Shaka article from CBS

[The Equalizer]

There's also a difference between using the portal to bring in grad transfer one-and-done's, and promising young players like Omax and Kolek.

How are they different?

To me, Shaka's quote implied he sees no difference--he's not playing the NIL game for anyone.

Are you saying that Shaka won't play the NIL game for promising young players, but will when it comes to grad transfers?

Or do you think it's the reverse? 

[THRILLHO]

How are they different?

To me, Shaka's quote implied he sees no difference--he's not playing the NIL game for anyone.

Are you saying that Shaka won't play the NIL game for promising young players, but will when it comes to grad transfers?

Or do you think it's the reverse?

They're just different markets. Fifth year seniors with track records of success at power 6 schools have higher value than benchwarming freshmen (Omax) or mid major freshmen (Kolek).

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Equalizer is right that we don't know if this will work moving forward, just that it works right now when most of the team was recruited before NIL was in effect (those conversations were being had though).

I think it will work moving forward. I personally believe that the NIL market is a bit crazy at the moment with the market way overpaying for talent. I think that they will come back down to earth in time a schools that already have a sustainable system set up will be ahead of the curve.

[Goose]

TAMU

It will balance out when teams do not see ROI from the NIL money. It has a run for programs to buy a team, but more will fail than succeed, imo.

[The Sultan]

The problem is that people are conflating MU's current success using players recruited in the pre-NIL era and projecting that to continue.

The past two years of MU's success have arguably been built on transfers. Shaka was very fortunate to land Morsell, Kurath, Kolek, and Prosper in the pre-NIL era.  If these players were hitting the market today, they'd no doubt be entertaining the same type of NIL deals that Bates and Gueye and Washington got this year.  It's one thing for Shaka to say "we're not playing that game" when his roster was mostly built on with first recruiting class and 5-year COVID eligibility. 

Without those four transfers, we probably don't make the 2022 tournament, and probably not competitive for 1st in the Big East this year.  The thing that should raise concerns is that we're not in the market for the future Tyler Kolek, and our competitors are.

Plus, the "not playing the game" ignores the fact that the same changes are rapidly coming to HS recruiting.  19 states already allow HS players to sign NIL deals.  If 26th-ranked Mikey Williams can sign with Memphis and command a multi-million dollar NIL deal while still in HS, I'd really like to know if Shaka backed off #35 JP Estrella and #43 Milan Momocilovic because they really preferred campus life at Tennessee or Iowa State, or whether NIL considerations came into play and MU signaled that they're not a player and withdrew early.

One thing the article didn't touch on is whatever NIL deals may be in place to keep the current players here.  I have no doubt the transfers you mention are making NIL money now.

[Uncle Rico]

TAMU

It will balance out when teams do not see ROI from the NIL money. It has a run for programs to buy a team, but more will fail than succeed, imo.

I think you're correct.  There's a lot of hand-wringing about buying teams but it'll be a lot like teams that were built with a one and done model.  Some will definitely find success, some won't.

That's my feeling on the portal, too.  New coaches can build a footing with it, some coaches will build around the edges with it but those reliant on it year in and year out will struggle

[The Equalizer]

I think it will work moving forward. I personally believe that the NIL market is a bit crazy at the moment with the market way overpaying for talent. I think that they will come back down to earth in time a schools that already have a sustainable system set up will be ahead of the curve.

I am not as optimistic as you on this point. 

Over the next several years there is going to be more, not less, money in college sports.  To suggest the NIL market is overpaying today implies that not only will none of that additional money find its way to players, players should actually expect a smaller piece of that growing pie.  I don't think that's realistic.

[cheebs09]

If more money comes in via TV deals, I could see the dollars going up but the pie getting a little smaller. There will be some people willing to throw crazy dollars in the future. However, I feel there will be more focus on ROI.

I look at Dawson Garcia for example. I'm guessing the person putting out cash for him might take a second thought on the next one. Also, it will be interesting to see how much of the promised money materializes.

[79Warrior]

I am not as optimistic as you on this point. 

Over the next several years there is going to be more, not less, money in college sports.  To suggest the NIL market is overpaying today implies that not only will none of that additional money find its way to players, players should actually expect a smaller piece of that growing pie.  I don't think that's realistic.

