NCAA and Prig5 anti trust settlement

[AppSt94]

Some of us really enjoy watching guys work together for 4 or 5 years to become a team. Not leave at the first sign of adversity or a better deal. We enjoy watching guys become loyal to each other and the university they play for. We fear that the days of those things are over and that something we really enjoy is gone. And if the universities start to pay the players, well then it is my money. In fact, if you consider the scholarships and all the perks, it’s already my money.

I can understand that, but in a way it has always been like it is now, for example, when Jerry Moore got the job at App, because Sparky Woods left for South Carolina, Half the team either left or quit. That is no reason to act that way, but the players had the right to do so. Just like the schools and coaches are going to do what is in their best interest, the players have the opportunity to do the same. Now it is easier for the players to do what is in their best interest. Think about Russel Wilson, Cam Newton, Randy Moss, Joe Flacco, or Baker Mayfield, etc. they did what was in their best interest.

I mean this past season UNC-Ch was complaining about one of their players not being able to play, however, when he was allowed to play they fell off of a cliff.

Being able to move from team to team may be in a players best interest and it may not be. Some of life’s best lessons are learned through patience and adversity. And some guys who think they are ready to start and be a big star need some additional coaching to really prosper. I have said numerous times that as a free market guy I can’t disagree with NIL payments but the only way I see this all working is if universities and conferences are able to make and enforce contracts with players.

So what does a contract look like between player and school? I get your point and in theory it sounds good, but I feel like you are looking at it through only one lense. Sure it would keep a guy like MCLeod going to Auburn. But it would also mean that you don’t get guys like Fletcher, Collins, Marshall, Funderburke, et al. It also means that you can’t free up a scholarship that’s being occupied by dead weight. It truly works both ways.

I look at the NFL and I see rules in place to try to keep things competitive. I believe the same thing will need to be done in college. A player signs a contract in the NFL and it restricts his movement. It doesn’t mean he can’t move it just creates consequences. As a possible example, let’s say a player accepts a scholarship at App and the next season, because of the exposure APP offered him he gets an NIL deal at another school. Apps contract with this player might require him to give App 10% of his NIL money. My point is that I see no way this works if the universities invest in the players and have absolutely no recourse if the player decides to leave. As for freeing up scholarships occupied by dead weight there is no reason the contract has to offer a 4 year ride. Division two schools have been offering “ make good “ scholarships for decades.

So you want a school that loses a player to receive some sort of compensation for the exodus. I understand your point. But what would that compensation amount to in terms of leveling the playing field? Let’s look at the two biggest losses that App has experienced thus far. McLeod got $250k from Auburn. So if he, or the collective have to compensate App 10% of the value, that’s another $25k. I phrased it that way because a 10% cut isn’t going to matter to the player because he isn’t likely the one that is going to pay it. Everett got $50k from Oklahoma. In that case, he didn’t leave to get paid. He left because his Dad didn’t want his baby boy to be benched so he basically forced Troy to quit the team. So let’s say App got $75k in compensation. What does that do to “even” the playing field?

[Saint3333]

Why do coaches have buyouts?

[bcoach]

I can understand that, but in a way it has always been like it is now, for example, when Jerry Moore got the job at App, because Sparky Woods left for South Carolina, Half the team either left or quit. That is no reason to act that way, but the players had the right to do so. Just like the schools and coaches are going to do what is in their best interest, the players have the opportunity to do the same. Now it is easier for the players to do what is in their best interest. Think about Russel Wilson, Cam Newton, Randy Moss, Joe Flacco, or Baker Mayfield, etc. they did what was in their best interest.

I mean this past season UNC-Ch was complaining about one of their players not being able to play, however, when he was allowed to play they fell off of a cliff.

Being able to move from team to team may be in a players best interest and it may not be. Some of life’s best lessons are learned through patience and adversity. And some guys who think they are ready to start and be a big star need some additional coaching to really prosper. I have said numerous times that as a free market guy I can’t disagree with NIL payments but the only way I see this all working is if universities and conferences are able to make and enforce contracts with players.

So what does a contract look like between player and school? I get your point and in theory it sounds good, but I feel like you are looking at it through only one lense. Sure it would keep a guy like MCLeod going to Auburn. But it would also mean that you don’t get guys like Fletcher, Collins, Marshall, Funderburke, et al. It also means that you can’t free up a scholarship that’s being occupied by dead weight. It truly works both ways.

