They’ll do it every time.

Lest we forget, the NCAA is still doing its damnedest to lock down NIL legislation in a way most favorable to itself and its member schools.  Part of the process involves a survey sent to Division I athletic departments last month by the NCAA Legislative Solutions Group, the faction charged with developing NIL legislation.  Ross Dellenger has the receipts.

No, there’s nothing particularly shocking in it if you’ve followed the process much.  But there are a few choice examples of hypocrisy worth sharing, starting with my favorite:

According to the survey, athletes will be prohibited from endorsing commercial products or services that conflict with NCAA legislation, citing examples as “sports wagering and banned substances.” This could receive stiff pushback. The college sports gambling industry is fast on the rise. In fact, the University of Colorado last week became the first school to strike a deal with a gambling outfit.

While they seem pretty consumed with preventing college athletes from cutting promotional deals that conflict with existing institutional sponsorship arrangements, they seem surprisingly sanguine about… boosters?

According to the survey, the NCAA still plans to allow boosters to strike NIL deals with athletes as long as they are not recruiting inducements, but the survey asks athletic directors if the term “booster” should be more narrowly defined because of its broadness.

Finally, here’s a funny concern from the same folks who insist college athletes are already handsomely compensated for their contributions to the money making machine.

Should an athlete’s NIL deal include a financial maximum or ceiling? It’s a topic that’s been bantered about this year. While the survey doesn’t specifically address that, it does ask administrators an interesting question about an athlete’s NIL financial details. “Should the membership establish a specified dollar amount of a transaction that would trigger enhanced scrutiny from involved institutions, the NCAA, or a third party administrator?” it says.

Makes me wonder which college athlete is shrewd enough to be the first one to hire Jimmy Sexton as his agent.

5 Comments

Filed under It's Just Bidness, The NCAA

5 responses to “They’ll do it every time.

  1. 79dawg

    Oh good, they won’t be used as “recruiting inducements” – that makes me feel a lot better, can’t wait to see the easily enforceable, bright-line rules for monitoring and complying with that!

    Like

    • Don’t forget the “the survey asks athletic directors if the term “booster” should be more narrowly defined because of its broadness” bonus.

      Like

      • 79dawg

        Does that mean “I” won’t be a booster anymore? Not sure my ego can handle it, maybe they can invite me to a scrimmage or practice to help me feel better about myself…

        Like

  2. MGW

    Well those biannual field house renovations don’t pay for themselves.

    Like

  3. This will not end well for anyone if it is allowed to devolve in to an open or covert bidding war for recruits.

    Like