NIL Thread (Name, Image, Likeness Rule)

#1      

Dan

Dan
Admin
Dan
#3      

Ransom Stoddard

Ransom Stoddard
Ordained Dudeist Priest
Bloomington, IL
Ransom Stoddard
the national said:
Interesting, I’m not sure I understand the ins and outs of this.
Click to expand...
Coincidentally, my Illini "Account Manager" called me this morning making sure I was all set on my FB season tix, so I asked him about this. It sounds like they're moving to a professional, organized, 100% tied to the DIA organization with Icon rather than the volunteer, "kinda-not-official to the DIA" that was Guardians.
He also said that while Icon is applying for 501(c)(3) status, that's no guarantee that any donations will be tax deductible.
 
#6      

thechampishere

T
thechampishere
ChiefGritty said:
I would be extremely interested to hear any thoughts or gossip on the underlying politics of this from our insider friends or anybody else.
Click to expand...
NCAA restricted the DIA from being involved in NIL deals. Guardians was great, but didn't have the resources to pony up when they needed $s for specific targets. It's not a coincidence that the leaders of Icon are former DIA employees that were connected to the boosters. I'd be interested to hear what others have to say about the 501c3 aspect. I know how the Icon deals have been working but still don't understand the tax piece.
 
#7      

Fighter of the Nightman

Fighter of the Nightman
Chicago, IL
Fighter of the Nightman
thechampishere said:
NCAA restricted the DIA from being involved in NIL deals. Guardians was great, but didn't have the resources to pony up when they needed $s for specific targets. It's not a coincidence that the leaders of Icon are former DIA employees that were connected to the boosters. I'd be interested to hear what others have to say about the 501c3 aspect. I know how the Icon deals have been working but still don't understand the tax piece.
Click to expand...
Would it be fair to say that Illinois has been pretty ahead of the curve and innovative in regard to NIL? That isn't to say we have the most money - it is a more difficult sell to get a donor to write a check when your program has usually been winning 3 games or so - but we certainly seem to be organized.
 
#8      

illini80

illini80
Forgottonia
illini80
Fighter of the Nightman said:
Would it be fair to say that Illinois has been pretty ahead of the curve and innovative in regard to NIL? That isn't to say we have the most money - it is a more difficult sell to get a donor to write a check when your program has usually been winning 3 games or so - but we certainly seem to be organized.
Click to expand...
Ahead of the curve? Absolutely. Winning the NIL game? No, but we are at least competitive which is fairly remarkable all things considered. I believe we are still ahead of what would generally considered our peer level of schools. I still have no idea how this plays out long run though. Will our early success mean a long term advantage? Big time donors have taken a lot of grief over the years and with good reason at times, but they are the lifeblood of the programs now more than ever.

I do wonder how the Guardians shutting down will affect the smaller donors that they seemed to cater to more. Maybe ICON will expand their efforts in that direction as a result.
 
#9      

Fighter of the Nightman

Fighter of the Nightman
Chicago, IL
Fighter of the Nightman
illini80 said:
Ahead of the curve? Absolutely. Winning the NIL game? No, but we are at least competitive which is fairly remarkable all things considered. I believe we are still ahead of what would generally considered our peer level of schools. I still have no idea how this plays out long run though. Will our early success mean a long term advantage? Big time donors have taken a lot of grief over the years and with good reason at times, but they are the lifeblood of the programs now more than ever.

I do wonder how the Guardians shutting down will affect the smaller donors that they seemed to cater to more. Maybe ICON will expand their efforts in that direction as a result.
Click to expand...
This seems about what my perception (without good evidence) was. You won't catch us outbidding 'Bama any time soon, but our resources seem to be a LOT better than you would expect for a program that had these stats between Zook being fired and Bielema being hired:

- 37-72 (.321) overall record
- 16-60 (.211) Big Ten record
- 2 bowls (0-2)
- Zero winning seasons
- Averaged 3.8 wins per season
- 1-23 vs. top 25 opponents
- Average attendance of 41,492 (68% of capacity) with a low of 30,456 (50% of capacity)
:sick: :sick: :sick: :sick: :sick:

We have a huge alumni base with more than a little bit of money, and it seems we are nowhere close to our ceiling yet holding our own. I would love to see how "big time" Illinois could be for football NIL if we are able to string together a couple more seasons of 7+ wins! We certainly don't back down to that many programs in basketball when it comes to this stuff.
 