I look at the NFL and I see rules in place to try to keep things competitive. I believe the same thing will need to be done in college. A player signs a contract in the NFL and it restricts his movement. It doesn’t mean he can’t move it just creates consequences. As a possible example, let’s say a player accepts a scholarship at App and the next season, because of the exposure APP offered him he gets an NIL deal at another school. Apps contract with this player might require him to give App 10% of his NIL money. My point is that I see no way this works if the universities invest in the players and have absolutely no recourse if the player decides to leave. As for freeing up scholarships occupied by dead weight there is no reason the contract has to offer a 4 year ride. Division two schools have been offering “ make good “ scholarships for decades.

So you want a school that loses a player to receive some sort of compensation for the exodus. I understand your point. But what would that compensation amount to in terms of leveling the playing field? Let’s look at the two biggest losses that App has experienced thus far. McLeod got $250k from Auburn. So if he, or the collective have to compensate App 10% of the value, that’s another $25k. I phrased it that way because a 10% cut isn’t going to matter to the player because he isn’t likely the one that is going to pay it. Everett got $50k from Oklahoma. In that case, he didn’t leave to get paid. He left because his Dad didn’t want his baby boy to be benched so he basically forced Troy to quit the team. So let’s say App got $75k in compensation. What does that do to “even” the playing field?

Honest question. How do we know how much these guys are getting.

[AppSt94]

Being able to move from team to team may be in a players best interest and it may not be. Some of life’s best lessons are learned through patience and adversity. And some guys who think they are ready to start and be a big star need some additional coaching to really prosper. I have said numerous times that as a free market guy I can’t disagree with NIL payments but the only way I see this all working is if universities and conferences are able to make and enforce contracts with players.

So what does a contract look like between player and school? I get your point and in theory it sounds good, but I feel like you are looking at it through only one lense. Sure it would keep a guy like MCLeod going to Auburn. But it would also mean that you don’t get guys like Fletcher, Collins, Marshall, Funderburke, et al. It also means that you can’t free up a scholarship that’s being occupied by dead weight. It truly works both ways.

I look at the NFL and I see rules in place to try to keep things competitive. I believe the same thing will need to be done in college. A player signs a contract in the NFL and it restricts his movement. It doesn’t mean he can’t move it just creates consequences. As a possible example, let’s say a player accepts a scholarship at App and the next season, because of the exposure APP offered him he gets an NIL deal at another school. Apps contract with this player might require him to give App 10% of his NIL money. My point is that I see no way this works if the universities invest in the players and have absolutely no recourse if the player decides to leave. As for freeing up scholarships occupied by dead weight there is no reason the contract has to offer a 4 year ride. Division two schools have been offering “ make good “ scholarships for decades.

So you want a school that loses a player to receive some sort of compensation for the exodus. I understand your point. But what would that compensation amount to in terms of leveling the playing field? Let’s look at the two biggest losses that App has experienced thus far. McLeod got $250k from Auburn. So if he, or the collective have to compensate App 10% of the value, that’s another $25k. I phrased it that way because a 10% cut isn’t going to matter to the player because he isn’t likely the one that is going to pay it. Everett got $50k from Oklahoma. In that case, he didn’t leave to get paid. He left because his Dad didn’t want his baby boy to be benched so he basically forced Troy to quit the team. So let’s say App got $75k in compensation. What does that do to “even” the playing field?

Honest question. How do we know how much these guys are getting.

Clark told me last year. It’s not privileged information. It’s just not common knowledge.

[appdaze]

Something that isnt talked about much is how wild things have gotten in high school around the nation. Tens of thousands of teen athletes transfer every year hunting for exposure, playtime, etc. These young men are taught from an early age that bouncing around is natural. With online schooling blurring the lines of what a student is, some of these teens are spending the school year travelling the nation playing sports while doing their work completely online. What we are seeing in the college ranks started with this generation in PeeWee when their parents plastered their highlights all over social media. And so the concept of teamate died.

[Bigdaddyg1]

I’m sure that many of you guys do WAY more research into this stuff than I will ever care to do. Frankly I’m about at the don’t give a shit level. I like to consider the numbers as a whole and as a whole what is the percentage of all college football players who are at the level of truly worth paying anything of significance? Take App for example and if you really break down the average 85 man roster how many could leave today and be replaced (theoretically) from the transfer portal pool? At least half? I don’t say this to disparage any of our young men but to only gauge the numbers. Of our 85 how many are really worth paying, say $50k at least a year? Do the same math for probably 60 or so FBS teams. I used 60 as approximately half the teams at our level. Are all of the 85 guys on the top 10 teams worth paying? You have guys on the Georgia roster who may never play a significant snap but serve roles in practice so I guess for them $100k for a practice squad guy is nothing. I think it will get worse if you see guys from our level leaving simply for the cash at the big schools even if they never really play. Are you seeing a guy pass up starting for a good G5 simply for cash at a P5 and accepting a role on a scout team?

