NIL/Transfer Portal

[homer]

seems like a lot of posts about this on various college threads so thought I'd make a thread for general discussion about it. 

[homer]

I like that they have blown up the old model but I can't say I'm a fan of how things are going currently. 

[Jim French Stepstool]

3 hours ago, homer said:

I like that they have blown up the old model but I can't say I'm a fan of how things are going currently. 

I agree. Doubtful that this is sustainable w/o college sports turning into something I'd have very little interest in. IMO The old model was far from perfect but much better than what's going on now.

As to recent news:

BJ Freeman, who averaged around 20PPG at UW-Milwaukee over the last two years, is being contacted by many schools in the SEC, and also Syracuse. NOTE: In fairness, being contacted is a far cry from being offered; much of this is schools not knowing who is/isn't interested in them & simply performing due diligence. I feel Freeman has displayed a lot of the same strengths--and weaknesses--of AJ Storr while playing a much weaker brand of competition.

UW target Frankie Fidler has narrowed his choices to the Badgers, Nebraska, Creighton & Michigan State and is expected to decide after this weekend.

[stoutdude04]

I wish they would give guys 1 free transfer and then they lose a year if they want to transfer again.  With the exception being, their head coach leaving, fired, etc.  Then you can transfer again. To me, kids should not be looking to move every year.  The unlimited transfers is really going to ruin fandom...I think.

[Jim French Stepstool]

42 minutes ago, stoutdude04 said:

I wish they would give guys 1 free transfer and then they lose a year if they want to transfer again.  With the exception being, their head coach leaving, fired, etc.  Then you can transfer again. To me, kids should not be looking to move every year.  The unlimited transfers is really going to ruin fandom...I think.

I'd give someone a free transfer every time a coach leaves, but only then. Otherwise you sit. 

I almost LOL when I see these tweets put out by a HS athlete when they make a college choice saying they're "committed". I'm afraid that in collegiate sports, the word "commitment" might go into the same dumpster as "typewriter" or "telephone".

You may be right about ruining (at least a significant part of) fandom in the current climate. College sports fans, many at least, are a particular breed. I'm not talking about the football fans who need to get a Saturday fix because it isn't Sunday yet, or those who need something else to gamble on. Some people just prefer it to the professional model, and with every little element that makes the collegiate game more like the NBA or NFL, it floats further off shore from those fans. 

But it probably won't make any difference if someday the stadiums & arenas are 75-80% full, as long as the TV money keeps rolling in.

[nate82]

I don't think the NIL/transfer portal are as much of a problem as some are making it out to be.  The majority of these transfers have been players who would normally transfer anyways.  The only real difference is they get to play a year earlier.  I don't see a real or major problem here.  Until multiple superstar level athletes start to leave programs on a yearly basis I won't see this as an issue. 

How many big names have made a transfer recently that would majorly change the team they are leaving from and going to?  I doubt it is larger than a handful. 

[Jim French Stepstool]

8 hours ago, nate82 said:

I don't think the NIL/transfer portal are as much of a problem as some are making it out to be.  The majority of these transfers have been players who would normally transfer anyways.  The only real difference is they get to play a year earlier.  I don't see a real or major problem here.  Until multiple superstar level athletes start to leave programs on a yearly basis I won't see this as an issue. 

How many big names have made a transfer recently that would majorly change the team they are leaving from and going to?  I doubt it is larger than a handful. 

I think a lot of the guys that are transferring are doing so BECAUSE of NIL & the portal and wouldn't be doing so otherwise. Some would change schools anyway, sure. I just don't see the value in not only making that process easier, but actually encouraging it, which is what the current landscape does.

"Big names" is a relative term, especially when someone is a middling fan of the college game & couldn't name a school in the OVC, Southland Conference or Summit League if their life depended on it (not saying that's you). But there are plenty of guys leaving schools in leagues of that ilk who are damned important to their programs. And some are losing multiple players. Haven't kept up on the recent developments, but last time I heard UWGB has something like 5 players leaving. 

I just don't want to see college sports deteriorating to a top 60-70 schools & a bunch of afterthoughts. That's very unpalatable to me.