#12      

doowink

D
doowink
Palmerstein International said:
well it certainly seems to me that we didnt have enough NIL money to get the point guards we wanted this off season.
Click to expand...
Are you sure that was the problem??
Kenan Thompson Reaction GIF
 
#13      

StarterG

StarterG
StarterG
Really don't like the fact that there are limitations on designating NIL contributions to a specific sport. Guardians seemed to have no way to do it and ICON requires a minimum contribution of $500 per month in order to pick a sport.
 
#14      

Ransom Stoddard

Ransom Stoddard
Ordained Dudeist Priest
Bloomington, IL
Ransom Stoddard
StarterG said:
Really don't like the fact that there are limitations on designating NIL contributions to a specific sport. Guardians seemed to have no way to do it and ICON requires a minimum contribution of $500 per month in order to pick a sport.
Click to expand...
I'm OK with that. Non-revenue athletes deserve a share of the pie IMO, and this allows ICON not to have to rely on donors remembering to support gymnastics or swimming.
 
#15      

grue2

G
grue2
Ransom Stoddard said:
I'm OK with that. Non-revenue athletes deserve a share of the pie IMO, and this allows ICON not to have to rely on donors remembering to support gymnastics or swimming.
Click to expand...
I'm curious as to your reasoning. To me, this seems like cable TV bundling. Everyone is forced to pay for the channels that the don't care about. Time to cut the cord.

My view: NIL was for athletes to share in the profits. The non-revenue sports are, as far as I know, all losing money to various degrees. Those athletes are already getting a (partial) free ride and free training in something they like to do. Nothing is stopping the very top non-revenue sport athletes from getting their own deals.

Are there non-revenue athletes where improving the team a bit would turn it into a revenue sport (by more than the amount spent)?
 
#16      

Ransom Stoddard

Ransom Stoddard
Ordained Dudeist Priest
Bloomington, IL
Ransom Stoddard
grue2 said:
I'm curious as to your reasoning. To me, this seems like cable TV bundling. Everyone is forced to pay for the channels that the don't care about. Time to cut the cord.

My view: NIL was for athletes to share in the profits. The non-revenue sports are, as far as I know, all losing money to various degrees. Those athletes are already getting a (partial) free ride and free training in something they like to do. Nothing is stopping the very top non-revenue sport athletes from getting their own deals.

Are there non-revenue athletes where improving the team a bit would turn it into a revenue sport (by more than the amount spent)?
Click to expand...
I guess where I'm coming from is that I like to see the non-revenue sports get top athletes and win championships along with the revenue sports. There's a prestige factor in having top programs in non-revenues, particularly Olympic sports. Look at Stanford as an example.

On top of that, no one's stopping someone from making a donation that is earmarked for one of the revenue sports--it just has to be of a certain amount.
 
#17      

grue2

G
grue2
Ransom Stoddard said:
I guess where I'm coming from is that I like to see the non-revenue sports get top athletes and win championships along with the revenue sports. There's a prestige factor in having top programs in non-revenues, particularly Olympic sports. Look at Stanford as an example.

On top of that, no one's stopping someone from making a donation that is earmarked for one of the revenue sports--it just has to be of a certain amount.
Click to expand...
One of the prior notes said people are being prevented from earmarking donations unless they are of a certain size. That is the basis of my objection. I'd rather see the donation form, for all donations, require a specification of where it can be applied, with one of the boxes being "no restrictions." The check box should be mandatory IMO. (No saying unrestricted if they forget.)

Warning: Rant about non-revenue sports follows.

