I agree.Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Mon Dec 26, 2022 6:02 pmNIL collectives are a sham. A friend has been the lead donor for a major hoops program. What the system has evolved into isn’t what administrators and athletic staffs had in mind. I don’t believe you will see Ivy League schools looking to find a way to pay athletes to play for their schools. I may be wrong but I don’t see it. You need to be paid to play squash at Harvard? Really?Wheels wrote: ↑Mon Dec 26, 2022 2:50 pm Curious about NIL in the Ivy League and hoping to hear perspectives from you all on this.
My belief is that Ivies could totally crush the NIL game in non-rev sports because of the amazing alumni networks across the schools. However, my sense is that the Ivy administrators have kept NIL at an arm's length. It's not that they'll say collectives can't be established as much as they have yet to actively encourage programs from having collectives set up.
What do you all hear among the respective programs you support?
I don't think they will stand in the way of their athletes making an honest buck, but they're not going to compete for athletes on that basis. Way off brand.
I haven't heard yet whether any particular schools, or collectively the league, has a position on this, but it seems to me they definitely don't want boosters to be paying athletes to play and they may have some additional constraints on such, but playing with a particular sponsor's equipment, getting paid to do a clinic, will be the typical sort of NIL play for Ivy athletes. Basically just reducing the uptight compliance demands, allowing kids to make a few extra bucks from their passion...and if someone is particularly entrepreneurial, say on line, no big deal...
But it's not going to be the way they recruit versus big schools and sports factories...