I may be wrong, but I think there are amenities that are available to the 85 scholarship players that aren't afforded to walk-ons.
The NCAA doesn’t require any differentiation between the amenities of scholarship players and walk on players. The school can change that at their discretion.
Gotcha. I just remembered it from the Basketball crowd when it came to making Jace Howard a walkon.
My nephew is a PWO at Washington. He gets everything the scholarship guys get except for, you know, the scholarship. He gets all the food and gear, etc.
And, like the scholarship players at Washington, he also got his kicked by Michigan last year.
J/k. That's a hell of an opportunity and I hope he enjoys it. Best of luck to him!
Does that include bagels with cream cheese, though?
yes...but lets be honest...outside of NY/NJ and the Detroit area, those probably aren't real bagels anyways.....and they probably slice them St Louis style.
Oy Vay
This was true when I was a walk-on at the University of Toledo in 1992.
Tutoring was available unlimited for scholly players, I could get one per week.
Team training table (FOOD) was limited to scholly players unlimited and they got meal cards for the cafeterias that I did not.
I can barely follow but I think the answer is a clear 'no' because it's not the school actually paying the players with NIL money.
I don’t think you did follow. What I’m saying is a school can guarantee a player free room board tuition etc. and all other amenities granted to the team, as a walk on. All of the same financial support, and other amenities just as a scholarship player. The “classification” as a walk on being the only differentiation
The school can't guarantee that without a scholarship because that's all they can do but yes, donors/sponsors can pay a player the equivalent of a full ride (or more or less) as NIL. Remember the school isn't doing the NIL paying.
I've had friends bring this up and I do think it makes the 85 scholarship count somewhat irrelevant.
However, I don't think it makes a lot of economical sense to pay the 86th (or 87th or 88th) best guy on a football team something like $250,000-$500,000 over the course of four years. He's unlikely to make an impact on the field so that money is probably better spent on getting the 4 star $2M instead of $1.5M to make sure you lock him up.
My guess is at that point, ie for the 86th player, the value of the scholarship is more than the football "value" he brings to the team (on average). But could you see smaller than scholarship equivalent deals to get more guys to walk on at big schools? Perhaps. I could see guys perhaps being willing forego a scholarship to pay tuition and give it a go at a big school if they were offered even just some money.
We see that already with guys turning down low level scholarships to walk on at big programs. There will probably be a little bit of money thrown at guys to do that, but probably not enough to fully cover the cost of school initially.
Most the kickers and long snappers start out as walk-ons. This would help recruit those positions even better, since they would have little in the way of expenses. Very nearly a full ride at that point.
Still probably a waste of money, no offense to long snappers. Too abundant of a skill that isn't high leverage enough to pay much for it, when the money could be spent elsewhere.
I am probably uniformed (no I am actually uniformed) but I don't think that NIL is a finite pool of money. It's seems to me to both-and not either-or. If getting a bench like Michigan had before the 85 limit was put into effect I think that there would be an incentive for interested parties to pay the 85+ers well and pay the top players big money too.
What I’m saying is a school can guarantee a player free room board tuition etc. and all other amenities granted to the team, as a walk on.
Now I’m curious what you think a scholarship is. You’re literally saying put the kid on scholarship but don’t call it a scholarship. Yeah that’s not how it works at all.
I’m saying they can get a four year NIL deal with all the benefits of a scholarship without having to classify it as a scholarship for the 85 scholarship limit. Think over signing without having to process players out.
As the poster above commented, walk-ons don't receive some of the benefits of scholarship players like training table. And walk-ons have almost no roster security--they can be cut at any time unlike scholarship players. I think Preferred walk-ons usually get only a guarantee of one year on the roster with an opportunity to earn and maintain a roster spot or scholarship in the second year. Out-of-state tuition is expensive as well.
But the bigger question for me is that any player good enough to command the amount of NIL money to pay for an out-of-state scholarship is probably going to request a scholarship in addition to NIL money as some other school will most likely offer it. Why go through the hassle of walking on? I could see some borderline scholarship in-state prospects opting for it as in-state tuition is lower, but I don't see how this would be a trend.
OK, so add enough NIL dollars that it provides the same medical, support and financial considerations for food etc. that scholly players get. You’re missing the point, a walk on athlete can be given the same or more financial dollars that the school’s scholly players get, right?
In theory, yes. But practically, this would not happen. Why would a school's booster pay a walk-on more than a scholarship player? If a player was good enough to warrant a $50,000-$100,000 per year NIL contract, it is most likely another school would pony up similar money with a scholarship too.
I could only see this scenario playing out similar to preferred walk-ons today--some borderline player without a scholarship bets on himself instead of playing for a MAC school with a scholarship.
When you’re getting down the 85th and 86 scholarship, do you think any college coach in America wouldn’t sign the 86th player too?
I don't understand your point. Of course they would, but it is also sort of a free market. Why would a player good enough to get a scholarship and earn NIL accept that agreement if he can get it from another school? Out-of-state tuition is expensive, and the cost would be significant out-of-pocket for a walk-on who could get a scholarship at another school in addition to NIL. Why deal with the hassle from the player's perspective? That's why I think this kind of proposal would only be appealing to the similar kind of players who get preferred walk-on offers today.
See any of the Glasgow brothers as exhibit A for why a booster might want to pay a walk on more than the 85th scholarship player.
That's a bad example. No one valued them enough at the time to give them a scholarship so there wasn't enough information for a booster to want to pay anything for them either. You're only able to say that with hindsight but they are rare outliers.