[Mjohn1988]

I can understand that, but in a way it has always been like it is now, for example, when Jerry Moore got the job at App, because Sparky Woods left for South Carolina, Half the team either left or quit. That is no reason to act that way, but the players had the right to do so. Just like the schools and coaches are going to do what is in their best interest, the players have the opportunity to do the same. Now it is easier for the players to do what is in their best interest. Think about Russel Wilson, Cam Newton, Randy Moss, Joe Flacco, or Baker Mayfield, etc. they did what was in their best interest.

I mean this past season UNC-Ch was complaining about one of their players not being able to play, however, when he was allowed to play they fell off of a cliff.

Being able to move from team to team may be in a players best interest and it may not be. Some of life’s best lessons are learned through patience and adversity. And some guys who think they are ready to start and be a big star need some additional coaching to really prosper. I have said numerous times that as a free market guy I can’t disagree with NIL payments but the only way I see this all working is if universities and conferences are able to make and enforce contracts with players.

So what does a contract look like between player and school? I get your point and in theory it sounds good, but I feel like you are looking at it through only one lense. Sure it would keep a guy like MCLeod going to Auburn. But it would also mean that you don’t get guys like Fletcher, Collins, Marshall, Funderburke, et al. It also means that you can’t free up a scholarship that’s being occupied by dead weight. It truly works both ways.

I look at the NFL and I see rules in place to try to keep things competitive. I believe the same thing will need to be done in college. A player signs a contract in the NFL and it restricts his movement. It doesn’t mean he can’t move it just creates consequences. As a possible example, let’s say a player accepts a scholarship at App and the next season, because of the exposure APP offered him he gets an NIL deal at another school. Apps contract with this player might require him to give App 10% of his NIL money. My point is that I see no way this works if the universities invest in the players and have absolutely no recourse if the player decides to leave. As for freeing up scholarships occupied by dead weight there is no reason the contract has to offer a 4 year ride. Division two schools have been offering “ make good “ scholarships for decades.

So you want a school that loses a player to receive some sort of compensation for the exodus. I understand your point. But what would that compensation amount to in terms of leveling the playing field? Let’s look at the two biggest losses that App has experienced thus far. McLeod got $250k from Auburn. So if he, or the collective have to compensate App 10% of the value, that’s another $25k. I phrased it that way because a 10% cut isn’t going to matter to the player because he isn’t likely the one that is going to pay it. Everett got $50k from Oklahoma. In that case, he didn’t leave to get paid. He left because his Dad didn’t want his baby boy to be benched so he basically forced Troy to quit the team. So let’s say App got $75k in compensation. What does that do to “even” the playing field?

The numbers I used are just an example. The point is there has to be some compensation to the team who originally invested in the player. The market would find the right amount and it might vary from player to player. And even if the penalty was paid by the collective or the school it would still serve the purpose of compensating the original school for the loss and helping to regulate the movement of players.

[Mjohn1988]

I can understand that, but in a way it has always been like it is now, for example, when Jerry Moore got the job at App, because Sparky Woods left for South Carolina, Half the team either left or quit. That is no reason to act that way, but the players had the right to do so. Just like the schools and coaches are going to do what is in their best interest, the players have the opportunity to do the same. Now it is easier for the players to do what is in their best interest. Think about Russel Wilson, Cam Newton, Randy Moss, Joe Flacco, or Baker Mayfield, etc. they did what was in their best interest.

I mean this past season UNC-Ch was complaining about one of their players not being able to play, however, when he was allowed to play they fell off of a cliff.

Being able to move from team to team may be in a players best interest and it may not be. Some of life’s best lessons are learned through patience and adversity. And some guys who think they are ready to start and be a big star need some additional coaching to really prosper. I have said numerous times that as a free market guy I can’t disagree with NIL payments but the only way I see this all working is if universities and conferences are able to make and enforce contracts with players.