I've never cared about sports prestige, so I feel that the non-revenue athletes are already getting a sweetheart deal -- free coaching and facilities -- even if they get nothing else. For 99%+ of the participants, these ports are hobbies. There is no chance they will ever make a living at them. Given that resources are limited, I think that state money can be more effectively used elsewhere. I'd turn all non-revenue men's sports into clubs; *basic* space is provided and nothing else -- members must support themselves. I'd then make the equivalent cuts on the women's side, leaving just enough to satisfy Title X.

Wrt. the Olympics, if most schools followed the above path, then it would possibly make sense for about a half dozen schools to fund some Olympic sports, e.g. gymnastics. If only a few schools fund a given sport, then only the very best athletes in that sport, those who very well may make a career of it, will get a spot. It becomes a career path vs. a hobby path. This may improve the Olympic athlete quality produced. The top athletes will be surrounded by only the best other athletes vs. the coach needed to spend most of their time on basics with the less skilled.
 
#18      

BRucks

BRucks
BRucks
grue2 said:
One of the prior notes said people are being prevented from earmarking donations unless they are of a certain size. That is the basis of my objection. I'd rather see the donation form, for all donations, require a specification of where it can be applied, with one of the boxes being "no restrictions." The check box should be mandatory IMO. (No saying unrestricted if they forget.)

Warning: Rant about non-revenue sports follows.

I've never cared about sports prestige, so I feel that the non-revenue athletes are already getting a sweetheart deal -- free coaching and facilities -- even if they get nothing else. For 99%+ of the participants, these ports are hobbies. There is no chance they will ever make a living at them. Given that resources are limited, I think that state money can be more effectively used elsewhere. I'd turn all non-revenue men's sports into clubs; *basic* space is provided and nothing else -- members must support themselves. I'd then make the equivalent cuts on the women's side, leaving just enough to satisfy Title X.

Wrt. the Olympics, if most schools followed the above path, then it would possibly make sense for about a half dozen schools to fund some Olympic sports, e.g. gymnastics. If only a few schools fund a given sport, then only the very best athletes in that sport, those who very well may make a career of it, will get a spot. It becomes a career path vs. a hobby path. This may improve the Olympic athlete quality produced. The top athletes will be surrounded by only the best other athletes vs. the coach needed to spend most of their time on basics with the less skilled.
Click to expand...
I'd bet my beach house that a greater % of our men's golf and tennis players move on to play professionally than do our football players.
 
#19      

Illini in Italy

Illini in Italy
Illini in Italy
grue2 said:
One of the prior notes said people are being prevented from earmarking donations unless they are of a certain size. That is the basis of my objection. I'd rather see the donation form, for all donations, require a specification of where it can be applied, with one of the boxes being "no restrictions." The check box should be mandatory IMO. (No saying unrestricted if they forget.)

Warning: Rant about non-revenue sports follows.

I've never cared about sports prestige, so I feel that the non-revenue athletes are already getting a sweetheart deal -- free coaching and facilities -- even if they get nothing else. For 99%+ of the participants, these ports are hobbies. There is no chance they will ever make a living at them. Given that resources are limited, I think that state money can be more effectively used elsewhere. I'd turn all non-revenue men's sports into clubs; *basic* space is provided and nothing else -- members must support themselves. I'd then make the equivalent cuts on the women's side, leaving just enough to satisfy Title X.

Wrt. the Olympics, if most schools followed the above path, then it would possibly make sense for about a half dozen schools to fund some Olympic sports, e.g. gymnastics. If only a few schools fund a given sport, then only the very best athletes in that sport, those who very well may make a career of it, will get a spot. It becomes a career path vs. a hobby path. This may improve the Olympic athlete quality produced. The top athletes will be surrounded by only the best other athletes vs. the coach needed to spend most of their time on basics with the less skilled.
Click to expand...
Didn't the USSR try that approach? 😳
 
#20      

grue2

G
grue2
BRucks said:
I'd bet my beach house that a greater % of our men's golf and tennis players move on to play professionally than do our football players.
Click to expand...
Given the size of the teams, that is not a surprise. Football gets a pass because it earns money. Golf, a money losing sport, doesn't. If a high enough percentage of IL golf players go pro, then maybe IL is one of the ~6 schools that sponsor golf.
 
