re: Class of 2026 Football Recruiting

AU thinks the NIL money to a player has to also count in the 21.5 Million profit sharing per year. No other school is seeing it this way. What am I missing and why is AU interpreting it this way. You would think the Bama's of the world have already gotten the NCAA's blessings on what the rule means. AU is claiming it will all unfold by 8/1 which is the first day you can offer a dollar amount to a player out of the 21.5 M. And what happens if an incoming true frosh makes more than a starter. I assume new recruits starting in the 2026 class could not official receive anything until 8/1/26 even though a dollar amount could be presented to them 8/1/25. Any thoughts

Also not sure where the 8/1 is coming from. AU fans state that is when they can officially offer in writing but info out there is revenue sharing started n July 1.

quote:

---

The NIL Portal will be used as a resource for College Athletes as they navigate dealing with the NIL deals they're offered on a daily basis. The athletes will report their NIL deals to ensure they're in compliance with NCAA rules as any deal worth more than $600 needs to be approved by the clearinghouse. The portal will serve as a resource for the athletes with information for the athletes as well as the chance to connect with service providers.

July 1st, 2025: First Date for direct institutional revenue sharing to student-athletes

---

I also read that no one is convinced the CSC and the new system has the teeth legally to prevent any player from not submitting his NIL deals. NIL deals from endorsements are still legal and do not count against the cap.

Also, the school can pay an athlete directly and not have it go against the cap.

quote:

---

The new agreement allows players to sign outside contracts. However, a new wrinkle requires NIL contracts to be sent through a clearinghous called NIL Go, an online portal built in partnership with Deloitte, to ensure "fair market value" and valid business purpose based on an actual endorsement. For example, a rotation offensive lineman could potentially make six figures in the NIL era. While are still allowed to do that with a revenue-sharing contract, future NIL contracts are expected to be far more stringent. Additionally, the CSC has the right to prohibit NIL compensation from a group it classifies as "Associated Entities or Individuals," which would seem to mean boosters.

Take a player like Cooper Flagg at Duke. His brand value would be considered high for Duke, which could allow the school to pay him for an endorsement without pulling from their revenue sharing money.

---

I don’t know what they’re confused by.

The revenue sharing allows up to the 21.5 million across all sports, given directly by the school. The athletes are still allowed to profit off their NiL, but only in legitimate ways(aka no more new Lamborghini and 4 million dollars for “appearances”). Your NiL income outside of revenue sharing is submitted to a clearinghouse to authenticate its legitimacy.


What Alabama is offering that they aren’t is pro development(we actually send players to the NFL), and a much bigger brand that allows for more legitimate NiL opportunities outside of revenue sharing. So yeah, we’re probably offering Cederian Morgan the same money, but he knows his development and star opportunity is a lot bigger at UA.

AU hasn’t had a guy who’d have been in ads outside of the greater Auburn area in 15 years. It’s not rocket science. You’ve got one big billionaire booster who is aging and fat. Better figure out what’s next pretty quickly.

Barners were born morons. I hate Barners. Some say hate is too strong of a word. No it isn't.

quote:

---

Cam is really the only guy they've had with that kind of star power since Bo. They have always been a purely regional program that national media is only going to care about if they're really good or embroiled in scandal

---

Exactly this. Just since Cam, we’ve had Richardson, Henry, Hurts, Tua, Devonta, Bryce and Milroe(despite his play) and Ryan Williams that have been “national ad” type players(NiL wasn’t around for some but they’d have been). That’s multiple players at multiple positions. Guys like Surtain, Allen, Anderson and Minkah would’ve had big regional ads. We offer more opportunity more consistently because no one nationally really cares about you hoping to go 9-3 every 4 years and your head coach buyouts.

You don’t win enough to be Alabama, you don’t have brand recognition like Texas, you don’t have the alumni power of an aTm. You don’t even have the weird swamp people “allure” that the media gives to LSU where it’s cool to be a drunk redneck as long as you have a funny Cajun accent and wear beads.

You’ve got proximity to Atlanta and a billionaire atm machine that is 83 years old.

I think it is entirely possible that Jimmy has started pulling back his money to solidify his estate for whomever inherits it.

If it’s struck down then there’s 0 reason to do revenue sharing.

I don’t think it’s an anti-trust issue because the ncaa isn’t limiting players from profiting as much as they want or are able to. If your ability to earn money is contingent upon you playing as part of one of the ncaa football teams then they have some say in the legitimacy of those opportunities. Otherwise what’s to stop a player from suing the ncaa over being suspended for grade issues? Or suing a school for suspending him for poor conduct?

If you can make money doing ads for Dr Pepper for 3 years while not playing and still getting drafted then go for it! Or play for the UFL. But I think the ncaa and its member schools should have some say over what is expected of its athletes.

Nobody wants to hear it but the only way the stupid shite and lawsuits stop is with labor organization of the athletes and collective bargaining agreements between the players union and schools. There is no path forward that stands up to legal scrutiny where the schools can have a rational competitive system and act like the players aren’t employees.

quote:

---

Nobody wants to hear it but the only way the stupid shite and lawsuits stop is with labor organization of the athletes and collective bargaining agreements between the players union and schools. There is no path forward that stands up to legal scrutiny where the schools can have a rational competitive system and act like the players aren’t employees.

---

I agree. That’s the end game of all this and the sooner we rip the bandaid off and get to it the better.

quote:

---

I don’t think it’s an anti-trust issue because the ncaa isn’t limiting players from profiting as much as they want or are able to.

---

But the clearinghouse would and that's why it'll crumble at the first lawsuit. When a booster wants to pay a player 500,000 dollars to show up to a ribbon cutting at one of his businesses and the clearinghouse rejects it, the lawsuit will be filed the next day. And the player will win.