So what does a contract look like between player and school? I get your point and in theory it sounds good, but I feel like you are looking at it through only one lense. Sure it would keep a guy like MCLeod going to Auburn. But it would also mean that you don’t get guys like Fletcher, Collins, Marshall, Funderburke, et al. It also means that you can’t free up a scholarship that’s being occupied by dead weight. It truly works both ways.

I look at the NFL and I see rules in place to try to keep things competitive. I believe the same thing will need to be done in college. A player signs a contract in the NFL and it restricts his movement. It doesn’t mean he can’t move it just creates consequences. As a possible example, let’s say a player accepts a scholarship at App and the next season, because of the exposure APP offered him he gets an NIL deal at another school. Apps contract with this player might require him to give App 10% of his NIL money. My point is that I see no way this works if the universities invest in the players and have absolutely no recourse if the player decides to leave. As for freeing up scholarships occupied by dead weight there is no reason the contract has to offer a 4 year ride. Division two schools have been offering “ make good “ scholarships for decades.

If the same thing is done in college as in the NFL draft for a competitive advantage, all five star recruits will have to play for Kent State in 2024. https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/519126 ... ostseason/

It doesn’t have to be an all or nothing proposition. Elements of what the NFL does could be adapted to the situation.

[AppSt94]

Being able to move from team to team may be in a players best interest and it may not be. Some of life’s best lessons are learned through patience and adversity. And some guys who think they are ready to start and be a big star need some additional coaching to really prosper. I have said numerous times that as a free market guy I can’t disagree with NIL payments but the only way I see this all working is if universities and conferences are able to make and enforce contracts with players.

So what does a contract look like between player and school? I get your point and in theory it sounds good, but I feel like you are looking at it through only one lense. Sure it would keep a guy like MCLeod going to Auburn. But it would also mean that you don’t get guys like Fletcher, Collins, Marshall, Funderburke, et al. It also means that you can’t free up a scholarship that’s being occupied by dead weight. It truly works both ways.

I look at the NFL and I see rules in place to try to keep things competitive. I believe the same thing will need to be done in college. A player signs a contract in the NFL and it restricts his movement. It doesn’t mean he can’t move it just creates consequences. As a possible example, let’s say a player accepts a scholarship at App and the next season, because of the exposure APP offered him he gets an NIL deal at another school. Apps contract with this player might require him to give App 10% of his NIL money. My point is that I see no way this works if the universities invest in the players and have absolutely no recourse if the player decides to leave. As for freeing up scholarships occupied by dead weight there is no reason the contract has to offer a 4 year ride. Division two schools have been offering “ make good “ scholarships for decades.

So you want a school that loses a player to receive some sort of compensation for the exodus. I understand your point. But what would that compensation amount to in terms of leveling the playing field? Let’s look at the two biggest losses that App has experienced thus far. McLeod got $250k from Auburn. So if he, or the collective have to compensate App 10% of the value, that’s another $25k. I phrased it that way because a 10% cut isn’t going to matter to the player because he isn’t likely the one that is going to pay it. Everett got $50k from Oklahoma. In that case, he didn’t leave to get paid. He left because his Dad didn’t want his baby boy to be benched so he basically forced Troy to quit the team. So let’s say App got $75k in compensation. What does that do to “even” the playing field?

The numbers I used are just an example. The point is there has to be some compensation to the team who originally invested in the player. The market would find the right amount and it might vary from player to player. And even if the penalty was paid by the collective or the school it would still serve the purpose of compensating the original school for the loss and helping to regulate the movement of players.

So using your position that there needs to be compensation, we got 16 kids from the portal so we would owe those schools money for their investment lost, correct?

I get what you’re saying. It just feels like you are trying to enact measures that curb tampering which makes sense. But not everyone in the portal was enticed to go in for money. Does it happen? Yes. Is it rampant? Based on the fact that we landed 16 guys and none of them went in the portal on the advisement by App that a bag was coming says differently. Statistics show that more transfers from P5 to G5 than the other way around.

[bcoach]

and at what point do people start thinking their dollars are spent better elsewhere?

[AppSt94]

and at what point do people start thinking their dollars are spent better elsewhere?

That’s an excellent question and one that I think either resets this or destroys it.

[Saint3333]

and at what point do people start thinking their dollars are spent better elsewhere?

At the current trajectory while I don't plan on reducing giving to Yosef/tickets (1.5 away games annually), incremental donations are more likely to go to the COB and other charities I'm passionate about.

Right, wrong, or indifferent I have no plans of contributing to an NIL structure.

[bcoach]

and at what point do people start thinking their dollars are spent better elsewhere?

