having the money and willingness to give to the Nil are two different things. Part of the problem we have is the draconian policies re free student tickets which does not create future fans. They graduate, are making millions but never went to a football or basketball game so they have no interest.Shockey is right.

oskidunker said:

---

evanluck said:

---

Gobears49 said:

---

Oakbear said:

---

I'm not a fan of NIL. Wouldn't it be great if it did not exist.

wouldn't it be great if Ego and Greed did not exist .. or for that matter, war/famine/pestilence, etc

---

I think it would be great if NIL did not exist and seemingly is the law of the land, replacing athletic scholarships.

Cal fans would not be happy if the amount of NIL for each college team were announced, as clearly Cal total football NIL would be left in the dust by most Southeastern Conference teams and many Big Ten teams.

In general, which teams are going to get the best talented NIL recruits? Most likely the ones with the biggest NIL budgets. I know there are ratings of the best recruits by organizations which rate sports recruits for football and basketball pn the basis of the sports prowess in those two sports which then can be compared to the list of relative school fan footba;; attendance. Normally, one would expect NIL payments by college football teams should correlate to relative team football attendance. For instance, I think Cal's average football attendance is dwarfed by the average attendance by the top teams in the most powerfull football conferences, which should correlate to NIL footbal payments made by those teams.

Would love to have others comment on what I have stated above and whether they feel NIL could be overturned as the law of the land relating to how rmuch football players are paid. I long for the days when college football players were largely compensated by flast per person football schoarships. I assume, but have not read, that athletic schlarships do not exist anymore for football and basketball by the big schools, as otherwise they would be doubly compensated -- NIL payments plus college scholarships.

I should point out that I have not seen any artricle covering this topic, which really is just a summary of how the flat per person payments to college players using the scholarship method compares to NIL payments and how NIL payments to the most popular teams in terms of their relatball footbal attendance changes how much players are paid in relation to football attendance of some other measurement.

I look forward to your comments.

---

The best teams were always paying the players. I think Rod Benson makes an interesting point on the BI Podcast. He basically argues that the Blue Bloods were always paying players. This put programs like Cal who predominantly played by the rules at an incredible disadvantage.

Now that everyone can pay players, the Blue Bloods are now at a relative disadvantage because their locations are further away from population centers and they should from a numbers standpoint have less wealth to draw from. Of course their history of success gives them a couple hand fulls of willing and committed donors but as a place like Cal gets organized and energized the numbers game should work in our favor. We have more wealth in the surrounding areas. It just needs to be energized by people with vision who can back their words up with enough success to get people excited.

We should not be lamenting NIL, we should be celebrating it. It is not the death of college athletics it is an leveling of the playing field which over time should produce more parity and a better chance for most committed programs.

---

This is what I think but having the money and willingness to give to the Nil are two different things. Part of the problem we have is the draconian policies re free student tickets which does not create future fans. They graduate, are making millions but never went to a football or basketball game so they have no interest.Shockey is right.

---

True. Free student tickets is important and hopefully Chancellor Lyons will fix this. However, if we could just win more and do it for 5-10 years the interest from local wealth regardless of alumni affiliation should increase. This is the path to truly sustainable NIL - players becoming local stars and capitalizing on their status to be spokesmen for local business.

evanluck said:

---

Gobears49 said:

---

Oakbear said:

---

I'm not a fan of NIL. Wouldn't it be great if it did not exist.

wouldn't it be great if Ego and Greed did not exist .. or for that matter, war/famine/pestilence, etc

---

I think it would be great if NIL did not exist and seemingly is the law of the land, replacing athletic scholarships.

Cal fans would not be happy if the amount of NIL for each college team were announced, as clearly Cal total football NIL would be left in the dust by most Southeastern Conference teams and many Big Ten teams.

In general, which teams are going to get the best talented NIL recruits? Most likely the ones with the biggest NIL budgets. I know there are ratings of the best recruits by organizations which rate sports recruits for football and basketball pn the basis of the sports prowess in those two sports which then can be compared to the list of relative school fan footba;; attendance. Normally, one would expect NIL payments by college football teams should correlate to relative team football attendance. For instance, I think Cal's average football attendance is dwarfed by the average attendance by the top teams in the most powerfull football conferences, which should correlate to NIL footbal payments made by those teams.

Would love to have others comment on what I have stated above and whether they feel NIL could be overturned as the law of the land relating to how rmuch football players are paid. I long for the days when college football players were largely compensated by flast per person football schoarships. I assume, but have not read, that athletic schlarships do not exist anymore for football and basketball by the big schools, as otherwise they would be doubly compensated -- NIL payments plus college scholarships.

I should point out that I have not seen any artricle covering this topic, which really is just a summary of how the flat per person payments to college players using the scholarship method compares to NIL payments and how NIL payments to the most popular teams in terms of their relatball footbal attendance changes how much players are paid in relation to football attendance of some other measurement.

I look forward to your comments.

---

The best teams were always paying the players. I think Rod Benson makes an interesting point on the BI Podcast. He basically argues that the Blue Bloods were always paying players. This put programs like Cal who predominantly played by the rules at an incredible disadvantage.

Now that everyone can pay players, the Blue Bloods are now at a relative disadvantage because their locations are further away from population centers and they should from a numbers standpoint have less wealth to draw from. Of course their history of success gives them a couple hand fulls of willing and committed donors but as a place like Cal gets organized and energized the numbers game should work in our favor. We have more wealth in the surrounding areas. It just needs to be energized by people with vision who can back their words up with enough success to get people excited.

We should not be lamenting NIL, we should be celebrating it. It is not the death of college athletics it is an leveling of the playing field which over time should produce more parity and a better chance for most committed programs.

---

100% this is what I have been saying too. With one caveat: this is true as long as the current situation lasts, with NIL coming from boosters separate from the university.

The recent settlement of three antitrust suits with the NCAA and Power 5 will change that as players will soon be paid from the school's media revenues.

As one of three schools in the P4 with the lowest media revenues, and the only public school of those three, most likely the school with the worst financial position in the P4, Cal will be at a tremendous disadvantage when schools inevitably start paying players from their media earnings.

This is why I was so adamant that hiring Knowlton and extending him was such a mistake, that extending coaches with such low ceilings like Fox and Wilcox was a mistake and finally using our political leverage trying to block UCLA from going to the B1G instead of using it to get in also was potentially existential.

All things considered, I like the ACC, our incoming chancellor is the best we could ever hope for from an athletics (and other) perspective, but the financial challenges athletics faces going forward due to the legacy of the prior administration may be insurmountable. We had the worst leadership of our athletics administration leading up to and at the critical moment in Cal athletics history.

However, this is the basketball board. It is not clear how schools will allocate their spending of media revenue between football, which earns the lion's share, and other sports. With fewer players on the roster, it may be that boosters can overcome a lack of spending from the school's media revenues. However, I doubt ACC schools will neglect their basketball teams.

Cal has an advantage in the portal right now, but it will be short lived. We need to generate wins and excitement and REVENUEs, NOW. Even still, financially, the next few years will be tough.