NIL starts today

RussianOffense said:
Hard to see how this ends well for GT. Recruits will soon choose schools based on likely sponsorship deal money. Sponsorship deal money is proportional to the money in the fan base (basically proportional to the number of fans for that school). We have many times fewer fans than the big schools.

Selling points for GT have been education and the city. Those things are devalued when income becomes a major criterion in school selection.
Click to expand...
There is no question this has the potential to leave GT in the dust given small fan base. Also, what is to stop a rich booster at, say, UGA, from effectively buying recruits through "endorsement" deals with his company. It's kind of like money laundering.
 
MACHETE said:
There is no question this has the potential to leave GT in the dust given small fan base. Also, what is to stop a rich booster at, say, UGA, from effectively buying recruits through "endorsement" deals with his company. It's kind of like money laundering.
Click to expand...
They have been doing that already. Now it'll just be above board.

Maybe now that's it's legal, some Tech fans will be willing to step up to the plate. If we want a winning program, we've got to pay the piper - no excuses that it's cheating now.
 
MACHETE said:
There is no question this has the potential to leave GT in the dust given small fan base. Also, what is to stop a rich booster at, say, UGA, from effectively buying recruits through "endorsement" deals with his company. It's kind of like money laundering.
Click to expand...

There has to be some kind of financial chicanery that would allow a handful of rich tech alums to create a simple company that sells t-shirts online or something, pool together some money as private equity invest it, basically create a perpetual NIL funding machine with cap gains / dividends, and write off NIL as a marketing expenses.

if we are the smartest and the richest we should be able to come up with something.
 
Totally disagree that this isn't good for us. You guys don't think the factories are already getting money in their players' hands? So what, now they can pay them more, great. If we all believe, which I do, that we haven't been playing that game in the past, and now our players can make money, how does that hurt us? We're in the capital of the south. We should be able to leverage this into an advantage.
 
ThisIsAtlanta said:
I doubt "can't". Most male athletes are top 1% of the top 1% sexy on the male spectrum globally. Most female athletes are average on their own college campuses. If the men put their minds to this there'd be no contest.
Click to expand...
Twenty bucks is twenty bucks?
 
GoldZ said:
The rich will still get richer with a reduction in numbers. Their starters will be even more superior to the poor programs because the rich programs will just spend more on fewer recruits. It may help a little on depth issues though.
The lower levels have a bigger pool to draw from than D-1 programs.
Click to expand...
That is wrong. The 5s all go to the top 10 or so programs. Fewer players would absolutely mean more teams would be competitive.
 
GTCrew said:
Appetite? Unless men start turning down free sex, females don't have to pay for sex. A woman could get 100s of dick picks for free.
Click to expand...

Females pay billions of dollars a year for sex. Ask Victoria's secret, Maybelline, cosmopolitan magazine, weight watchers, etc etc etc. Increasingly, ask MindGeek. The question of whether men can directly monetize that desire is significantly impacted by cultural norms. To be sure, there is a natural imbalance toward the male side, in several ways. My contention is that it is not so large that it offsets the advantage of being at the very top of the male side in a contest where the norms are out of the way. It's my contention as well that the norms are very near being completely thrown aside.

In any event, let's watch and see. If there's enough money there, surely someone will figure it out. If there's not, I'll be happy to have been wrong about the trajectory of society.
 
knoxjacket said:
There has to be some kind of financial chicanery that would allow a handful of rich tech alums to create a simple company that sells t-shirts online or something, pool together some money as private equity invest it, basically create a perpetual NIL funding machine with cap gains / dividends, and write off NIL as a marketing expenses.

if we are the smartest and the richest we should be able to come up with something.
Click to expand...

That’s exactly what Miami is doing
 
ThisIsAtlanta said:
Females pay billions of dollars a year for sex. Ask Victoria's secret, Maybelline, cosmopolitan magazine, weight watchers, etc etc etc. Increasingly, ask MindGeek.
Click to expand...
You think women put on make-up because they want to have sex? I think women put on make-up because they want to be attractive.

I bet women in general would prefer to be attractive and not have sex, than be unattractive and have sex. Just the opposite for men.
 
