Yet neither is based on actual performance or success. It’s all perception. I don’t find them to be meaningfully different.
Right. But you're being disingenuous. He locked up the starting job and NIL being a thing happened the exact same year. It's not he didn't get paid until he was the starter. He just happened to be the starter the first year NIL was available. You are both wrong
One would be using money as an enticement to a school. The other would be an investment in a kid who won the starting job and comes with a lot of hype. There’s a subtle, yet major difference between the two. Using an NIL deal as an enticement to land a player is not allowed (technically).
Bryce was there for a year and was about to be the starter. None of these kids are locked in starters their TrFr year.
Yea maybe he would have gotten NIL money as a FR, but based on last year where only 25 players did, probably not. Either way, he didn't so it's a bad example.
I’m fine agreeing that the two situations aren’t exactly the same and there are subtle differences. I’m merely saying that I don’t find the subtle differences to make much of a difference in something being “right” vs. “wrong.”
This is basically what the Miami’s, Tennessee’s, and Texas A&M’s of the world are claiming. They would be wrong, based on how the NCAA has worded things. They’d also probably kick the NCAAs ass in court, which is why college sports are now in the pickle they’re in.
But we agree that players can apparently build NIL value without playing a snap. If that’s the case, I don’t really see a huge leap between a recruit getting a deal as a presumptive future star to a freshman getting a deal as a presumptive future star.
Bringing up Bryce was dumb. His played out exactly as NIL was intended. He earned the starting job for the most high profile team and was able to sign deals using his name, image, and likeness. That's very different than a high school LB getting a bag to play at a school. He's not getting paid for his name, image, or likeness. He's getting paid to sign. I have no issue with either fwiw.
The difference is one signs deals with companies based on their ability to market for the company by using their name, image, and likeness. Doing commercials, autograph signings, etc. The other gets a bag from a collective of boosters.
For the sake of argument, I’ll present a few scenarios… - Not Allowed - NBC (or NDs Collective) offering recruit Dante Moore $1M to attend Notre Dame - Allowed - NBC offering current starting Notre Dame QB Tyler Buchner $1M, assuming the deal has no verbiage tying Buchner to the school - Allowed - NBC offering recruit Dante Moore $1M to play college football anywhere
So if they haven't filmed any commercials, etc "yet", it's just a bag of money and they just haven't had events yet
Allowed or not: a school discussing the types of deals an athlete may be able to obtain at their school, and then doing so upon signing?
I think it’s disingenuous to think that all value a player has in NIL is simply due to the player and not the school where they are playing. And because of that, I believe it’s possible for a player to develop value from being a part of a high visibility program without any particular interest in the player. The presumed next starting qb at Alabama will always have that advantage. The nuanced question is whether the player was given that value because he was the presumed next starting qb or because he was induced to come be the next starting qb.
Well yea he's not going to do the commercial or event until he gets paid. That's how it works for anyone.
You can absolutely recruit based on the opportunities available, based on resources, connections, current player deals, etc. But you can’t offer an actual deal upfront.
Exactly. Which is why I don’t understand how you can’t understand that the nuance between the two situations is a major difference.
He would get paid just like every 5* kid is gonna get paid by their schools collective. Bama is no different. You're not really arguing no top 100 kid coming to Bama this year is gonna get an NIL deal, are you?
According to Saban, no. That's his beef. He thinks giving recruiting a bag goes against the intent of NIL.
That's what Saban said. If you think he's lying, OK. I hope they all got as much money as they could fwiw.
Because all of the players A&M gave NIL deals to have value because of their positions as signees to A&M. It’s fundamentally the same system. I just don’t find a large difference between “come to Alabama, and you’ll make a million dollars if you’re named starter but before you actually do it” and “come to A&M and you’ll make a million dollars before you actually play.”
Dude is 100% full of shit. Idgaf what he said, you seriously don't think a single incoming freshman is gonna have an NIL deal????
Bama historical has paid kids under the table better than anyone, but now that is 100% legal to do, they stopped doing it
That is wild if true. I’m also not sure how Saban could possibly have a say in it whatsoever. If you wanted to give some current signee a $50,000 deal to sign autographs and promote your business, could Saban stop it?
What is the difference between giving money under the table to recruits to come to your school, and giving more money to recruits while calling it part of NIL rules that allow it to be more out in the open? Because I find it really, really hard to believe that Saban and Bama has recruited like 15 straight #1 recruiting classes in the SEC without paying a single recruit to entice them to go there. Is the difference that A&M is giving more money? That it's out in the open instead of secret? Or just that kids Bama wanted went to A&M instead?
Believe A&M did it better than Bama and disrupted their advantage of illegal payments being the winner. Let's all be real here
They're just extremely mediocre iceburns. I don't think it's ridiculous to judge what he says for what it is. If anything he should have more insight or something more scathing to say
It’s fundamentally not the same. That’s the whole point. Bryce Young got deals before becoming the starter from CashApp, iHeartRadio, Logan’s Roadhouse, Subway, Netflix, and a bunch of card and sports memorabilia places. None of those deals were Alabama boosters used to entice BY to come to Alabama to play quarterback. They were all trying to capture value after the fact by being associated with a well-known highly-touted good-looking charismatic player who was set to take over one of the most visible positions in college football, qb at Alabama.
I don't think he'd be this vocal if we was doing the same thing. He will moving forward bc that's how he works.
The Iamaleava article from The Athletic was pretty interesting in terms of the mechanics of all this. The fact recruits are employing agents and contract lawyers makes me think this whole thing is way better thought out than the average fan is letting on. It also means that if someone fucks up, there’s now a potential paper trail to uncover it. One scenario that to me is very gray is say you’re a local car dealership in South Bend. What if you were to offer Dante Moore a $1M per year contract to endorse your dealership, but as a local business you require him to be a local and reside within two miles of that dealership? Obviously anyone can read between the lines to realize that deal is focused on enticing the recruit to a single school, but does that dealership have enough plausible deniability from a legal standpoint to get away with it?
On a 1-10 scale, they are a 4 for a message board. They are a 10 for football coach. I get that you want to downplay them bc UGA was on the wrong end of them for a long time though.
I just watched that whole video and he never said that. He only says that Bama didn’t buy a single player.
Won the ACC at duke. Won the first NC at Florida. Won 11 games at SCAR. Talked shit the whole time. Redav needs help understanding why he’s a legend