SIAP: Rutgers NIL collective announces NIL deal for every player on its FB, MBB, WBB teams

Submitted by FrankMurphy on January 27th, 2023 at 12:34 PM

Though it remains to be seen if they can follow through on their ambitious promises (remember the still-unfolding Jaden Rashada situation at Florida), the deal is believed to be one of the few full-team funding arrangements in the country, and the only one in the B1G so far.

https://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/2023/01/rutgers-focused-nil-collective-says-every-football-basketball-player-will-sign-nil-deal-in-2023.html

bronxblue

January 27th, 2023 at 12:42 PM ^

That's cool if they pull it off but considering the Rutgers athletic department is deeply in the red I wouldn't necessarily count on a collective following through on such a large cash outflow.  

One of the big findings that came out from the Rashada situation is that some of these NIL collectives are less "NIL" and more about "getting rich people to give you money", which are different things.  There are probably some Rutgers players who could generate real cash value but your average walk-on isn't going to and so you're hoping some company or person just wants to throw money around so that Rutgers can win sports.  That's not something I'd necessarily bank on if I were these schools.

Joined: 11/22/2008

MGoPoints: 171843

bronxblue

January 27th, 2023 at 1:31 PM ^

No, I'm simply saying that a school that has issues financially might also have collectives that claim one thing but can't necessarily follow it up.  I'd be happy to be proven wrong but after what happened in Florida with the collective claiming it had funds it wound up not having I'm always a bit dubious.

Joined: 11/22/2008

MGoPoints: 171843

JMo

January 27th, 2023 at 2:12 PM ^

I think his point is that collectives (Rutgers, Florida, etc) by rule cannot be organized by the Athletic Departments. They are organized by independent third parties. In the case of Florida, it was an ex-Baseball player and some boosters. In one organizing group for Michigan it's Jared Wangler and others. 

Pointing to Rutgers overall athletic department woes as evidence of a poorly run collective, would be like pointing to Maryland's poorly run overall athletic department and then saying Kevin Plank isn't a good businessman and stay away from UnderArmour. 

In the end a Rutger athletic supporting collective might go under. It might thrive. But it wont really have anything to do with the overall health of the Rutger athletic department or how they internally balance their ledgers.

Joined: 12/14/2011

MGoPoints: 21033

Sambojangles

January 27th, 2023 at 5:25 PM ^

What you said is all true, however, there is lots of overlap between the boosters who fund these collectives and the people who fund the Athletic Department. Pre-NIL, the main job of an AD is to raise as much money from (mostly rich) people as possible - either direct donations, ticket sales, or advertising/"sponsorship." If the Rutgers athletics was in such bad shape because they couldn't do that well, I take it as evidence that fundraising from the same group through a collective will likely flop as well. 

It's true that it could be different this time. Maybe the financial problems come from the department spending too much, and the revenue is and was always there. Maybe whoever is in charge of the collective is more dynamic and better at getting wealthy buddies to part with their money than the development staff at the school itself. Maybe the Big Ten media exposure and money is finally having a noticeable impact after nearly a decade. Relative success in basketball and no longer being a football laughingstock could be the momentum they need to get fans excited. 

Joined: 12/15/2008

MGoPoints: 10996

MGlobules

January 27th, 2023 at 3:02 PM ^

This is only glancingly related to your post and response, but given that I come from Monmouth County, NJ, a UNESCO-protected domain that's gloriously beautiful* and wealthy, that my mom taught at the Rutgers Medical School for two decades, I don't bring the cynicism and ripe wit to critiques of Rutgers that some people do (not accusing you, Bronxblue, of anything necessarily). 

We're already seeing Rutgers bball have a breakthrough. We may even be seeing all the questionable "NY metro area" stuff bear some fruit. There's beaucoups of money in New Jersey, and Rutgers is the only state school. In time, I have zero doubt that they will be a solid, legitimate presence in the B1G. We have schools on both coasts now, and there will be days, just actuarially speaking, when they kick our a**. 

*I mention this because Jersey has a rep as a bit of an armpit, certainly is an industrial wasteland, slowly gentrifying, at NYC's outskirts. 

Joined: 11/17/2008

MGoPoints: 47817

ST3

January 27th, 2023 at 1:00 PM ^

The Rutgers collective had a goal of raising $1M. Six donors were going to match up to $500K. Sounds like they reached their goal. So assuming this isn’t a one-time deal, you’re looking at an NIL endowment fund of $1M. Further assuming taking out 4% annually so as not to reduce the endowment, we’re looking at $40k distributed annually to ~100 athletes. I hope the Rutger players enjoy their $400 bonuses. 
 

Joined: 09/11/2010

MGoPoints: 52569

bronxblue

January 27th, 2023 at 1:37 PM ^

I don't think they have met their goal yet.  From the posting

The collective is in the final days of the Million Dollar Match campaign it launched last month, where it looked to earn $500,000 in donations that would be matched dollar-for-dollar by a group of six anonymous donors. As of the 30th day of the drive, it announced it had received pledges of $324,842 via 224 monthly subscribers and 351 one-time contributions — including two separate $25,000 matches for men’s basketball from donor Dave Anderson — totaling $649,684 when accounting for the match. The drive will run through the end of the month.

So it's a bit of a ways away, though.  We'll see if they hit that $1M number.

They also play a bit fast-and-loose with the deal breakdown; again per the post

Newman declined to discuss how much the deals will be worth, how long each will run for and whether they will be one-time or recurring, saying it will vary on a case-by-case basis by the sport and athlete.

So yeah, this feels like "star players will get a lot of money and maybe the walk-on gets the equivalent of a Chipotle meal"

Joined: 11/22/2008

MGoPoints: 171843

rice4114

January 27th, 2023 at 2:22 PM ^

Ah good ole NIL

Where you get nothing for your NIL being on TV 12+ Saturdays a year but some oil exec can funnel you $1 mil a year. 

Also Michigan where we dont do Pay for Play but we also dont do Play for Pay either.

NCAA is eventually going to be obliterated for standing in the way between the athletes and their share of TV revenue. It will happen someday suddenly and then just be matter of fact "of course kids are getting paid for being on tv" and we will all wonder how these schools got away with it for so long.

Joined: 08/26/2010

MGoPoints: 47387

WirlingDirvish

January 27th, 2023 at 1:42 PM ^

SIAP == Sorry If Already Posted But I'm To Lazy To Verify. Seriously, if its already posted then you are gonna get flayed regardless of the SIAP disclaimer. If it isn't already posted then you just look lazy.

Other than that, there are rumors that Jim is pushing for a "base salary" for all football team members in the 40k/yr range. This won't help much with the 5*s, but should help us pick whatever 3*s we want, and should be a big help to us getting our last minute backup plans if the main recruit falls thru.

Joined: 07/24/2009

MGoPoints: 5107

Leaders And Best

January 27th, 2023 at 3:40 PM ^

Michigan's football players are probably making more from annual bowl game swag and Jordan team merch than Rutgers players will be getting in this NIL deal. It's a nice PR statement Schiano can waive at recruits I guess.

Joined: 09/09/2009

MGoPoints: 22529