In general terms, I think it’s very positive for the non-scholarship players. However, looking at it from a competitive level across the NCAA, BYU essentially expanded the number of scholarships it can offer (some of which would stay at BYU but would have contributed on the field to the Aggies previously). I’m also troubled that this deal would be illegal in some states. I don’t believe the NCAA is functional, and I know there are some bad actors out there (Baylor). It’s only a matter of time before some teams are paying gray shirts, or taking advantage in a way that further separates the top from everyone else. Good job BYU, but this isn’t a positive for college football.

I was reading a Boise State fans take on this and think it might be worth adding to the discussion. Will top programs start offering extravagant NIL for top players with resort living, cars, and cash. You can save scholarships for further down the depth chart while the top recruits don’t need a scholarship because they have piles of cash.

Look at the background of a few of the Built Bars executives. This won't end well.

Ooooooohhhh! Bar, as in energy bar! Got it.

College football is ruined


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'd like to see more discussion of how this would be illegal in other states:



But of course its no surprise that the local media is kind of ignoring that part.

Quin Ficklin seems to be a fan of this arrangement:

Ruined

I guarantee teams will try and get players with fat NIL deals to "walk-on" saving scholarships for other kids.

Related, with the top of the P5 likely leaving the NCAA eventually for their own thing, they'll probably also probably remove roster number limitations. If they want 150 players on scholarship and can get a good enough player to take that 150th scholarship, they'll do it.

BigBlueDart wrote: ↑

August 13th, 2021, 9:50 am

Ooooooohhhh! Bar, as in energy bar! Got it.

No a weight lifter only pub and restaurant and bar.

Yeah, this is getting into pay to play territory. But we will not get that level of reporting from the media to talk about that. Rather we will see everyone talking about how awesome yBu is for this.

But I think it is the beginning of the end here.

Title 9. This could be a way to drop the women's sports that universities don't want to pay for. Drop athletic scholarships for football and men's basketball and fund them through NIL.

USUaggie wrote: ↑

August 13th, 2021, 3:24 pm

Title 9. This could be a way to drop the women's sports that universities don't want to pay for. Drop athletic scholarships for football and men's basketball and fund them through NIL.

If you think Title IX can be killed through the back door, you don't understand the world we live in.

Full wrote: ↑

August 13th, 2021, 9:25 am

In general terms, I think it’s very positive for the non-scholarship players. However, looking at it from a competitive level across the NCAA, BYU essentially expanded the number of scholarships it can offer (some of which would stay at BYU but would have contributed on the field to the Aggies previously). I’m also troubled that this deal would be illegal in some states. I don’t believe the NCAA is functional, and I know there are some bad actors out there (Baylor). It’s only a matter of time before some teams are paying gray shirts, or taking advantage in a way that further separates the top from everyone else. Good job BYU, but this isn’t a positive for college football.

Do the players have to buy $1000 worth of Built Bars, then sell them at home parties? Can they work their way up the Build ladder if they bring in other walk-ons?

OKAggie wrote: ↑

August 13th, 2021, 3:39 pm

Full wrote: ↑

August 13th, 2021, 9:25 am

In general terms, I think it’s very positive for the non-scholarship players. However, looking at it from a competitive level across the NCAA, BYU essentially expanded the number of scholarships it can offer (some of which would stay at BYU but would have contributed on the field to the Aggies previously). I’m also troubled that this deal would be illegal in some states. I don’t believe the NCAA is functional, and I know there are some bad actors out there (Baylor). It’s only a matter of time before some teams are paying gray shirts, or taking advantage in a way that further separates the top from everyone else. Good job BYU, but this isn’t a positive for college football.

Do the players have to buy $1000 worth of Built Bars, then sell them at home parties? Can they work their way up the Build ladder if they bring in other walk-ons?

haha

I've bought my last Built Bar, ever.

2004AG wrote: ↑

August 13th, 2021, 4:19 pm

I've bought my last Built Bar, ever.

One bars are much better and healthier anyway.

I read the headlines probably 15 times before I realized it was built bar and not build-a-bear that was doing this... Build-a-bear would have been more appropriate.

Full wrote: ↑

August 13th, 2021, 9:41 am

I was reading a Boise State fans take on this and think it might be worth adding to the discussion. Will top programs start offering extravagant NIL for top players with resort living, cars, and cash. You can save scholarships for further down the depth chart while the top recruits don’t need a scholarship because they have piles of cash.

haha so much for the guardrails...