And once they showed they were valuable contributors to the team, voila, they had a scholarship. If Michigan had chosen not to offer them a scholarship at that point, they could have considered transferring to a school that would have offered them one (even more so now that immediate eligibility for transfers is now the rule).
In addition to what others have said, I'm pretty sure that any player who actually plays in a game (maybe a certain number of games?) is by default considered a scholarship player. It may be deferred to the next year, but I'm pretty sure you cant just go around playing a bunch of players that aren't counted in the 85 player limit.
Walk-ons can play in games and not count toward your scholarship count. Players don't count toward the scholarship limit unless they are on scholarship for football or any other sport at the school.
You’re missing the entirety of the point? There would be no scholarship limit. The NCAA can’t limit the number of walk-on‘s
I don't think anyone is missing your points. Rather, they are pointing out the holes in your idea and you're not getting it.
Schools can't pay walkons in order to get around the NCAA and conference scholarship limits. If you want to get into trouble for how you use NIL cash, that's one way to do it.
Some players good enough to get scholarships at smaller programs already walkon to Michigan and other big schools. They haven't needed guarantees, just an opportunity.
Do you really think Michigan is going to guarantee walkons NIL $$ when they aren't guaranteeing their scholarship players any?
any player who actually plays in a game (maybe a certain number of games?) is by default considered a scholarship player.
Incorrect. Every year there are starting players across the country who aren't on scholarship. Nebraska under Osborne would play a huge number of walk-ons.
You may be thinking of the rule that a two-sport athlete is counted against the football total.
Yeah that’s just completely wrong
Never thought of that, but I'm sure Jimbo has. TAMU's walk-on class is going to be comprised purely of 4-star recruits.
I’m sure there are programs looking into this and trying to find a way to make for an advantage.
OP, I don't know that the lede was ever buried here. What you're suggesting is a very logical outcome if UM's money cannon ends up being BIG, yes, but I don't think it's the most important one.
He suggesting he missed the 200 posters and 10+ OPs that have said the same thing the past few years. Maybe this led us a new discovery for him?
The Nebraska strategy. Brilliant.
Do the math on the cost of a four-year tuition/room/board NIL deal and then ask yourself if the NIL dollar daddies are likely to think the 86th player on a team is worth that much of a contribution.
Even if they do think they are worth the investment, your competition can offer a scholarship + NIL money. And other players on the team are going to expect a similar NIL deal, scholarship or not. I think it would be against the rules to discriminate based on scholarship status. The NIL program is technically supposed to be separate from the university and athletic programs. It would be hard to justify how walk-ons would be making more than scholarship players in NIL deals in this scenario--that would be the baseline NIL deal for almost everyone on the roster if they were the 86th best player.
The point here is that you don't do this for the 86th best player on the roster. The NIL money people offer an acceptable sack o' cash to the, say, WR3, with the understanding that they'll throw in full cost of attendance if they don't take a scholarship. Then the team can offer scholarships to the guys they would have been getting if the limit were still 100.
Well, if you read what remains of the NCAA Handbook, the word "scholarship" is what opens the door to those benefits, so you would actually need to have one to get said benefits. I suppose that, in theory, you could have a player comparably set up through other means such as donors / NIL agreements / etc..., but without the actual designation, you don't get things like access to the training table (or many other items paid for by the university) and you probably would not be afforded similar roster security unless you were superb perhaps, especially as you are not part of the count unless you are in fact on scholarship.
Other than a scholarship, which is huge. They get the same benefits I think. Pat FitGerald did say today that the transfer portal, has destroyed the walk on getting a scholarship. Which is sad.
But it's also vastly improved the "walk-on going somewhere else where he'll get a scholarship to play" market.
If somebody is good enough to make that much money, they're going to get more money to be in the top 85 at another school. I think your point is that a hypothetical Texas A&M juggernaut NIL school could hypothetically pay their 86th best player $200,000 or something to come there with no scholarship. But in reality, I think they'd rather use that $200,000 to add more money to a guy who would be at the top of their board. They don't need 86 bad asses. They don't play that many. And if the top of their talent pool is that good, then they'll have plenty of scholarships opening up from players leaving early and players at the bottom half of the roster transferring elsewhere. It's just not realistic.
This is kind of the point I was trying to make.
1. The OP is ignoring that there are a bunch of schools with boosters with bags of money to offer in NIL. If a player is good enough to warrant a $50,000-$100,000/per year NIL deal to cover the cost of scholarship, they are probably good enough to get a better deal from a school willing to allocate them a scholarship. Passing up a scholarship to a school is like giving up a $50,000+ per year NIL deal. It's the same reason why few athletes would pass up a scholarship to walk-on. Why pass up a better deal from another school?
2. NIL money is not unlimited especially when competing against other rival schools. The $100,000/year the OP is proposing be spent on the 86th player on the roster might be better used competing for players 1 through 50 against other schools or you could risk losing out on the best players in order to secure the 86th player. And because NIL is a benefit outside the university and athletic department, I doubt many scholarship players would be cool with walk-ons making more in NIL money than them.
There might come a point where the money coming into the power schools completely dwarfs the rest of FBS, but I think at that point you would probably see those conferences break off from the NCAA and most likely increase scholarship limits and possibly include revenue sharing with players.
Through May 31st the average annual deal for football players through NIL is $3711. That's $3,711 PER YEAR. I think people are out of touch on the amount of money that most athletes will get. Certainly not enough to justify paying the 86th person on the roster $40K per year to cover tuition and room a board.
Is this a new true crime podcast?