Completely agree. There are plenty of well heeled alums at power schools that have plenty of resources. The horse is out of the barn.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

I am not as optimistic as you on this point. 

Over the next several years there is going to be more, not less, money in college sports.  To suggest the NIL market is overpaying today implies that not only will none of that additional money find its way to players, players should actually expect a smaller piece of that growing pie.  I don't think that's realistic.

The current NIL money is not the same as TV money.  The TV money will no doubt grow, but boosters might become more frugal when they don't see the results they desire. A few high price busts will eventually get them to tighten their belts.

If college athletes are deemed employees, then they will start to get some of that media money.  There is an ongoing court case which may do just that. Then they can capture some of that growth.

If the NCAA was smart, they would get out in front of this and set up the parameters for compensation.  But the NCAA is still stuck in the past, clinging to the idea amateurism.  So we're left to wait for the legal process to play out.

[Hards Alumni]

The problem is that people are conflating MU's current success using players recruited in the pre-NIL era and projecting that to continue.

The past two years of MU's success have arguably been built on transfers. Shaka was very fortunate to land Morsell, Kurath, Kolek, and Prosper in the pre-NIL era.  If these players were hitting the market today, they'd no doubt be entertaining the same type of NIL deals that Bates and Gueye and Washington got this year.  It's one thing for Shaka to say "we're not playing that game" when his roster was mostly built on with first recruiting class and 5-year COVID eligibility. 

Without those four transfers, we probably don't make the 2022 tournament, and probably not competitive for 1st in the Big East this year.  The thing that should raise concerns is that we're not in the market for the future Tyler Kolek, and our competitors are.

Plus, the "not playing the game" ignores the fact that the same changes are rapidly coming to HS recruiting.  19 states already allow HS players to sign NIL deals.  If 26th-ranked Mikey Williams can sign with Memphis and command a multi-million dollar NIL deal while still in HS, I'd really like to know if Shaka backed off #35 JP Estrella and #43 Milan Momocilovic because they really preferred campus life at Tennessee or Iowa State, or whether NIL considerations came into play and MU signaled that they're not a player and withdrew early.

Sounds like you've never been to Ames.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I am not as optimistic as you on this point. 

Over the next several years there is going to be more, not less, money in college sports.  To suggest the NIL market is overpaying today implies that not only will none of that additional money find its way to players, players should actually expect a smaller piece of that growing pie.  I don't think that's realistic.

I think there will be more overall money (but there will always be more overall money in the future). I think there will be less in the NIL market. NIL is donor driven and as others have said, I don't believe donors will continue to write blank checks forever unless they are seeing results on the court. Logic dictates that not every team can see increased results on the court. I could be wrong but these are the consistent sentiments I'm hearing from people with connections to athletics and to the levels of donors who can afford to buy teams.

[The Equalizer]

If more money comes in via TV deals, I could see the dollars going up but the pie getting a little smaller. There will be some people willing to throw crazy dollars in the future. However, I feel there will be more focus on ROI.

I look at Dawson Garcia for example. I'm guessing the person putting out cash for him might take a second thought on the next one. Also, it will be interesting to see how much of the promised money materializes.

Are you suggesting that UNC players from here on out won't earn much NIL because Dawson Garcia's performance was
a disappointment?   

[cheebs09]

Are you suggesting that UNC players from here on out won't earn much NIL because Dawson Garcia's performance was
a disappointment?

I think it's possible. I'm sure the top 15 recruits will still get paid well since that's a pretty sure bet. I don't think the transfers that profile to be the 8th guy off the bench will be getting the million dollar potential deals (or whatever crazy number Dawson was quoted at) that we have seen in some cases to start out.

The dollar value may go up as TAMU said, but that's a function of inflation. I'm sure that donor or others would think harder about paying money for a recruit. Especially if it's businesses using a marketing budget that have bottom lines to worry about.

[The Equalizer]

I think it's possible. I'm sure the top 15 recruits will still get paid well since that's a pretty sure bet. I don't think the transfers that profile to be the 8th guy off the bench will be getting the million dollar potential deals (or whatever crazy number Dawson was quoted at) that we have seen in some cases to start out.