If the athlete takes the scholarship at tuition, books, fees, etc. are not taxable. If the student athlete, who needs to be enrolled in school to play (and therefore needs his/her tuition paid) in cash and pays out their own tuition that probably would not be considered a scholarship and could become taxable income. At a school like USC where tuition, books and fees- can approach 60/70K of 1099 income....

So why wouldn't that scholarship athlete take the scholarship and the tax free money and then take the NIL money separately?

Imakeitrain wrote: ↑

August 13th, 2021, 9:32 pm

Full wrote: ↑

August 13th, 2021, 9:41 am

I was reading a Boise State fans take on this and think it might be worth adding to the discussion. Will top programs start offering extravagant NIL for top players with resort living, cars, and cash. You can save scholarships for further down the depth chart while the top recruits don’t need a scholarship because they have piles of cash.

haha so much for the guardrails...

If the athlete takes the scholarship at tuition, books, fees, etc. are not taxable. If the student athlete, who needs to be enrolled in school to play (and therefore needs his/her tuition paid) in cash and pays out their own tuition that probably would not be considered a scholarship and could become taxable income. At a school like USC where tuition, books and fees- can approach 60/70K of 1099 income....

So why wouldn't that scholarship athlete take the scholarship and the tax free money and then take the NIL money separately?

When the NIL $$$ for top recruits is seven figures top teams will not be competing based on 60/70K. They can save the scholarship for the 3 star developmental player with the 120th roster spot.

Full wrote: ↑

August 13th, 2021, 10:18 pm

Imakeitrain wrote: ↑

August 13th, 2021, 9:32 pm

Full wrote: ↑

August 13th, 2021, 9:41 am

I was reading a Boise State fans take on this and think it might be worth adding to the discussion. Will top programs start offering extravagant NIL for top players with resort living, cars, and cash. You can save scholarships for further down the depth chart while the top recruits don’t need a scholarship because they have piles of cash.

haha so much for the guardrails...

If the athlete takes the scholarship at tuition, books, fees, etc. are not taxable. If the student athlete, who needs to be enrolled in school to play (and therefore needs his/her tuition paid) in cash and pays out their own tuition that probably would not be considered a scholarship and could become taxable income. At a school like USC where tuition, books and fees- can approach 60/70K of 1099 income....

So why wouldn't that scholarship athlete take the scholarship and the tax free money and then take the NIL money separately?

When the NIL $$$ for top recruits is seven figures top teams will not be competing based on 60/70K. They can save the scholarship for the 3 star developmental player with the 120th roster spot.

But why is it mutually exclusive? Why would they turn down the tax free money in exchange for taxable money? They can still take the $$$$ on top of the scholarship, no?

Is Title 9 a thing in today’s world?

Imakeitrain wrote: ↑

August 13th, 2021, 10:30 pm

Full wrote: ↑

August 13th, 2021, 10:18 pm

Imakeitrain wrote: ↑

August 13th, 2021, 9:32 pm

Full wrote: ↑

August 13th, 2021, 9:41 am

I was reading a Boise State fans take on this and think it might be worth adding to the discussion. Will top programs start offering extravagant NIL for top players with resort living, cars, and cash. You can save scholarships for further down the depth chart while the top recruits don’t need a scholarship because they have piles of cash.

haha so much for the guardrails...

If the athlete takes the scholarship at tuition, books, fees, etc. are not taxable. If the student athlete, who needs to be enrolled in school to play (and therefore needs his/her tuition paid) in cash and pays out their own tuition that probably would not be considered a scholarship and could become taxable income. At a school like USC where tuition, books and fees- can approach 60/70K of 1099 income....

So why wouldn't that scholarship athlete take the scholarship and the tax free money and then take the NIL money separately?

When the NIL $$$ for top recruits is seven figures top teams will not be competing based on 60/70K. They can save the scholarship for the 3 star developmental player with the 120th roster spot.

But why is it mutually exclusive? Why would they turn down the tax free money in exchange for taxable money? They can still take the $$$$ on top of the scholarship, no?

Why would Ohio State/Alabama/Texas use their scholarship when it could be used on a project. Sure the recruit would take the scholarship if offered, but Bryce Young is close to seven figures according to Nick Saban while having attempted 22 passes in garbage minutes. Does Alabama need to offer their starting QB a scholarship, or can they use that for the 3-4 star project at DT and let the NIL money pay the way for highly rated recruits.