#21      

blackdog

blackdog
Champaign
blackdog
grue2 said:
One of the prior notes said people are being prevented from earmarking donations unless they are of a certain size. That is the basis of my objection. I'd rather see the donation form, for all donations, require a specification of where it can be applied, with one of the boxes being "no restrictions." The check box should be mandatory IMO. (No saying unrestricted if they forget.)

Warning: Rant about non-revenue sports follows.

I've never cared about sports prestige, so I feel that the non-revenue athletes are already getting a sweetheart deal -- free coaching and facilities -- even if they get nothing else. For 99%+ of the participants, these ports are hobbies. There is no chance they will ever make a living at them. Given that resources are limited, I think that state money can be more effectively used elsewhere. I'd turn all non-revenue men's sports into clubs; *basic* space is provided and nothing else -- members must support themselves. I'd then make the equivalent cuts on the women's side, leaving just enough to satisfy Title X.

Wrt. the Olympics, if most schools followed the above path, then it would possibly make sense for about a half dozen schools to fund some Olympic sports, e.g. gymnastics. If only a few schools fund a given sport, then only the very best athletes in that sport, those who very well may make a career of it, will get a spot. It becomes a career path vs. a hobby path. This may improve the Olympic athlete quality produced. The top athletes will be surrounded by only the best other athletes vs. the coach needed to spend most of their time on basics with the less skilled.
Click to expand...

Strong disagree to all of this as it's basically saying the whole point of college athletics is to make money for the university/state. If we follow this line of thinking why do we have any high school sports or extra circular activities? The students aren't going to be professionals in those fields for the most part, they're just hobbies, and they don't make money for the school.
 
#22      

grue2

G
grue2
blackdog said:
Strong disagree to all of this as it's basically saying the whole point of college athletics is to make money for the university/state. If we follow this line of thinking why do we have any high school sports or extra circular activities? The students aren't going to be professionals in those fields for the most part, they're just hobbies, and they don't make money for the school.
Click to expand...
I never intended to say that college athlethics should be about making money. I think all of the college sports are hobbies**, and the university should not be spending money on any of them. I would turn all of the sports into clubs. Any club that is good enough to charge for attendance to help offset the costs is welcome to do so. The result is FB/BB end up operating as businesses due to their success and scale - they can afford to pay coaches.

** Most of the BB players at UI seem to go play pro somewhere, at least for a few years. I think the percentage will drop significantly over the next 10 years as other nations players improve and fewer American players are imported.

For HS sports, I'd ditch any sport that is expensive or dangerous. Football is the first to go. Medicals scans are showing long term health consequences from the head hits, even in players who never play beyond HS. The cost/benefit also isn't there compared to other ways the schools could be spending the money. If schools wants to offer team sports, they can choose something like soccer which is much less dangerous/expensive.
 
#24      

grue2

G
grue2
Joel Goodson said:
Definitely not a big Harbaugh guy, but what he said today about the NCAA and players getting a share of the pie (beyond NIL) is spot on.
Click to expand...
Given the size of the UI athletic department's debt ($2-300M), I'm not sure there actually is a pie to share. There is a lot of revenue. There are also enormous facility costs. I saw an article last week saying that Memorial Stadium needed more significant repairs. (It showed on a federal list for potentially allocating funds to save historical stadiums.)

MI football is an extreme outlier. They have a huge stadium - 107k seats, and they sell out. Their crap seats start at $55 (total crap opponent) $65 (mostly crap opponent). Their cheapest Big10 seats are $75 vs. IL. The cheapest seats vs. better opponents are $100+.

For comparison, Memorial stadium seats 60k, crap seats/crap opponents start at $15. A Prime A seat against the best opponent is $105. $100 gets you a season ticket in the horseshoe, which is a much better seat than much of the MI stadium.

If MI sold every ticket at their cheapest big10 seat price (big undervalue), and IL sold every ticket at their Prime C price (overvalue), and both stadiums sold out (MI will, UIUC rarely does), MI would make about $5M more gate per game.