NorthKCHawk
Well-Known Member
Hear me out. To my understanding, the NCAA/conferences are really not regulating NIL deals in any meaningful way. Collectives are being established or big boosters are just writing checks directly to players. But, at a minimum, there has to be at least the appearance of a quid pro quo and I have to believe that any NIL deal has to be reduced to a written contract.
Many service contracts, for instance, employment agreements, contain length of service provisions. That is especially so when the employer fronts capital for education or signing bonuses or moving expenses. Usually those provisions provide that if you do not stay in your position for a year or two or whatever, you have to pay back the money that was fronted.
So, in the NIL world, when Iowa collective or a booster puts together a contract, why not have a provision that states that if the player leaves before 4 years, he has to pay the money he was fronted back? Would that stop all movement? No. Rich schools could buy out those deals or the kid could say, "sue me." But, it would slow things down and create a disincentive to freely skip to greener pastures after the school invested much resources into developing the player.
I think this type of provision could really help a developmental school like Iowa. Say we give a Linderbaum a 100,000 NIL deal as a sophomore and then he blows up to the #1 center in the country and USC tries to lure him away with a boatload of cash. Iowa would have some level of protection given the NIL contract.
As many of you know, I think unregulated NIL is terrible for college sports generally (I know many of you disagree), but this COULD be a silver lining of sorts.
Many service contracts, for instance, employment agreements, contain length of service provisions. That is especially so when the employer fronts capital for education or signing bonuses or moving expenses. Usually those provisions provide that if you do not stay in your position for a year or two or whatever, you have to pay back the money that was fronted.
So, in the NIL world, when Iowa collective or a booster puts together a contract, why not have a provision that states that if the player leaves before 4 years, he has to pay the money he was fronted back? Would that stop all movement? No. Rich schools could buy out those deals or the kid could say, "sue me." But, it would slow things down and create a disincentive to freely skip to greener pastures after the school invested much resources into developing the player.
I think this type of provision could really help a developmental school like Iowa. Say we give a Linderbaum a 100,000 NIL deal as a sophomore and then he blows up to the #1 center in the country and USC tries to lure him away with a boatload of cash. Iowa would have some level of protection given the NIL contract.
As many of you know, I think unregulated NIL is terrible for college sports generally (I know many of you disagree), but this COULD be a silver lining of sorts.