This board has somehow built this narrative that Michigan is waaaaay behind the rest of the nation when it comes to name, image and likeness. They are not.
They're behind the SEC and other traditionally shady programs, but the majority of college football is right where Michigan is...trying to figure out a sustainable model that doesn't compromise the integrity of the university, athletics department or get the school in trouble 5 years from now when the rules change.
How do I know? I work in college athletics, I work in the B1G. I'm closer to this stuff than most.
Make a list of all of the schools you see doing a bunch of NIL "stuff" or you think are ahead of Michigan. Make another list of every program you thought was "shady" prior to NIL...compare those lists.
This is a case of exploitation of the lack of oversight and the schools who were doing crooked before are just now more crooked, out in the open.
Like I have been saying, I haven't seen ONE person claim we are behind Notre Dame in NIL. Have you also noticed that? Why? Because Notre Dame operates like Michigan and not like Nebraska. Even USC isn't full bore with NIL.
So what are they doing?
1. Some of this is just about branding, some schools have branded an NIL program that really doesn't have much meat to it.
2. They're lying. They've come up with formulas based on social media impressions and whatnot to show what former players would've gotten if they had NIL...and they're basically giving the impression that these recruits will get the same or more. These schools have a menu or road map to this money (I've literally seen them). But the truth is...they don't know how much money the kid will get and what happens when the kid doesn't get all the money? He'll probably just transfer and it'll be someone else's problem. He may try to sue, but they're not guaranteeing anything legally. But they're definitely selling it like a guarantee.
3. They're letting their boosters (donors) run wild with no oversight so they can plead ignorance.
There are so much more, but I've wasted enough of your time.
Bomani Jones on the Right Time made an excellent point last week. If Texas was going into the SEC right now...it would be veeeeery interesting. Texas has always, like Michigan, tried to at least display some semblance of integrity, commitment to academics/amateurism, etc. - all that has to go out the window in the SEC or they won't survive on anything other than "we get to compete at the highest level."
They'll get kids because it's still Texas, but they won't ever be at the highest level in that league if they don't sell out.
Ohio State, Nebraska, those are the two schools in the B1G with the most robust NIL programs. Those were the two schools who openly SEC'd things before NIL. During COVID, when teams were supposed to be shut down? They were still practicing until it was clear the season was over. When it came back, they were back practicing before everyone else. (See some of the stuff Arizona St. was doing)
Michigan has always done this balancing act, this is no different. But Michigan is right there with the majority of the country and behind the SEC, Ohio State, Clemson, and a few others. Which is in large part where they've been for the past 20 years.
Last, ask yourself this. If a kid goes on a visit to OSU and they tell him he can get $750k if he goes there. He goes to Texas A&M and they say he's worth $550k-700k. Bama says cost of living is low but we're a national brand and you'll get $500k.
When that kid comes to Michigan and says, what can I get here? And Michigan says "well, there is no true way calculate this stuff, don't let these other schools lie to you, right now no one knows what's going on and anyone who acts like they do is lying."
...why are we surprised when the kids top 3 is OSU, TAMU, Bama (beyond all the wins)? These are 17 year olds and not all of them, but many of are coming from homes that could use some money. At that point they are going to go with whoever has the clearest road map. Whatever feels like the safest bet to the money. Michigan is out, no question.
They're behind the SEC and other traditionally shady programs, but the majority of college football is right where Michigan is...trying to figure out a sustainable model that doesn't compromise the integrity of the university, athletics department or get the school in trouble 5 years from now when the rules change.
How do I know? I work in college athletics, I work in the B1G. I'm closer to this stuff than most.
Make a list of all of the schools you see doing a bunch of NIL "stuff" or you think are ahead of Michigan. Make another list of every program you thought was "shady" prior to NIL...compare those lists.
This is a case of exploitation of the lack of oversight and the schools who were doing crooked before are just now more crooked, out in the open.
Like I have been saying, I haven't seen ONE person claim we are behind Notre Dame in NIL. Have you also noticed that? Why? Because Notre Dame operates like Michigan and not like Nebraska. Even USC isn't full bore with NIL.
So what are they doing?
1. Some of this is just about branding, some schools have branded an NIL program that really doesn't have much meat to it.
2. They're lying. They've come up with formulas based on social media impressions and whatnot to show what former players would've gotten if they had NIL...and they're basically giving the impression that these recruits will get the same or more. These schools have a menu or road map to this money (I've literally seen them). But the truth is...they don't know how much money the kid will get and what happens when the kid doesn't get all the money? He'll probably just transfer and it'll be someone else's problem. He may try to sue, but they're not guaranteeing anything legally. But they're definitely selling it like a guarantee.
3. They're letting their boosters (donors) run wild with no oversight so they can plead ignorance.
There are so much more, but I've wasted enough of your time.
Bomani Jones on the Right Time made an excellent point last week. If Texas was going into the SEC right now...it would be veeeeery interesting. Texas has always, like Michigan, tried to at least display some semblance of integrity, commitment to academics/amateurism, etc. - all that has to go out the window in the SEC or they won't survive on anything other than "we get to compete at the highest level."
They'll get kids because it's still Texas, but they won't ever be at the highest level in that league if they don't sell out.
Ohio State, Nebraska, those are the two schools in the B1G with the most robust NIL programs. Those were the two schools who openly SEC'd things before NIL. During COVID, when teams were supposed to be shut down? They were still practicing until it was clear the season was over. When it came back, they were back practicing before everyone else. (See some of the stuff Arizona St. was doing)
Michigan has always done this balancing act, this is no different. But Michigan is right there with the majority of the country and behind the SEC, Ohio State, Clemson, and a few others. Which is in large part where they've been for the past 20 years.
Last, ask yourself this. If a kid goes on a visit to OSU and they tell him he can get $750k if he goes there. He goes to Texas A&M and they say he's worth $550k-700k. Bama says cost of living is low but we're a national brand and you'll get $500k.
When that kid comes to Michigan and says, what can I get here? And Michigan says "well, there is no true way calculate this stuff, don't let these other schools lie to you, right now no one knows what's going on and anyone who acts like they do is lying."
...why are we surprised when the kids top 3 is OSU, TAMU, Bama (beyond all the wins)? These are 17 year olds and not all of them, but many of are coming from homes that could use some money. At that point they are going to go with whoever has the clearest road map. Whatever feels like the safest bet to the money. Michigan is out, no question.
Last edited:
