1. He and his family were obviously looking for the biggest check during his recruitment, despite what they said.
2. $13 million for a 4 star QB?
3. The Florida NIL collective reneged on that promise, likely due to some collective contributors pulling their commitments.
4. Was a contract signed between Rashada and the Collective?
5. $13 million?!?!
NFL 1st/2nd round draft picks command rookie salaries between $7-19 million, which is within the range that this [alleged] figure of $13 million falls. Of course, NFL 1st/2nd round draft picks have been tested in the ranks of college football, so at least you have a clearer sense of what you're buying as an NFL franchise. Paying the equivalent of late first-round NFL draft pick rookie salary to a totally unproven prospect? Given that: (1) any given recruiting class has roughly 300 or so 4-star recruits, (2) roughly 20% of the 4-star prospects in any given recruiting class get drafted to the NFL, and (3) on average somewhere around 20-24 4-star recruits in any given class are taken within the first two rounds (around 6% spanning both round, but only half of that in round 1), it seems somewhat foolish to throw what amounts to late 1st round draft pick money at a kid who has about a 3-6% chance of actually panning out to be the kind of talent who might actually command that type of money 3 or 4 years down the road.
What does the NIL money get you right now? You being the provider of the money?
It’s clear what it gets an NFL team.
Spending $13 million on a late first-rounder is fine for an NFL team because the risk you're taking is calculated—the players are somewhat known commodities by this point, as they all have a body of work that provides plenty of good data to assess their potential. Spending $13 million on a high school prospect is less a calculated risk and more of a crap shoot. Both investors (the NFL team, the NIL contributor) are clearly spending the money to build a better football team, but the NFL franchise can feel pretty good about the potential ROI whereas the NIL contributor is pretty much flying blind. Yeah, it's great that 20% of 4-stars in any cohort make the NFL, but that means 80% won't. Further, only around 6% of 4-stars in any cohort are selected in the first two rounds, which means 94% aren't. So the NIL contributor is spending that $13 million in the hopes that this one kid will be among that 6%, when it's far more likely he'll be among the other 94%.
If the NIL contributor was honest with him/herself and put together a decision tree to analyze the c/b of the situation, they'd logically conclude that the NIL money ceiling for an incoming 4-star prospect probably lies somewhere in the $500-750K range. $13 million is completely insane—it's simply a really, really bad investment.
(no message)
Football team that they would pay an 18 yr old unproven kid $13M? For what?
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
…masquerading as college sport
It needed a lot of correcting as it was. This was not the way to do it.
Much too late now though.
million dollar enterprise where the performers got next to nothing. It’s inconsistent with original notion of “student athletes”. The evolution to players getting paid was obvious.
“… universities started cleaning up the big cash …” Notre Dame has 24 varsity sports. The 12 for men are: Baseball, Basketball, Cross Country, Fencing, Football, Golf, Hockey, Lacrosse, Soccer, Swimming & Diving, Tennis, Track & Field. The 12 for women are: Basketball, Cross Country, Fencing, Golf, Lacrosse, Rowing, Soccer, Softball, Swimming & Diving, Tennis, Track & Field, Volleyball. One wonders how much “big cash” needs to come in from two or three of these sports in order to offset the big cash that is going out for the other twenty-plus.
Most D1 athletic departments run at a loss. Yes, football and basketball help cover losses by other sports, but no University would be in short term trouble if athletics went away.
It would likely have an impact on charitable giving in the long run, but it’s not like the endowments at Harvard, MIT, Princeton, et. al. came from sporting success.
“ Despite growing public sentiment to pay student-athletes, the reality is that even athletic departments with the most profitable football programs struggle to break even.
This happens because football and, to a lesser extent, men’s basketball subsidize all of the other sports which do not generate any revenue.”
That money has always been used to some extent to fund non revenue sports. But there is infinitely much more coming into the football programs. They are huge money makers now. If they use most or all to fund other non revenue sports, good on them, but the sport is now awash with big money that wasn’t there before when they still had to fund non revenue sports, and it’s inevitable that the players get their share.
like a nice payout to me.
big dollars. To expect that not to impact the relationship between institution and player is delusional.
they have free labor right now, why pay for it.
I mean 'why not'. They are the product on the field, they get nothing in return and the best teams get featured/get revenue. If we're about paying the players, no logic to stop at college.
(no message)
seats and equipped with video monitors and gaming for his passengers?