What do most teams do with NIL and returning players? Do they wait for guys to get offers from other schools, and then try to compete with it (that is how it works in many sectors)? Are most teams pro-actively taking care of their own to promote culture and retention?
I honestly have no idea how programs handle returning players and NIL, and I would be curious to know more.
I think this is the issue. Anyone remember all the drama with Nico Lamaleava and Tennessee? Balked at his NIL deal and then went fishing to Oregon and Dan Lanning. Lanning called Huepel and both washed their hands of him. Ended up at UCLA, and with a new coach, who knows if he stays.
I'm curious where some coaches stand when a player dips his toe in the NIL to see if he can make more money but then retracts and wants to continue his college career with the program. It would make me question one's loyalty to the program and not sure I would want them back. However, when the player is a playmaker, I suppose you bite the bullet.
Biggest issues I see are the agreements made by NIL and the player. Apparently not a binding contract? Or is it? Seems like they are easily broken and one can play "Let's make a deal" with another school with no issue or penalty.
I can't recall the details but Georgia is suing one of their former recruits over payments he received right before he entered the portal and transferred to Mizzou. IF they win, it could set precedence over future issues with this.
And in the case with Matt Campbell, he wanted more money dispersed to his players in lieu of only paying certain players. I think that was some of the riff with he and Pollard. Allegedly Penn State pays all their players from top to bottom. I assume the payments vary.
I think I kinda follow KF's idea of what the NIL was. All players receiver equal payments or at least get paid. Granted, that requires a large amount of revenue. And for some programs is unrealistic.