2022-23 NIL Thread

[GMU_Polevaulter]

I think if you’re going to tell someone that if you enter the portal your scholarship is revoked you also have to guarantee a scholarship for four years so long as they don’t quit the team and are academically eligible. In other words, coaches can’t just be pushing kids into the portal if they don’t develop the way the coach thought they would.

Show some loyalty on the front end, maybe get some back.

Great point! This is nothing new and it occurs in all NCAA sports. I was part of GMU Track and Field during the 80's and had several teammates (and 1 roommate) lose their scholarships. Coach could say lack of performance, injury but often the Coaches were upgrading the scholarships with a better athlete. Athletes quickly learn that NCAA is a business even in a non-revenue sport. The Coaches would tell us it's a business - they have pressure to win and create a winning program and their expectations are you perform in key track meets at the time State, Regional (IC4A) and NCAA's (if you make it). It is tough to lose a teammate, most would still be allowed to compete but did not always have the means without scholarship. Harsh but at least the team I was on saw great progress. From a start-up program my first year - 6th in VA State Meet, double digit finish at IC4A's (over 100 schools oldest T&F Championship in Country). Within 3 years GMU won the VA State Collegiate Track Meet over powerhouse programs UVA, VA Tech and VMI. By year 4 GMU so dominated the state meet that the P5 schools pulled out and the VA Collegiate State meet disbanded. My 5th year (1 redshirt season due to injury) - GMU won the IC4A's and in GMU 1996 would win the Indoor NCAA championship.

 

[gmubrian]

I had posted this to Twitter last week. Seems relevant here:

A lot of people are lamenting the impacts of the transfer portal and NIL to the churn in players. And no doubt, they are part of the equation. What is frequently left out of that discussion, is the extra year that was granted due to shutdown impacts during the 20-21 season. The NCAA granted the option of an additional year, adding more supply of players, but they didn’t add any scholarships. With 363 D1 schools in men’s D1 basketball today multiplied by 13 scholarships per school, that equals about 4719 extra player years to account for since the NCAA did not allow extra scholarships to balance the equation. That equals about 1,180 extra scholarships a year that are potentially taken up by non freshman over the four year period. But, freshman have still been coming in, so room had to be created somehow. This situation was made much worse by the NCAA adding a ton of player supply without adding corresponding scholarships. The timing could not have been worse with NIL and the transfer portal blowing up at the same time.

The last two years, there have been a little over 1,600 players in the transfer portal each year. The difference between those numbers is a little more than 400. I am not saying it will drop to 400 transfers per year (because some haven’t utilized their extra year and other reasons), but, I do suspect when the extra years are gone, there will be significantly less churn.

 

[mkaufman1]

I had posted this to Twitter last week. Seems relevant here:

A lot of people are lamenting the impacts of the transfer portal and NIL to the churn in players. And no doubt, they are part of the equation. What is frequently left out of that discussion, is the extra year that was granted due to shutdown impacts during the 20-21 season. The NCAA granted the option of an additional year, adding more supply of players, but they didn’t add any scholarships. With 363 D1 schools in men’s D1 basketball today multiplied by 13 scholarships per school, that equals about 4719 extra player years to account for since the NCAA did not allow extra scholarships to balance the equation. That equals about 1,180 extra scholarships a year that are potentially taken up by non freshman over the four year period. But, freshman have still been coming in, so room had to be created somehow. This situation was made much worse by the NCAA adding a ton of player supply without adding corresponding scholarships. The timing could not have been worse with NIL and the transfer portal blowing up at the same time.

The last two years, there have been a little over 1,600 players in the transfer portal each year. The difference between those numbers is a little more than 400. I am not saying it will drop to 400 transfers per year (because some haven’t utilized their extra year and other reasons), but, I do suspect when the extra years are gone, there will be significantly less churn.

That makes sense. I do think the churn will slowdown because there wont be an extra year and many kids will then go back to the "graduate early" and grad transfer. There will still be turnover but not as much. It really was a perfect storm that has created this new era of free agency and the transfer portal.

I also am curious on whether the NCAA will take away the one time free transfer as well within a few years. While it is nice to benefit from having guys eligible right away, I think it creates more incentive and chaos in the scheme of things.

It'll be interesting to see what the environment looks like 3-4 years down the line.

 

[jessej]

I had posted this to Twitter last week. Seems relevant here:

A lot of people are lamenting the impacts of the transfer portal and NIL to the churn in players. And no doubt, they are part of the equation. What is frequently left out of that discussion, is the extra year that was granted due to shutdown impacts during the 20-21 season. The NCAA granted the option of an additional year, adding more supply of players, but they didn’t add any scholarships. With 363 D1 schools in men’s D1 basketball today multiplied by 13 scholarships per school, that equals about 4719 extra player years to account for since the NCAA did not allow extra scholarships to balance the equation. That equals about 1,180 extra scholarships a year that are potentially taken up by non freshman over the four year period. But, freshman have still been coming in, so room had to be created somehow. This situation was made much worse by the NCAA adding a ton of player supply without adding corresponding scholarships. The timing could not have been worse with NIL and the transfer portal blowing up at the same time.

The last two years, there have been a little over 1,600 players in the transfer portal each year. The difference between those numbers is a little more than 400. I am not saying it will drop to 400 transfers per year (because some haven’t utilized their extra year and other reasons), but, I do suspect when the extra years are gone, there will be significantly less churn.

i agree in part
but i wonder

1) has the availability of "better known" transfer players reduced the reliance on incoming freshmen? i.e. are scholarships going to transfers rather than freshmen?

2) As The NIL collectives build up, what is the effect on the best players from each program? and what happens to programs without significant or large NIL resources?

 

[gmubrian]

i agree in part
but i wonder

1) has the availability of "better known" transfer players reduced the reliance on incoming freshmen? i.e. are scholarships going to transfers rather than freshmen?

2) As The NIL collectives build up, what is the effect on the best players from each program? and what happens to programs without significant or large NIL resources?

Regarding your item 1, it is a wash. For every transfer that takes a scholarship at one school, it has freed up a scholarship that the other school. For every player that takes an extra year, that is one less scholarship for incoming freshman or other players on the team.

I think #2 is pretty much irrelevant. This was happening with our without NIL. We were not competing against Duke, Kentucky, UNC, UCLA for players without NIL and we are still not with NIL. And, let's not pretend that players were not being bought before NIL, it was just hidden (mostly). There has been plenty of evidence that players were being bought by programs prior to NIL. With NIL it is just public information and coaches players don't risk their careers when it is made public. Now, schools that were squeaky clean like Mason can try to compete against their peers that might have been doing some shady things in the past.

Once the extra years are gone, it will pretty much go back to something that is more normal. There will be, roughly, the same number of players vying for the same number of scholarships. The free transfer being the biggest part of any difference from what the norm was before.

 

[jessej]

Dang

now i wonder if everyone got paid and everyone's check cleared,
and what happens going forward.

https://www.actionnetwork.com/ncaab/miamis-top-nil-booster-says-his-companys-2022-financials-are-unreliable

 

[The Great PATSby]

Life Wallet is at 84 CENTS a share. Anyone think it's a buy?

Hope you didn't buy this GS.

 

[p8triotfan4life]

Hope you didn't buy this GS.

it was .60 last week. I made a few million. lol