(05-08-2020 06:09 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-08-2020 05:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-08-2020 05:30 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  I've seen thread after thread theorizing about how COVID-19 will lead to regional realignment among the G5. But, I'm beginning to think this new NIL rule from the NCAA has a greater potential to disrupt the G5. While the P5 have a clear funding advantage over every G5 program, there is a wide gap in funding among G5 programs. Now the NCAA has created the potential for boosters to inject money directly into the pockets of players. That potentially gives a recruiting advantage to well funded G5 programs in major media markets. Small programs operating on lower athletic budgets in rural communities could be left by the curb, as recruits sign with schools in larger markets with bigger media networks and more money to pay. I can't get anyone on the C-USA board to even discuss the issue.

You read that correctly.

Though it has nothing at all to do with market size, and everything to do with the willingness of a team's boosters to write checks.

If we were to predict which G5 football teams are most likely to have boosters willing to offer endorsements to athletes, IMO we would be best off by looking at the amount of money each athletic department collects in annual donations. For public universities in D-I, that item is listed in the USA Today database under "Contributions" for each school.

That "contribution" information from USA Today isn't accurate at all. While they report North Texas received just under $2.3 million in contributions in 2018, I know for a fact we had two donors gave $2.5 million between them that year. That doesn't even count our membership donors. Here is a link to the story...

https://dentonrc.com/news/unt-announces-...14da9.html

I don't think the overall number of boosters is important, but I think the number of boosters with deep pockets is very important. When you combine those "super boosters" with larger markets, where greater media exposure is possible, the potential for a clear recruiting advantage begins to come into focus.

(05-08-2020 06:27 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(05-08-2020 06:09 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-08-2020 05:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-08-2020 05:30 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  I've seen thread after thread theorizing about how COVID-19 will lead to regional realignment among the G5. But, I'm beginning to think this new NIL rule from the NCAA has a greater potential to disrupt the G5. While the P5 have a clear funding advantage over every G5 program, there is a wide gap in funding among G5 programs. Now the NCAA has created the potential for boosters to inject money directly into the pockets of players. That potentially gives a recruiting advantage to well funded G5 programs in major media markets. Small programs operating on lower athletic budgets in rural communities could be left by the curb, as recruits sign with schools in larger markets with bigger media networks and more money to pay. I can't get anyone on the C-USA board to even discuss the issue.

You read that correctly.

Though it has nothing at all to do with market size, and everything to do with the willingness of a team's boosters to write checks.

If we were to predict which G5 football teams are most likely to have boosters willing to offer endorsements to athletes, IMO we would be best off by looking at the amount of money each athletic department collects in annual donations. For public universities in D-I, that item is listed in the USA Today database under "Contributions" for each school.

That "contribution" information from USA Today isn't accurate at all. While they report North Texas received just under $2.3 million in contributions in 2018, I know for a fact we had two donors gave $2.5 million between them that year. That doesn't even count our membership donors. Here is a link to the story...

https://dentonrc.com/news/unt-announces-...14da9.html

I don't think the overall number of boosters is important, but I think the number of boosters with deep pockets is very important. When you combine those "super boosters" with larger markets, where greater media exposure is possible, the potential for a clear recruiting advantage begins to come into focus.

You can tell USA Today if you want; they identify the people who did the research.

The point remains that market size doesn't mean squat in this context. San Jose State is in a giant media market; Boise State is not. If you think market size means that SJSU athletes will get more endorsement money from boosters than Boise State athletes, then we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

(05-08-2020 06:25 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(05-08-2020 06:11 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(05-08-2020 05:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-08-2020 05:30 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  I've seen thread after thread theorizing about how COVID-19 will lead to regional realignment among the G5. But, I'm beginning to think this new NIL rule from the NCAA has a greater potential to disrupt the G5. While the P5 have a clear funding advantage over every G5 program, there is a wide gap in funding among G5 programs. Now the NCAA has created the potential for boosters to inject money directly into the pockets of players. That potentially gives a recruiting advantage to well funded G5 programs in major media markets. Small programs operating on lower athletic budgets in rural communities could be left by the curb, as recruits sign with schools in larger markets with bigger media networks and more money to pay. I can't get anyone on the C-USA board to even discuss the issue.

