is NIL totally fair?

I for one am totally against NIL. Back in my day if you got a scholarship and an education that was enough. I don't know how how many college T&F/XC athletes are "marketable," but I've thought about college football. You've got the star QB who's making big NIL bucks and the linemen who are protecting his butt and get nothing. How do think that must make them feel?

Mahomes makes far more than Davis Mills. This is a travesty!

The linemen on teams where the QB is getting big bucks are also getting paid.

espn.com

Horns' linemen hook $50K NIL deal to aid causes

Through a movement called "Horns with Heart," 16 offensive linemen at Texas will each receive $50,000 annually to aid charities through a name, image and likeness deal.

Link:www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/...

fightingirishwire.usatoday.com

Notre Dame’s offensive linemen find perfect NIL partnership

Michael Chen

This partnership is yummy

Link:fightingirishwire.usatoday.com/2021/07...

Yes, exactly!

I'm sure they're thinking, "I will be top seven." that's just not possible with the numbers they've recruited though. a lot of people are going to be disappointed. Not that they aren't good enough to make top 7 at 100's of other schools!

Oh well, it's their decision. But it's going to be difficult for a lot of former state champs, and former star high school runners.

The roster isn't larger than some other schools.

I'm talking about college football not the NFL.

NIL is a launchpad. It's a start. To make it to L.A. is the ultimate,

55% of Harvard students pay no tuition. I didn’t know Harvard was a bad school. Or UCLA where 45% don’t pay any tuition.

20% pay nothing but 40% pay $90K per year.

I was off. 45% pay $90K per year. Only 20% pay nothing.

The Harvard money is not an academic scholarship and the ivies have no athletic scholarships. The money is strictly need based financial aid.

For the parent who has to pay full price, the bad college is attractive because partial athletic scholarship + academic scholarship +nil + team housing is not need based. Parents can use saved money to pay grad school, or make down payment on kid's 1st home.

Cal has the same undergrad enrollment of all Ivies combined. Cal is 70% Asians. Cal has around the same Anglo White enrollment as all Ivies combined. UCLA miirrors thie same narrative. Stanford and USC have Anti-Asian racist quotas limiting Asians to 30%. USC has no excuse for this given USCs numerous ghost endowments from DoD and DoE Skunkworks Labs hidden across Southern California and the Mojave Desert.

Ok, this is clearly an issue, but this is not what the thread is about. We are talking about NIL.

That would be terrible if it worked that way, but I don't think it needs to. From what I've heard, they're not only giving money to the marketable "stars." The boosters, who used to pay players under the table, are now donating massive amounts of money in the name of NIL to anyone good enough to be worth recruiting.

Sure, the flashy marketable ones will get more money. But you can bet the teams that want to win are going to funnel plenty of money to 310lbs lineman that can help them win championships. They don't need to be "marketable" if the Universities have decided they need them to win. This is just a new way to pay those players, which they've been doing all along anyways.

don't you think they're also "stockpiling talent" just so other teams can't have someone?

Eh, I think I read on another thread here that NIL is going to be the end of the mid-majors; some day it will just be P5's, the Ivies, and some good d3 schools. How are mid-majors going to compete with massive rosters from the P5's with all the money?

Is it fair that college sports makes billions of dollars while the kids get a degree which guarantees nothing financial?

Financial. Not academic

If you are a scholarship athlete, you are essentially a full-time employee of the university and therefore should be compensated, but I don't think NIL is the way to do it. Someone who is good-looking shouldn't be paid more than the athlete who is not. However, the time commitment and sacrifices one makes to be a student athlete puts him or her at a disadvantage job market-wise upon graduation vs. the person who has devoted all their energy to academics. 99% of student athletes don't turn pro but should be rewarded for their contribution to the university for 4 years. The university has benefitted financially and media-wise as well as aiding in future recruiting for their service. I think a more equitable solution would be to develop a trust fund system that's yours upon completing your 4 years of eligibility. So let's say 25K a year, 100K total. The 1% football player that opts out early for the NFL draft gets nothing. The university has essentially given him on the job training. That would at least give the non-pro athlete a leg up financially after graduation to the more marketable full-time student. Businesses and boosters could fund this without being shady or playing favorites and look good PR-wise in the process. Win-win for everyone.