[stoutdude04]

6 hours ago, nate82 said:

I don't think the NIL/transfer portal are as much of a problem as some are making it out to be.  The majority of these transfers have been players who would normally transfer anyways.  The only real difference is they get to play a year earlier.  I don't see a real or major problem here.  Until multiple superstar level athletes start to leave programs on a yearly basis I won't see this as an issue. 

How many big names have made a transfer recently that would majorly change the team they are leaving from and going to?  I doubt it is larger than a handful. 

13 out of 22 players from Northern Michigans hockey team have hit the portal. That's going to be a challenge for them, big names or not.

[LouisEly]

10 hours ago, stoutdude04 said:

I wish they would give guys 1 free transfer and then they lose a year if they want to transfer again.  With the exception being, their head coach leaving, fired, etc.  Then you can transfer again. To me, kids should not be looking to move every year.  The unlimited transfers is really going to ruin fandom...I think.

The only way that's going to happen is if the NCAA goes to a federal judge or Congress and can convince them that unlimited transfers is anti-competitive, likely on the grounds that schools don't know if they will be able to field a team the following season or that some schools can't compete with NIL funds - as opposed to limiting transfers being anti-competitive. 

If Northern Michigan can't field a hockey team next year, that might be the example they need.  Otherwise, it might take years of the same teams being at the bottom to build that case.

That, or scholarships become contracts, likely with pay-for-play included.

[nate82]

21 hours ago, stoutdude04 said:

13 out of 22 players from Northern Michigans hockey team have hit the portal. That's going to be a challenge for them, big names or not.

But did they enter the transfer because of NIL money (I doubt there is much of that for hockey) or for other reasons?  If they left for other reasons it just opens up slots for someone else to come in. 

I don't see this as that big of a deal. 

[BrewerFan]

On 4/5/2024 at 12:13 PM, stoutdude04 said:

I wish they would give guys 1 free transfer and then they lose a year if they want to transfer again.  With the exception being, their head coach leaving, fired, etc.  Then you can transfer again. To me, kids should not be looking to move every year.  The unlimited transfers is really going to ruin fandom...I think.

That was the rule. They could transfer once. Then the NCAA was sued and there was an injunction issued allowing for multiple transfers. 

Not sure when or how that'll play out, but that was just a few months ago. The exceptions were for graduate students, but I don't know if the NCAA is still fighting it(I'd imagine they would be). 

[wallus]

If I was a decent college athlete, I would enter the portal every year. Why not join free agency?

[BrewerFan]

22 hours ago, LouisEly said:

The only way that's going to happen is if the NCAA goes to a federal judge or Congress and can convince them that unlimited transfers is anti-competitive, likely on the grounds that schools don't know if they will be able to field a team the following season or that some schools can't compete with NIL funds - as opposed to limiting transfers being anti-competitive. 

If Northern Michigan can't field a hockey team next year, that might be the example they need.  Otherwise, it might take years of the same teams being at the bottom to build that case.

That, or scholarships become contracts, likely with pay-for-play included.

They ARE fighting right now to reinstate the one-time transfer rule. The DOJ however has joined in on the lawsuit as well as some states. 

I'm not positive how it's enforced, but I know of athletes who have signed 2-year NIL contracts(in each case when they had two years left). They had to repay the money from the first year if they didn't complete the two years. It obviously depends on who it is, but it was 250K and 400K a year for the two more public ones. 

This was in Wrestling...so can't imagine a revenue sport.

[Jim French Stepstool]

5 hours ago, nate82 said:

But did they enter the transfer because of NIL money (I doubt there is much of that for hockey) or for other reasons?  If they left for other reasons it just opens up slots for someone else to come in. 

I don't see this as that big of a deal. 

Whatever NIL money there is in hockey, there's probably more to be found at schools other than NMU. Reason #1, I'd guess.

The other reason(s) are, because the system encourages it. Would love to know what their head coach thinks of half to two-thirds of his roster leaving at once, and if it's OK with him because it's just opening up slots for someone else. 

 

[Jim French Stepstool]

13 minutes ago, BrewerFan said:

They ARE fighting right now to reinstate the one-time transfer rule. The DOJ however has joined in on the lawsuit as well as some states. 