You read that correctly.

I'm not worried about North Texas. We have big money boosters. One serves as the title sponsor of C-USA's championship contests for the next 3 years, and others always step up with funds for things our program wants (IPF, soccer stadium, softball renovation, golf facility,...). But, there are programs in every G5 conference that I feel might not be able to field competitive teams in the wake of this rule, and that could effect stability within the G5.

I look forward to a spending battle between SMU and UNT

I don't really foresee us having spending battles. In my opinion, it will be more of a battle between our programs and the other G5's and lower P5's that can't offer comparable income opportunities. there is enough talent to strengthen both of our programs. In short I think we will both win in this situation, and as a result have some great battles on the field.

(05-08-2020 06:32 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-08-2020 06:27 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(05-08-2020 06:09 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-08-2020 05:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-08-2020 05:30 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  I've seen thread after thread theorizing about how COVID-19 will lead to regional realignment among the G5. But, I'm beginning to think this new NIL rule from the NCAA has a greater potential to disrupt the G5. While the P5 have a clear funding advantage over every G5 program, there is a wide gap in funding among G5 programs. Now the NCAA has created the potential for boosters to inject money directly into the pockets of players. That potentially gives a recruiting advantage to well funded G5 programs in major media markets. Small programs operating on lower athletic budgets in rural communities could be left by the curb, as recruits sign with schools in larger markets with bigger media networks and more money to pay. I can't get anyone on the C-USA board to even discuss the issue.

You read that correctly.

Though it has nothing at all to do with market size, and everything to do with the willingness of a team's boosters to write checks.

If we were to predict which G5 football teams are most likely to have boosters willing to offer endorsements to athletes, IMO we would be best off by looking at the amount of money each athletic department collects in annual donations. For public universities in D-I, that item is listed in the USA Today database under "Contributions" for each school.

That "contribution" information from USA Today isn't accurate at all. While they report North Texas received just under $2.3 million in contributions in 2018, I know for a fact we had two donors gave $2.5 million between them that year. That doesn't even count our membership donors. Here is a link to the story...

https://dentonrc.com/news/unt-announces-...14da9.html

I don't think the overall number of boosters is important, but I think the number of boosters with deep pockets is very important. When you combine those "super boosters" with larger markets, where greater media exposure is possible, the potential for a clear recruiting advantage begins to come into focus.

You can tell USA Today if you want; they identify the people who did the research.

The point remains that market size doesn't mean squat in this context. San Jose State is in a giant media market; Boise State is not. If you think market size means that SJSU athletes will get more endorsement money from boosters than Boise State athletes, then we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

It depends on how much the big money boosters want to spend in order to win. I don't have the answer to that. I'm just saying, SJSU could lure better recruits than Boise, if their boosters are willing to pay better, which should be the case due to simply having more businesses located in their market and their ability to reach more eyeballs.

Let me put it this way... North Texas has over 300,000 alumni living in the Dallas/Fort Worth region. This new rule makes it very enticing for our big money donors (global and regional business owners) to hire our players to promote their interests. Because advertising is more expensive in larger markets, our boosters could make a legitimate argument that these players need to be paid more than a kid play in Boise Idaho. It wouldn't take long for recruits to figure out how this works.