That’s an excellent question and one that I think either resets this or destroys it.

My exposure to Div III sports over the last few years and more directly last year makes me wonder.

[AppSt94]

and at what point do people start thinking their dollars are spent better elsewhere?

At the current trajectory while I don't plan on reducing giving to Yosef/tickets (1.5 away games annually), incremental donations are more likely to go to the COB and other charities I'm passionate about.

Right, wrong, or indifferent I have no plans of contributing to an NIL structure.

Completely understand this point of view and no one should try and convince you otherwise. I will say that this TIGMA collective is designed in a creative way to garner donations without one feeling like one is contributing.

[Bigdaddyg1]

and at what point do people start thinking their dollars are spent better elsewhere?

At the current trajectory while I don't plan on reducing giving to Yosef/tickets (1.5 away games annually), incremental donations are more likely to go to the COB and other charities I'm passionate about.

Right, wrong, or indifferent I have no plans of contributing to an NIL structure.

Completely understand this point of view and no one should try and convince you otherwise. I will say that this TIGMA collective is designed in a creative way to garner donations without one feeling like one is contributing.

How does the Collective work? Is there someone who decides how much to pay a certain player? Is that information shared with whoever contributes? Are there negotiations between the collective management and athletes? The whole thing just seems shady.

[AppSt94]

and at what point do people start thinking their dollars are spent better elsewhere?

At the current trajectory while I don't plan on reducing giving to Yosef/tickets (1.5 away games annually), incremental donations are more likely to go to the COB and other charities I'm passionate about.

Right, wrong, or indifferent I have no plans of contributing to an NIL structure.

Completely understand this point of view and no one should try and convince you otherwise. I will say that this TIGMA collective is designed in a creative way to garner donations without one feeling like one is contributing.

How does the Collective work? Is there someone who decides how much to pay a certain player? Is that information shared with whoever contributes? Are there negotiations between the collective management and athletes? The whole thing just seems shady.

High level explanation is that it depends.. Player gives coaches a figure. Coaches direct the player to the collectives, (TIGMA & 3333). The TIGMA collective is a bit more of a high level operation and has data driven analysis on the true valuation of the athlete. 3333 is external but more App centric involvement. I’m not sure if the investors have access to that but I would imagine they would. I give to TIGMA but I haven’t been given information.

[Mjohn1988]

So what does a contract look like between player and school? I get your point and in theory it sounds good, but I feel like you are looking at it through only one lense. Sure it would keep a guy like MCLeod going to Auburn. But it would also mean that you don’t get guys like Fletcher, Collins, Marshall, Funderburke, et al. It also means that you can’t free up a scholarship that’s being occupied by dead weight. It truly works both ways.

I look at the NFL and I see rules in place to try to keep things competitive. I believe the same thing will need to be done in college. A player signs a contract in the NFL and it restricts his movement. It doesn’t mean he can’t move it just creates consequences. As a possible example, let’s say a player accepts a scholarship at App and the next season, because of the exposure APP offered him he gets an NIL deal at another school. Apps contract with this player might require him to give App 10% of his NIL money. My point is that I see no way this works if the universities invest in the players and have absolutely no recourse if the player decides to leave. As for freeing up scholarships occupied by dead weight there is no reason the contract has to offer a 4 year ride. Division two schools have been offering “ make good “ scholarships for decades.

So you want a school that loses a player to receive some sort of compensation for the exodus. I understand your point. But what would that compensation amount to in terms of leveling the playing field? Let’s look at the two biggest losses that App has experienced thus far. McLeod got $250k from Auburn. So if he, or the collective have to compensate App 10% of the value, that’s another $25k. I phrased it that way because a 10% cut isn’t going to matter to the player because he isn’t likely the one that is going to pay it. Everett got $50k from Oklahoma. In that case, he didn’t leave to get paid. He left because his Dad didn’t want his baby boy to be benched so he basically forced Troy to quit the team. So let’s say App got $75k in compensation. What does that do to “even” the playing field?

The numbers I used are just an example. The point is there has to be some compensation to the team who originally invested in the player. The market would find the right amount and it might vary from player to player. And even if the penalty was paid by the collective or the school it would still serve the purpose of compensating the original school for the loss and helping to regulate the movement of players.

So using your position that there needs to be compensation, we got 16 kids from the portal so we would owe those schools money for their investment lost, correct?

