Is NIL bringing more parity to college football?
If nothing else, average programs can bleed away stars from the elite ones... which cannot afford to stockpile top talent on their benches.
Replies to: Is NIL bringing more parity to college football?
Oh yeah. Well maybe not, it is like the Democrat elites, it serves those that don't fear inflation.
(no message)
Well, it definitely brings more "party" to college football.
(no message)
Open transfers go hand-in-hand.
A player knowing that he is buried on a team's depth chart and/or being constantly recruited over can transfer at any time and get some instant playing time is what is driving the NIL money quest.
Riley Leonard, as one example, may still have left Duke but he may be incentivized to go to place that needs him to fill a hole/gap in recruiting that gives him a better chance at team and personal success.
In many cases, this leads to "second tier" teams being able to enhance their talent and become more competitive with the top tier teams. The collar hypothesis leads to underrecruited/ late blossoming guys also getting the opportunity to go from second tier teams to top tier teams and enhance their long-term earning potential.
This combo is wicked. Open transfers opened the door to this disaster
(no message)
I kinda enjoyed the "disaster" in Nashville last week... led by a transfer from New Mexico.
(no message)
That was awesome.
(no message)
Is the Pope Catholic?
(no message)
Hard to tell, Hiba.
(no message)
Poppycock.
(no message)
Love that stuff
(no message)
Fiddle Faddle.
(no message)
Heh.
(no message)
Not sure if NIL or coincidence but a lot of quality FB in the top 20 in 24
It certainly seems like the drop off from the top 5 to the rest isn’t as severe. OSU and TX seem like they are solid but outside of that there are no guarantees.
I think it dilutes parity for all of CFB, but creates more contenders
What I mean is, the mid-majors and lower-end P5 schools suffer from a net outflow of 3* recruits that turned into NFL caliber players and move to a P5 school and make $$$. Players get to prove themselves and develop at a smaller school and get their dream offer after a year or two.
It allows top tier teams to recover quickly from roster mistakes and NFL draft attrition, and deep pocketed schools without much of a historical track record of success (Texas A&M) to put together very talented rosters. Hot new coaches can bring a lot of players from their former team and other schools to build a roster quickly.
Highly talented backups can go from one blue chip to another pretty seamlessly. Joe Burrow is an example, and that was back when you had to be a graduate student to transfer without a waiver.
If parity means more contenders, then yes. If parity means a more even distribution of talent, then no, especially with the hoarding of TV $$$s by the biggest conferences.
I loved the "parity" last Saturday. Not so much when ND is involved.
(no message)