Full wrote: ↑

August 14th, 2021, 7:28 am

Imakeitrain wrote: ↑

August 13th, 2021, 10:30 pm

Full wrote: ↑

August 13th, 2021, 10:18 pm

Imakeitrain wrote: ↑

August 13th, 2021, 9:32 pm

Full wrote: ↑

August 13th, 2021, 9:41 am

I was reading a Boise State fans take on this and think it might be worth adding to the discussion. Will top programs start offering extravagant NIL for top players with resort living, cars, and cash. You can save scholarships for further down the depth chart while the top recruits don’t need a scholarship because they have piles of cash.

haha so much for the guardrails...

If the athlete takes the scholarship at tuition, books, fees, etc. are not taxable. If the student athlete, who needs to be enrolled in school to play (and therefore needs his/her tuition paid) in cash and pays out their own tuition that probably would not be considered a scholarship and could become taxable income. At a school like USC where tuition, books and fees- can approach 60/70K of 1099 income....

So why wouldn't that scholarship athlete take the scholarship and the tax free money and then take the NIL money separately?

When the NIL $$$ for top recruits is seven figures top teams will not be competing based on 60/70K. They can save the scholarship for the 3 star developmental player with the 120th roster spot.

But why is it mutually exclusive? Why would they turn down the tax free money in exchange for taxable money? They can still take the $$$$ on top of the scholarship, no?

Why would Ohio State/Alabama/Texas use their scholarship when it could be used on a project. Sure the recruit would take the scholarship if offered, but Bryce Young is close to seven figures according to Nick Saban while having attempted 22 passes in garbage minutes. Does Alabama need to offer their starting QB a scholarship, or can they use that for the 3-4 star project at DT and let the NIL money pay the way for highly rated recruits.

Valid arguments. Think it will depend on the kid I think. Some kids will go to alabama even if they are third team all their career while some will still want the opportunity for playing time. I can’t imagine teams carrying 120 guys on their roster without a ton of transferring out etc.

Full wrote: ↑

August 14th, 2021, 7:28 am

Imakeitrain wrote: ↑

August 13th, 2021, 10:30 pm

Full wrote: ↑

August 13th, 2021, 10:18 pm

Imakeitrain wrote: ↑

August 13th, 2021, 9:32 pm

Full wrote: ↑

August 13th, 2021, 9:41 am

I was reading a Boise State fans take on this and think it might be worth adding to the discussion. Will top programs start offering extravagant NIL for top players with resort living, cars, and cash. You can save scholarships for further down the depth chart while the top recruits don’t need a scholarship because they have piles of cash.

haha so much for the guardrails...

If the athlete takes the scholarship at tuition, books, fees, etc. are not taxable. If the student athlete, who needs to be enrolled in school to play (and therefore needs his/her tuition paid) in cash and pays out their own tuition that probably would not be considered a scholarship and could become taxable income. At a school like USC where tuition, books and fees- can approach 60/70K of 1099 income....

So why wouldn't that scholarship athlete take the scholarship and the tax free money and then take the NIL money separately?

When the NIL $$$ for top recruits is seven figures top teams will not be competing based on 60/70K. They can save the scholarship for the 3 star developmental player with the 120th roster spot.

But why is it mutually exclusive? Why would they turn down the tax free money in exchange for taxable money? They can still take the $$$$ on top of the scholarship, no?

Why would Ohio State/Alabama/Texas use their scholarship when it could be used on a project. Sure the recruit would take the scholarship if offered, but Bryce Young is close to seven figures according to Nick Saban while having attempted 22 passes in garbage minutes. Does Alabama need to offer their starting QB a scholarship, or can they use that for the 3-4 star project at DT and let the NIL money pay the way for highly rated recruits.

Of course it’s only my prediction, but in general I think the star recruits will want more, not less. Maybe Alabama wants to give the 5* recruits a “well maybe you’ll get picked up in a NIL deal” but we’re giving the scholarship to walk-on level players.

Maybe some will forego the scholarship their junior or senior year to help build the team more. I just don’t see athletes whose whole point in even having nil was wanting more, will suddenly take less.

It’ll certainly be interesting to see how it plays out, I sure don’t know- and only have my predictions

NIL money will come with an extra bump to cover any fed or state tax obligation. The net amount will be equal or better than scholarship value.

