Long time board watcher, first time poster:
I know there are differing opinions on the impact the NCAA’s new NIL policy will have on Vanderbilt. While I was initially hopeful it could level the playing field in the two big sports (football, basketball) a bit, I’ve come around to the opinion that this will not be good for us at all. There will be essentially two sources of income for student athletes: legitimate commercial businesses and boosters. The way I see it, we will be at a disadvantage in each.
Legitimate businesses that will be willing to pay athletes to promote their brand/business will be applying a cost-benefit analysis to any NIL investments they make, just as they would for any marketing expense. Big markets, generally attract bigger dollars. NBA players in LA or NY command more advertising dollars than players in Portland or Oklahoma City. For college athletics, a big market doesn’t necessarily equate to big cities. Instead, it equates to big fan followings. The blue bloods for basketball (Kentucky, Duke, UCLA, etc.) and football (Alabama, Ohio State, Notre Dame, etc.) will have a huge advantage here as will large state schools where the football and basketball programs attract a large following. As much as I love Vanderbilt, our fans are anemic compared to many schools. Thus, disadvantage number 1.
Boosters. Schools that have wealthy and active boosters will be able to funnel whatever amount of money the boosters are willing to put up to their athletes. My understanding is that the rules for NIL payments will vary from state to state and are unlikely to be well defined. Boosters will use this looseness to make whatever payments they want to athletes. I can think of a bunch ways to do that now with minimal effort: speaking fees, appearance fees, photos on a fan website, interviews, etc., not to mention funding marketing expenses for local, legitimate businesses making their cost-benefit analysis obsolete. I suspect more active booster groups will create funds to funnel money to athletes using these or other approaches. While Vanderbilt has a number of wealthy boosters (including some on this site), I don’t see us in even the top half of the Power 5 schools in booster involvement. Thus, disadvantage number 2.
After reading the board for the last year or two, it’s obvious to me that many of you are much more knowledgeable about college athletics and related issues than I am. There may also be laws that I haven’t thought of that will curb some of the above activities. Or maybe there simply isn't enough money to go around to influence enough athlete's decisions (although I'm skeptical of this as even a couple of thousand dollars can make a big difference to a high school kid from a family that isn't wealthy). Prior to the SCOTUS decision, I was quite optimistic about the trajectory of Vandy’s football and basketball programs. I hope I am wrong on the impact NILs may have. Am very interested in the thoughts of other’s or if there have been any in-depth articles written on this.
I know there are differing opinions on the impact the NCAA’s new NIL policy will have on Vanderbilt. While I was initially hopeful it could level the playing field in the two big sports (football, basketball) a bit, I’ve come around to the opinion that this will not be good for us at all. There will be essentially two sources of income for student athletes: legitimate commercial businesses and boosters. The way I see it, we will be at a disadvantage in each.
Legitimate businesses that will be willing to pay athletes to promote their brand/business will be applying a cost-benefit analysis to any NIL investments they make, just as they would for any marketing expense. Big markets, generally attract bigger dollars. NBA players in LA or NY command more advertising dollars than players in Portland or Oklahoma City. For college athletics, a big market doesn’t necessarily equate to big cities. Instead, it equates to big fan followings. The blue bloods for basketball (Kentucky, Duke, UCLA, etc.) and football (Alabama, Ohio State, Notre Dame, etc.) will have a huge advantage here as will large state schools where the football and basketball programs attract a large following. As much as I love Vanderbilt, our fans are anemic compared to many schools. Thus, disadvantage number 1.
Boosters. Schools that have wealthy and active boosters will be able to funnel whatever amount of money the boosters are willing to put up to their athletes. My understanding is that the rules for NIL payments will vary from state to state and are unlikely to be well defined. Boosters will use this looseness to make whatever payments they want to athletes. I can think of a bunch ways to do that now with minimal effort: speaking fees, appearance fees, photos on a fan website, interviews, etc., not to mention funding marketing expenses for local, legitimate businesses making their cost-benefit analysis obsolete. I suspect more active booster groups will create funds to funnel money to athletes using these or other approaches. While Vanderbilt has a number of wealthy boosters (including some on this site), I don’t see us in even the top half of the Power 5 schools in booster involvement. Thus, disadvantage number 2.
After reading the board for the last year or two, it’s obvious to me that many of you are much more knowledgeable about college athletics and related issues than I am. There may also be laws that I haven’t thought of that will curb some of the above activities. Or maybe there simply isn't enough money to go around to influence enough athlete's decisions (although I'm skeptical of this as even a couple of thousand dollars can make a big difference to a high school kid from a family that isn't wealthy). Prior to the SCOTUS decision, I was quite optimistic about the trajectory of Vandy’s football and basketball programs. I hope I am wrong on the impact NILs may have. Am very interested in the thoughts of other’s or if there have been any in-depth articles written on this.
