NIL = More Parity

The big fallacy about the NIL os that it does not create more 5 or 4 stars, instead it redistribute them based on what the market (sponsors of those schools) are willing to offer.

I see this distribution significantly hurting small market schools like Alabama and LSU. Instead of landing their 10-20 5 stars with “handshake deals”, many will look elsewhere.

Their top talent will be redistributed to schools who are willing to pay for them.

Those schools are full of low income t-shirt fans and are not located in big cities, with big business sponsors

I see Texas- Austin being a huge winner in the NIL environment BUT they were top 5 in recruiting before NIL.

The University of Houston can be a HUGE winner if Houston area businesses buy into it.

NIL is a game of redistributing top talent not creating new talent

The only way that UH wins is by winning football games. That is the solution to everything.

1 Like

Some schools have NILs in place that pay players tens of thousands of dollars for simply being on the roster. NIL doesn’t create balance and competitive play across the college landscape, it distorts it and weakens it. Players that would transfer for more playing time are now having to decide between money and playing time.

1 Like

Stars are in the eyes of the beholder.

I think the transfer portal causes more parity than NIL.


There never, ever has been parity. Period.
There never will be parity. Period.
The goal posts will always move.
Lucy will always pull the football…


4-0 Kansas seems to like the new environment

UH has a difficult time getting the Houston area businesses into buying tickets . . . . .

I see NIL more as which team has the most big money donors who can donate to a fund to pay players. It doesn’t seem like marketability and value to business has as much to do with it (though there is the tide QB on Nissan and fansville commercials)