Not much, says Paul Myerberg.
There is the question of how programs located in states with NIL legislation on the books may have a distinct recruiting advantage over the rest of the NCAA. All things being equal, a prospective student-athlete may choose one program over another based on the ability to draw compensation, creating a temporarily uneven recruiting landscape.
That advantage may continue for two types of schools. One is the school able to present the best program for maximizing an athlete’s NIL rights. The second is the specific program with the largest national footprint — Alabama football, Duke men’s basketball, UConn women’s basketball and others.
It would seem logical that these national powers would have the financial wherewithal to present student-athletes with the most in-depth NIL assistance, giving these programs a leg up on their peers in recruiting. Not that this would change much: Those schools dominate the recruiting landscape as it is.
P5 schools are already budgeting for NIL support.
These companies provide a window into what NIL legislation may cost major universities willing to make a heavy investment: Opendorse, which was co-founded by a former Nebraska linebacker, has partnered with the Cornhuskers’ athletics department on a deal worth $250,000 annually.
Recent news from Washington gives further insight into the expenses associated with meeting the demands of NIL. The Huskies’ projected budget for the 2022 fiscal year includes a $1.75 million placeholder for NIL legislation and the potential fallout from NCAA v. Alston.
Is Georgia? Well, I’d bet money Kirby’s been on that particular mother for a while now. As far the rest of the athletic department goes, your guess is as good as mine.
UPDATE: Interesting perspective here ($$):
I strongly suspect the promised money to recruits will spike in the first few years, and as businesses don’t get return on their investment, that money flows much more freely to established upperclassmen eventually. This is about advertising. If you put Kennedy Chandler or Brandon Huntley-Hatfield or even a guy like Brock Vandagriff on a billboard right now, would that resonate? I’d say it’s way too soon for that. The average fan isn’t going to recognize those faces or names. But when they do something and become household names, that’s where the real investment lies and where the most money will be up for grabs. Recruits will probably be able to make some money on social media (sell your recruiting updates on Patreon, fellas), but I really believe NIL as a recruiting tool in terms of actual cash and not “Look what’s possible if you come here” isn’t going to be as big of a deal as some think.
I think that’s more the case for football then men’s basketball, but I do think there’s a lot of truth there. If I were a business person who had five figures to sink into a college athlete, paying it to someone established on the college level seems to be a more rational choice than to pay it to an unproven recruit.
Now, I also recognize that there are going to be irrational actors out there, but even for them, there’s got to be a limit as to how many times they’ll be willing to invest in a crapshoot that has a decent chance of not paying off immediately. Of course, YMMV.