18in32 said:
You think women put on make-up because they want to have sex? I think women put on make-up because they want to be attractive.

I bet women in general would prefer to be attractive and not have sex, than be unattractive and have sex. Just the opposite for men.
Click to expand...

I'm no expert on anything, just a guy with opinions, but I see nothing from anyone here that's persuading me to change them. I'm content to let it play out and observe whether my predictions bear true, rather than attempt to justify them, only because I don't see it as very important that anyone necessarily agrees with me on this particular topic, and nobody has any control over any of it anyway.
 
GTCrew said:
That is wrong. The 5s all go to the top 10 or so programs. Fewer players would absolutely mean more teams would be competitive.
Click to expand...
No it's not. There's very few 5* players each year period, and with or without NIL, they are going to the same schools they always have. There are many more 4* players and they will get a lot of attn from traditional powers in the context of NIL. If you reduce that number, then the rich programs will intensify NIL efforts over fewer players, and guess who is left out in the cold.
 
ThisIsAtlanta said:
Females pay billions of dollars a year for sex. Ask Victoria's secret, Maybelline, cosmopolitan magazine, weight watchers, etc etc etc.
Click to expand...
This is extremely incorrect thinking. Women do none of those things for sex. You ever turn down a girl because she was wearing jockey and you only bang girls in VS? Women know they can get sex at will. To the extent that women wear makeup for men, it is because men value looks so it is required to maximize your value for relationships. Men want to öööö, Women want to date. Women control access to sex, and men control access to relationships.

It should be telling that Cosmo always puts Women on the cover. If Women bought cosmo for sex, it would have men on the cover.
Increasingly, ask MindGeek. The question of whether men can directly monetize that desire is significantly impacted by cultural norms. To be sure, there is a natural imbalance toward the male side, in several ways. My contention is that it is not so large that it offsets the advantage of being at the very top of the male side in a contest where the norms are out of the way. It's my contention as well that the norms are very near being completely thrown aside.

In any event, let's watch and see. If there's enough money there, surely someone will figure it out. If there's not, I'll be happy to have been wrong about the trajectory of society.
Click to expand...
Do you think women can get more liberated than they are right now? They are already literally too liberated, to the point that they are suffering mentally and emotionally because promiscuity is against their nature. Society tells them to öööö everything that moves like a man would, but womens' lizard brains tell them to be hypergamous.
The evidence is already out there. Google "can a man make money on onlyfans" and they will tell you "yes, but it will be mostly gay fans".
 
GoldZ said:
No it's not. There's very few 5* players each year period, and with or without NIL, they are going to the same schools they always have. There are many more 4* players and they will get a lot of attn from traditional powers in the context of NIL. If you reduce that number, then the rich programs will intensify NIL efforts over fewer players, and guess who is left out in the cold.
Click to expand...
Wrong. The top powers already get the top 4 stars. And they finish up their 25 a year with lower 4 stars. They barely take any three stars.

If they only got 15-20 per year, that frees up 5-10 lower 4 star and upper 3 star players to go to the other schools.

Are you assuming with only 65 schollys that we would still have an annual cap of 25?

It would be easy to show who would fall to schools like us. If you look at Alabama 2020, identify their 5 lowest rated recruits. Look at their fallback schools, and they would be some of the top recruits at those schools.
 
For example, Alabama's sixth lowest rated of their 25 was Jamil Burroughs, a four star DT from McEachern. GT was in the mix for him. If Bama could only take 19, good chance he falls to us. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.si.com/college/alabama/.amp/player-development/alabama-football-recruiting-jamilMcLachlan.

Similarly, their 24th was a high 3 star center from Buford. Again, we were bridesmaids.

n.rivals.com

Seth McLaughlin, 2020 Offensive Center, Alabama

Seth McLaughlin - 3 Star Offensive center for Alabama on TideIllustrated
n.rivals.com n.rivals.com

Those two would have been our 5th rated and 8th (9th) rated players if they had fallen to us because Bama had less slots. Bama gets worse because they lose depth, while we get better because we upgrade our talent.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top