NVAggie wrote: ↑

August 14th, 2021, 5:31 am

Is Title 9 a thing in today’s world?

I don't think it would apply in this situation. The way I understand it, NIL deals are between private corporations or sponsors and the student athlete, outside of the scope of the school itself.

swordsman1989 wrote: ↑

August 15th, 2021, 8:39 am

NVAggie wrote: ↑

August 14th, 2021, 5:31 am

Is Title 9 a thing in today’s world?

I don't think it would apply in this situation. The way I understand it, NIL deals are between private corporations or sponsors and the student athlete, outside of the scope of the school itself.

Which is partly why the guardrails that BYU just blew by existed. The schools aren't supposed to have facilitated these deals like they did for BYU. But now BYU involved the school itself.... I certainly think there are a lot of questions, even ones we havent thought of that will arise over the next few years with significant unintended consequences.

Curious if there is anything in the works like this for our athletes. Anyone know?

Imakeitrain wrote: ↑

August 15th, 2021, 9:07 am

swordsman1989 wrote: ↑

August 15th, 2021, 8:39 am

NVAggie wrote: ↑

August 14th, 2021, 5:31 am

Is Title 9 a thing in today’s world?

I don't think it would apply in this situation. The way I understand it, NIL deals are between private corporations or sponsors and the student athlete, outside of the scope of the school itself.

Which is partly why the guardrails that BYU just blew by existed. The schools aren't supposed to have facilitated these deals like they did for BYU. But now BYU involved the school itself.... I certainly think there are a lot of questions, even ones we havent thought of that will arise over the next few years with significant unintended consequences.

Spot on my Aggie brother. This is exactly why I don't think this deal should fly.

How long before college players are are holding out until they get better NIL deals???

I believe this is a title IX violation since the school brokered the deal. We'll have to see if anyone thinks it is worth a challenge but I think title IX would force the school to broker deals for an equal number of walk-on scholarships for female athletes

GeoAg wrote: ↑

August 17th, 2021, 1:31 pm

I believe this is a title IX violation since the school brokered the deal. We'll have to see if anyone thinks it is worth a challenge but I think title IX would force the school to broker deals for an equal number of walk-on scholarships for female athletes

Title IX also seems to be fairly strict. It’s not enough to try to have equal opportunities, you have to have equal opportunities to play and learn. Even if BYU tried to argue they tried to facilitate equal deals but couldn’t find takers, unequal is unequal.

On the same token imagine what happens when a business pays a football player $50,000 for an NIL deal but then pays a women’s soccer player less for the same work- and for the sake of the example have similar numbers of followers- I don’t know if that violates equal pay laws, but it’s not going to be a good look for that business. Rapinoe and Gloria Allred would wreck them.

Imakeitrain wrote: ↑

August 17th, 2021, 11:14 pm

GeoAg wrote: ↑

August 17th, 2021, 1:31 pm

I believe this is a title IX violation since the school brokered the deal. We'll have to see if anyone thinks it is worth a challenge but I think title IX would force the school to broker deals for an equal number of walk-on scholarships for female athletes

Title IX also seems to be fairly strict. It’s not enough to try to have equal opportunities, you have to have equal opportunities to play and learn. Even if BYU tried to argue they tried to facilitate equal deals but couldn’t find takers, unequal is unequal.

On the same token imagine what happens when a business pays a football player $50,000 for an NIL deal but then pays a women’s soccer player less for the same work- and for the sake of the example have similar numbers of followers- I don’t know if that violates equal pay laws, but it’s not going to be a good look for that business. Rapinoe and Gloria Allred would wreck them.

Title IX could prove unintentionally problematic for the NIL deals, especially if a school helps facilitate it. Unless a state's right-to-know law applies, how would we know who is being paid what in these deals without either side publicly announcing it? If a right-to-know law applies, then anyone could find out how much each student's NIL deal is worth at each public school within the state. But whether that applies will depend on each state's law. Private schools, like yBu, are not subject to that same disclosure requirement.

If I am a business entering into a NIL deal with an athlete, I am strongly considering including a confidentiality clause regarding the amount of the payment, at least while there are so many unanswered questions this early. Do I really want a softball player knowing how much I am paying a football player? Probably not unless I am forced to disclose it.

https://brobible.com/sports/article/mia ... ess-probe/


Called it