Come on, this is a straw man argument.  Nobody's talking about big NIL deals for the 8th guy off the bench.  We're talking about starters or maybe a key reserve--the 1st or 2nd off the bench.

The dollar value may go up as TAMU said, but that's a function of inflation. I'm sure that donor or others would think harder about paying money for a recruit. Especially if it's businesses using a marketing budget that have bottom lines to worry about.

We're only a year into a process that players and their lawyers spent decades trying to make happen. I don't believe for a second that the spending has already peaked and is now on the decline. 

[withoutbias]

Yeah, we're effed.  Drop the program down to D3.

[jesmu84]

The problem is that people are conflating MU's current success using players recruited in the pre-NIL era and projecting that to continue.

The past two years of MU's success have arguably been built on transfers. Shaka was very fortunate to land Morsell, Kurath, Kolek, and Prosper in the pre-NIL era.  If these players were hitting the market today, they'd no doubt be entertaining the same type of NIL deals that Bates and Gueye and Washington got this year.  It's one thing for Shaka to say "we're not playing that game" when his roster was mostly built on with first recruiting class and 5-year COVID eligibility. 

Without those four transfers, we probably don't make the 2022 tournament, and probably not competitive for 1st in the Big East this year.  The thing that should raise concerns is that we're not in the market for the future Tyler Kolek, and our competitors are.

Plus, the "not playing the game" ignores the fact that the same changes are rapidly coming to HS recruiting.  19 states already allow HS players to sign NIL deals.  If 26th-ranked Mikey Williams can sign with Memphis and command a multi-million dollar NIL deal while still in HS, I'd really like to know if Shaka backed off #35 JP Estrella and #43 Milan Momocilovic because they really preferred campus life at Tennessee or Iowa State, or whether NIL considerations came into play and MU signaled that they're not a player and withdrew early.

The way I read/interpreted Shaka's comments is that he's willing to use NIL for a HS player to come to Marquette and possibly even increase over the player's career while here. He may use some NIL money to also bring in a less-heralded transfer. He WON'T get into the bidding war over grad transfers or players just looking for $$$ cause he wants the culture to be prominent.

[Newsdreams]

TAMU

It will balance out when teams do not see ROI from the NIL money. It has a run for programs to buy a team, but more will fail than succeed, imo.

Yes, just like any supply/ demand and once crazy money crashes it will stabilize.

[Newsdreams]

Are you suggesting that UNC players from here on out won't earn much NIL because Dawson Garcia's performance was
a disappointment?

You're not even factoring football which will be bigger at many schools. NIL for basketball will come back to earth.

[The Equalizer]

You're not even factoring football which will be bigger at many schools. NIL for basketball will come back to earth.

We've had exactly one recruiting cycle with NIL influence allowed so far. There's zero chance that it's matured and peaked by this point.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

We've had exactly one recruiting cycle with NIL influence allowed so far. There's zero chance that it's matured and peaked by this point.

Matured no. Peaked probably no. But I do think it will peak within the next decade. And that's not to say that there won't be massive NIL deals in the future. I just think it will settle into the old model of blue bloods having the most, other high majors having some, and the mid-majors having few and far between. Right now, almost everyone is trying to buy a team.

[Shooter McGavin]

Completely agree. There are plenty of well heeled alums at power schools that have plenty of resources. The horse is out of the barn.

Agreed other schools have plenty of well heeled alums, but these are smart people.  They literally get zero ROI for their companies with this.  Giving away hundreds of thousand dollars/millions of dollars every year for their "toy" basketball team is different than once every 10 years to buy out a crappy coach's contract.  I just can't see smart people spending millions on essentially nothing.  They might as well wipe their ass with it.   

These funds are going to have to be paid out of something more sustainable like  an  NIL endowment fund that has so much initial cash investment that the interest can pay a reasonable amount to the top players yearly without constantly going back to the alums for more cash.

I hope MUs alums have our fund up to at least $50 million shortly so we can maintain competitiveness in the market.

[Newsdreams]

We've had exactly one recruiting cycle with NIL influence allowed so far. There's zero chance that it's matured and peaked by this point.

I wrote will, future tense.