(05-08-2020 06:33 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(05-08-2020 06:25 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(05-08-2020 06:11 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(05-08-2020 05:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-08-2020 05:30 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  I've seen thread after thread theorizing about how COVID-19 will lead to regional realignment among the G5. But, I'm beginning to think this new NIL rule from the NCAA has a greater potential to disrupt the G5. While the P5 have a clear funding advantage over every G5 program, there is a wide gap in funding among G5 programs. Now the NCAA has created the potential for boosters to inject money directly into the pockets of players. That potentially gives a recruiting advantage to well funded G5 programs in major media markets. Small programs operating on lower athletic budgets in rural communities could be left by the curb, as recruits sign with schools in larger markets with bigger media networks and more money to pay. I can't get anyone on the C-USA board to even discuss the issue.

You read that correctly.

I'm not worried about North Texas. We have big money boosters. One serves as the title sponsor of C-USA's championship contests for the next 3 years, and others always step up with funds for things our program wants (IPF, soccer stadium, softball renovation, golf facility,...). But, there are programs in every G5 conference that I feel might not be able to field competitive teams in the wake of this rule, and that could effect stability within the G5.

I look forward to a spending battle between SMU and UNT

I don't really foresee us having spending battles. In my opinion, it will be more of a battle between our programs and the other G5's and lower P5's that can't offer comparable income opportunities. there is enough talent to strengthen both of our programs. In short I think we will both win in this situation, and as a result have some great battles on the field.

Yeah---Under typical circumstances, it would be logical to think a larger city would have more opportunities than a small college town. However, as boosters will be allowed to participate in the process, real life business economics becomes irrelevant. Its about fanatical booster commitment and the financial willingness of that fan base to buy players for the program (as Wedge said). The reality is only a few athletes would get any significant money off NIL if it was legit. They might get a little from their social media accounts due to followers---but unless you really hit some big numbers---there isnt much money there. But a booster can give them a commercial endorsement. That might be something the NCAA can sort of tell if a deal is exceeding legit market pricing. However, a booster can throw 10K to a player for an appearance fee---be it a signing event or an appearance at a birthday party----and there is just really no way to judge if its too much or out of line. Its really just whatever the people think its worth.

Frankly, I think any effort to control or limit the NIL paid by boosters would probably be an anti-trust violation---so I suspect that model is not a long term answer. Like I said before---there is no answer. Pandora's box is about to open and when it does---the game as we know it is done.

(05-08-2020 08:00 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-08-2020 06:33 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(05-08-2020 06:25 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(05-08-2020 06:11 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(05-08-2020 05:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  You read that correctly.

I'm not worried about North Texas. We have big money boosters. One serves as the title sponsor of C-USA's championship contests for the next 3 years, and others always step up with funds for things our program wants (IPF, soccer stadium, softball renovation, golf facility,...). But, there are programs in every G5 conference that I feel might not be able to field competitive teams in the wake of this rule, and that could effect stability within the G5.

I look forward to a spending battle between SMU and UNT

I don't really foresee us having spending battles. In my opinion, it will be more of a battle between our programs and the other G5's and lower P5's that can't offer comparable income opportunities. there is enough talent to strengthen both of our programs. In short I think we will both win in this situation, and as a result have some great battles on the field.

Yeah---Under typical circumstances, it would be logical to think a larger city would have more opportunities than a small college town. However, as boosters will be allowed to participate in the process, real life business economics becomes irrelevant. Its about fanatical booster commitment and the financial willingness of that fan base to buy players for the program (as Wedge said). The reality is only a few athletes would get any significant money off NIL if it was legit. They might get a little from their social media accounts due to followers---but unless you really hit some big numbers---there isnt much money there. But a booster can give them a commercial endorsement. That might be something the NCAA can sort of tell if a deal is exceeding legit market pricing. However, a booster can throw 10K to a player for an appearance fee---be it a signing event or an appearance at a birthday party----and there is just really no way to judge if its too much or out of line. Its really just whatever the people think its worth.

Frankly, I think any effort to control or limit the NIL paid by boosters would probably be an anti-trust violation---so I suspect that model is not a long term answer. Like I said before---there is no answer. Pandora's box is about to open and when it does---the game as we know it is done.

It is reminiscent of the excesses of the last days of Rome.