I get what you’re saying. It just feels like you are trying to enact measures that curb tampering which makes sense. But not everyone in the portal was enticed to go in for money. Does it happen? Yes. Is it rampant? Based on the fact that we landed 16 guys and none of them went in the portal on the advisement by App that a bag was coming says differently. Statistics show that more transfers from P5 to G5 than the other way around.

I’m really just talking about a basic concept. I don’t have the information or expertise to write the contract. But the basic idea is no different than what the NCAA did before all of this. A player used to sit for a year if he transferred. Losing a quarter of your playing time is a pretty big deal. Again just as a basic concept I would say if a player transfers and profits from NIL a transfer fee would be enforced. If a player makes no profit from the transfer then no fee would be enforced.

[AppSt94]

I look at the NFL and I see rules in place to try to keep things competitive. I believe the same thing will need to be done in college. A player signs a contract in the NFL and it restricts his movement. It doesn’t mean he can’t move it just creates consequences. As a possible example, let’s say a player accepts a scholarship at App and the next season, because of the exposure APP offered him he gets an NIL deal at another school. Apps contract with this player might require him to give App 10% of his NIL money. My point is that I see no way this works if the universities invest in the players and have absolutely no recourse if the player decides to leave. As for freeing up scholarships occupied by dead weight there is no reason the contract has to offer a 4 year ride. Division two schools have been offering “ make good “ scholarships for decades.

So you want a school that loses a player to receive some sort of compensation for the exodus. I understand your point. But what would that compensation amount to in terms of leveling the playing field? Let’s look at the two biggest losses that App has experienced thus far. McLeod got $250k from Auburn. So if he, or the collective have to compensate App 10% of the value, that’s another $25k. I phrased it that way because a 10% cut isn’t going to matter to the player because he isn’t likely the one that is going to pay it. Everett got $50k from Oklahoma. In that case, he didn’t leave to get paid. He left because his Dad didn’t want his baby boy to be benched so he basically forced Troy to quit the team. So let’s say App got $75k in compensation. What does that do to “even” the playing field?

The numbers I used are just an example. The point is there has to be some compensation to the team who originally invested in the player. The market would find the right amount and it might vary from player to player. And even if the penalty was paid by the collective or the school it would still serve the purpose of compensating the original school for the loss and helping to regulate the movement of players.

So using your position that there needs to be compensation, we got 16 kids from the portal so we would owe those schools money for their investment lost, correct?

I get what you’re saying. It just feels like you are trying to enact measures that curb tampering which makes sense. But not everyone in the portal was enticed to go in for money. Does it happen? Yes. Is it rampant? Based on the fact that we landed 16 guys and none of them went in the portal on the advisement by App that a bag was coming says differently. Statistics show that more transfers from P5 to G5 than the other way around.

I’m really just talking about a basic concept. I don’t have the information or expertise to write the contract. But the basic idea is no different than what the NCAA did before all of this. A player used to sit for a year if he transferred. Losing a quarter of your playing time is a pretty big deal. Again just as a basic concept I would say if a player transfers and profits from NIL a transfer fee would be enforced. If a player makes no profit from the transfer then no fee would be enforced.

I get what you’re saying. As we have seen, there isn’t much that would qualify as basic in all of this. I don’t disagree with what you are proposing in principle. I’m just saying that for it to work, it’s going to require a great deal of transparency and to be honest with you, none of them want that.

[Mjohn1988]

and at what point do people start thinking their dollars are spent better elsewhere?

At the current trajectory while I don't plan on reducing giving to Yosef/tickets (1.5 away games annually), incremental donations are more likely to go to the COB and other charities I'm passionate about.

Right, wrong, or indifferent I have no plans of contributing to an NIL structure.

Completely understand this point of view and no one should try and convince you otherwise. I will say that this TIGMA collective is designed in a creative way to garner donations without one feeling like one is contributing.

How does the Collective work? Is there someone who decides how much to pay a certain player? Is that information shared with whoever contributes? Are there negotiations between the collective management and athletes? The whole thing just seems shady.

It seems shady because it is shady. NIL money should actually only be paid for the use of a player’s name, image or likeness. The collectives are just paying a player to play. This whole thing got completely corrupted before it even got off the ground.

[Bigdaddyg1]

So let’s say the App Collective has $1m to play with. Some stud 5 star high school QB starts shopping around and gets up with “our guys”. He says he will sign with App for $250k. He’s widely considered a top prospect. Does the collective call the coach to put the staff with the kid? Or does the collective reach out to guys we are trying to sign? Does that first scenario ever happen?