I'm not positive how it's enforced, but I know of athletes who have signed 2-year NIL contracts(in each case when they had two years left). They had to repay the money from the first year if they didn't complete the two years. It obviously depends on who it is, but it was 250K and 400K a year for the two more public ones. 

This was in Wrestling...so can't imagine a revenue sport.

For local deals, I can't imagine any business not writing something like that into the contract (having to repay). Of course the schools wouldn't be involved in that b/c you'd be "going after" a student athlete, maybe with a lawsuit, while at the same time trying to recruit HS kids. Not a good look.

As it looks now, the winners will be (at least some of) the P5s, and as always, lawyers.

[Cool Hand Lucroy]

I think, like most things, this is a case of an inept organization being unable to adequately see the future.

The NCAA waited until it was absolutely shoved in order to even try to correct the serious systemic problems facing college sports. The players produced a bunch of revenue that they didn't get to share in, the NCAA made sham "student-athlete" arguments in order to keep the status quo, and now there's a genuine belief that college sports are just a lower level of pro sports, even though that really shouldn't be the case.

And it will become the case if we keep this up. 60 or 70 schools will field full athletic rosters, and we'll have the football model, which I think is horrible for basketball, hockey, volleyball, baseball, and every sport that isn't football. The NCAA failed the vast majority of its member schools. It's sad. And they've done such a great job of making themselves villains that it's going to be hard for courts and the government to buy the legitimate arguments they are now making about roster turnover, a "free market" for student athletes that's not free at all (because it's totally unregulated and full of bad actors like self-interested agents and also completely top-heavy), and the need to redistribute a lot of revenue to support, say, the Division III softball championship (and I don't that I'd trust the NCAA to enact good corrective policy anyway).

The biggest thing I think college sports needs is a credible commissioner. I've seen others make this argument. You need somebody actually interested in crafting a good policy compromise that enables freedom, labor protection, and access to revenue for the players and preserves the collective interests of non-revenue sports. I think those policies exist, and I actually don't think they'd be that difficult to enact. But if we can't get a credible voice to craft and enforce them, I'm not that optimistic about the future of college sports.

 

EDIT: One concrete example is that, by failing to anticipate or care about the growth of women's athletics (especially volleyball and basketball), the NCAA cost itself maybe 100 million dollars. They bundle the rights to those tournaments (and like a couple dozen others) and sell the whole package for like 35 mil. You have to think the women's tournament in hoops is worth at least twice that. And volleyball is worth a big number too. If the NCAA was better at managing its revenue, we wouldn't be in this situation.

[igor67]

I'll just chime in that Cool Hand that there were a lot of enablers to the NCAA current problems, lot's of simplistic arguments about how the athletes should just be able to do whatever with the added irony now that in many ways Pro athletes have more restrictions (since they actually have multiple year commitments). But I would agree that volleyball is definitely an under promoted product.

[MrTPlush]

The problem is, it is college sports. There wasn’t a good answer, thus why they did little to nothing. Could they have done a better job? Sure…maybe. 
 

You want them to pay guys (or let them get paid by someone), but also want the NCAA to fund crummy non revenue sports. Even beyond that, expect them to also prop up non revenue schools. It doesn’t help some schools a sport can have great revenue and another school it is worthless.

People want the NCAA/Schools to baby all these different sports and baby the less fortunate non-P5 schools to protect the fantasy of college athletics. It’s really trying to put lipstick on a pig.

[Cool Hand Lucroy]

31 minutes ago, MrTPlush said:

The problem is, it is college sports. There wasn’t a good answer, thus why they did little to nothing. Could they have done a better job? Sure…maybe. 
 

You want them to pay guys (or let them get paid by someone), but also want the NCAA to fund crummy non revenue sports. Even beyond that, expect them to also prop up non revenue schools. It doesn’t help some schools a sport can have great revenue and another school it is worthless.

People want the NCAA/Schools to baby all these different sports and baby the less fortunate non-P5 schools to protect the fantasy of college athletics. It’s really trying to put lipstick on a pig.

