Everything you need to know about NCAA NIL debate

In the weeks leading up to the Supreme Court decision, several high-profile conference commissioners were gathering support for a plan that would help them avoid some of that legal exposure. Their new proposal has gained a good deal of support since the court’s ruling, and is now the most likely option to be adopted in the coming.

In the proposal, schools located in states that laws going into effect next are instructed to follow state laws. There are currently seven states scheduled to enact NIL legislation starting July 1. There could be up to five more that join that group before the end of the month.

In states that don’t have an imminent law, each individual school would be responsible for coming up with its own set of NIL policies based on a very loose set of guidelines from the NCAA: Don’t let boosters pay athletes, and don’t let any endorsement deals serve as recruiting inducements.

While most athletic departments have some infrastructure in anticipation of the coming rule changes, individual schools were expecting the NCAA or the federal government to provide more detailed instructions on how to thread the tricky needle of allowing athletes to make money while making sure they remain amateurs. That leaves athletic department employees with roughly a week to try to turn a considerable amount of gray area into rules that are as black and white as possible and then come up with a plan to monitor and enforce them.


“NCAA: Don’t let boosters pay athletes, and don’t let any endorsement deals serve as recruiting inducements.”

Sounds like a fiasco in the making. Someone will find a creative way to subvert these murky
intended rules.


“NCAA: Don’t let boosters pay athletes, and don’t let any endorsement deals serve as recruiting inducements.”

Anyone who believes this won’t happen still believes in Santa. Another nail in the coffin for G5s


Wait! Are you saying there’s no Santa?


Anyone who believes this isn’t already happening still believes in Santa. The big problem now is the athletes don’t even get most of the money. Can finally start cutting out those AAU/HS coaches, parents, random uncles, etc. that are selling players without the player even knowing.


Agree this is happening to some degree already, as you describe, in under the table deals, that periodically get outed and penalized by the NCAA. The new world we find ourselves in may
be unenforceable, at which point college football
has morphed into something different.This could
be a dramatic change. Who will benefit ( school wise) and athlete wise is unclear to me. As this progresses, based upon USSC opinion, there are no “limits”. I think kids, with money on the hip, at their
age of maturity, and being away from home for first time, is a recipe for disaster in many cases.

But I’ll confess I may just be over reacting and being
overly pessimistic. Time will tell.



Glad to see UH on the ball and keeping it all in-house. Now let’s see if this NIL works in UH’s favor being in the fourth largest media market.


Well that all sounds and looks real good. If I was
young and athleticly gifted I’d be induced to give this a look.

Now some P5 riff raft will probably file a complaint because Bauer is involved.

1 Like

I hate to be a “Debbie Downer” but I smell something fishy in this whole “Liftoff” operation and I am sure all other universities are doing something similar.

Athletes and Parents, don’t be half smart. Be all smart.

I love my university when it acts great. This does not pass the smell test. Keep your own counsel.

As long as their own counsel doesn’t run them afoul of NCAA rules that would jeopardize eligibility, that’s fine. I do not think UH is trying to screw these kids, just the opposite, I think UH is trying to help them maximize their opportunities in this new era.


I always think the worst. It is my nature.

You’re a better man than I, Gunga Din.

That’s OK Rudyard, just try to overcome negativity with optimism.

As noted above, UH is also partnering with opendorse in the venture. Looks like they have been around for a bit.


I am mostly a very optimistic person, but I see two very (IMHO) major problems upcoming . . . . . First, deep pocket avid sports alums will be stepping up legally to support their favorite athletes (most likely promising incentives prior to high schoolers prior to signing) and the “stars” on the team will be getting “big money” while those that do the “grunt work” will get zip . . . . . Can you say jealousy and division because of ? ? ? ? ?

I think it will help spread out talent on the margins because if building name brand likeness is now a legal incentive then you might have a easier chance to do that if you’re say a 4- star RB at a school like Houston where you can get on the field your freshman year on the 2-deep than playing special teams and mop up duty for years 1 and 2 at Alabama. It’ll marginally help.


UH is only doing what UT (LEVERAGE) and Aggy (AMPLIFY) are doing. They even all pretty much sound the same. I’m guessing the schools are collaborating and working to be in alignment on this stuff.

My understanding is that the state requires endorsements to go through the schools, which is for the athletes’ protection.

The issue is our these firms that our “helping” the university and students getting paid by the university a flat fee from university sources or to they plan to exact a fee or percentage from the kids.

I know I sound like Don Barzini at the meeting of the five families.

I think it is the best thing that ever happened to us. We are in a large market, so name and likeness has a chance to have more value than in a place like Arkansas. Now we have to win and resonate in the market so our star players can get some cash.

We have been living in a system that created a glass ceiling for the University of Houston. Blowing it up is a good thing.

1 Like