I mean, you can call it "babying" if you want, but it's really just enacting basic communitarian principles. You try to properly minmax the interests of athletes, large institutions, and small ones. This isn't actually that hard. By agreeing to play COLLEGE sports, the athletes agree not to prioritize making as much money as possible, the schools agree to the same, and you allow for players of the highest interest sports to share in the overages they help create through a sound negotiating process.

Look, men's basketball and football have highly developed professional systems, and tons of money flows into college sports because the market wants as much of that content as possible. Players should get some stake in that. If they think they deserve more, fine. Negotiate for it, or go pro (and the NBA and the NFL need to be better about allowing for that choice, especially the NBA). The idea that only sports that can pay for themselves should exist (which it sounds like you're saying) is bunk. If you think it's valuable and important to allow for more athletes to play high-level tennis or track or women's crew (and to earn scholarships through those endeavors), you subsidize a system that allows for that because the societal goals are more important than allowing the men's basketball players to keep ALL the revenue they generate.

There's no reason you can't effectively and fairly tie together higher education and athletics. It's just that the institutions and interest groups in charge have royally messed it up. Schools want revenue growth at all costs and athletes want to be treated like all-star professionals. It's what happens when self-interest is the only guiding principle at play. It's possible to make this work, just as it's possible to fix all kinds of societal problems (health insurance, climate change, etc.), but we won't because the entrenched interests aren't equipped (and are mostly run by people who aren't very thoughtful) and most fans aren't that interested in nuance and lack the patience for difficult trade-offs..

[Jim French Stepstool]

Isaac Lindsay of UW just entered the portal. I would imagine he's pretty much in the same boat as Ross Candelino & Luke Haertle in that he wants to go somewhere low D-1 or D-2 so he can get on the floor.

I picture this whole portal thing as a commercial fishing trip. The choice fish get snapped up & processed, then you have a whole bunch lying on the floor of the boat flopping around, just hoping to somehow get back in the water.

[Jim French Stepstool]

Frankie Fidler, an important target for UW, has set a press conference for Monday morning to announce his decision. Being a college sports fan for decades I've come to learn that it's a waste of time to assume what a kid is going to do based on the myriad of rumors & info about which way he might be leaning. But since wasting time is something I've honed into an art form, the theory that makes the most sense to me is that he's heavily leaning towards staying close to home (UNO, Creighton, or Nebraska) & is only holding off to see if Michigan State knocks his socks off during his last visit this weekend.

[RedStickBrew]

9 hours ago, Jim French Stepstool said:

Frankie Fidler, an important target for UW, has set a press conference for Monday morning to announce his decision. Being a college sports fan for decades I've come to learn that it's a waste of time to assume what a kid is going to do based on the myriad of rumors & info about which way he might be leaning. But since wasting time is something I've honed into an art form, the theory that makes the most sense to me is that he's heavily leaning towards staying close to home (UNO, Creighton, or Nebraska) & is only holding off to see if Michigan State knocks his socks off during his last visit this weekend.

The transfer process is so volatile, schools can get involved at any time with NIL proposals that can change minds etc. Even if a kid announces a commitment it is not binding until they are on campus, enrolled in classes.

As for Fidler, things seem pretty quiet on the reporting front so I have no idea. What I do know is that there are about 2000 kids in the portal right now and many will not find new homes. I’m sure UW will get a couple players that can contribute for next year just no idea who they might be

[Jim French Stepstool]

8 hours ago, RedStickBrew said:

 What I do know is that there are about 2000 kids in the portal right now and many will not find new homes. 

Yep. That's the side of the coin that I alluded to in an earlier post. It encompasses a large % of the kids, but doesn't attract clicks or sell subscriptions so most people don't realize how many are left holding the bag.

[Jim French Stepstool]

Brandon Angel is visiting UW this weekend. He's started the last two seasons for Stanford & is being looked at to replace Tyler Wahl at PF. He & Wisconsin had mutual interest when he was being recruited out of HS.

[Oxy]

What amazes me is that there are 3 kids from one high school in Omaha, NEBRASKA who would be in the top 75 or so transfer kids in the entire portal/country (Chucky won't enter the portal...but still). Entire states of millions of athletes from California, NY, Texas, Florida, Ohio, etc. etc. etc. could enter the portal...and these 3 guys from Omaha are that good?!? Weird.