Name, image and likeness hasn't changed college football's recruiting hierarchy
For the past six months, the conversation around college athletics has been largely framed by athletes being able to cash in on their name, image and likeness for the first time.
Despite the doomsday predictions offered by so many coaches and administrators about the so-called professionalization of college sports, it turns out NIL didn’t ruin interest in the games. Week after week this season, college football did massive television ratings.
The second pillar of NIL alarmism was the assertion it would only benefit a small number of high-profile football and men’s basketball players. Not only has that proven to be false, with a broad spectrum of athletes cashing in at least a little bit, women’s athletes have accounted for 31 percent of the compensation in deals facilitated by Opendorse, according to numbers the company published recently.
And now, as college football approaches the early signing period for high school seniors on Wednesday, the third big myth around NIL is about to get blown up as well. Despite the hysteric claims that allowing athletes to negotiate endorsement deals would turn recruiting into an uncontrollable bidding war where all the players went to the schools with the richest boosters, guess what? The same teams that got the best talent before are going to get the best talent now.
In our first bit of empirical evidence about how NIL would impact a recruiting class, look who’s in the top 10 of the recruiting rankings heading into signing day, according to rivals.com: Georgia, Alabama, Texas A&M, Ohio State, Texas, Penn State, Notre Dame, North Carolina, Michigan and Florida State.
In other words, it looks pretty much like any other year.
“The NIL is a factor with some of these kids,” said Jeremy Crabtree, the senior recruiting editor for on3.com. “But in our talking to prospects, for a lot of them it hasn’t been the deciding factor. If you’re picking between A&M and Texas or Alabama and Georgia, Notre Dame, USC, it’s all going to be similar type situations because you’ll be heralded as a five-star hero no matter where you go at those types of schools.”
Which means for the top level of high school prospects, NIL money is going to be there regardless of where they end up enrolling.
Even if Texas A&M winds up with the No. 1 class for the first time, which some analysts expect if Jimbo Fisher can close the deal with a few key prospects on Wednesday, is it really that much of a surprise?
The Aggies finished No. 6 in the Rivals recruiting rankings each of the last three years, and they’ve recruited well pretty consistently since joining the SEC. Is this unusually strong class about NIL, or is it the fruits of finishing 9-1 and No. 4 in the final poll in 2020? Is Michigan back in the top-10 of the recruiting mix for the first time in a few years because of NIL or because Jim Harbaugh has the Wolverines in the College Football Playoff? Does Georgia have more five-stars committed (three) than anyone in the country because of NIL or because those guys grew up within a few hours of campus? Are top quarterback recruits in the country headed to Clemson, LSU, Alabama and Ohio State for NIL or because that’s where top quarterbacks often go?
Conversely, NIL isn’t saving programs that are in disarray or going through coaching transitions. Auburn enters the signing period with a class rated outside the top-30. LSU only had 11 commitments and was ranked 33rd as of Tuesday. UCLA, a program that would figure to be an NIL bonanza with the opportunities in Los Angeles, had a class that was ranked behind Northwestern, Memphis and Oregon State on Tuesday.
While it’s true that certain players will be influenced to go to one school over another because of a moneymaking opportunity, the bigger picture is that every school that would matter to top recruits is being aggressive about NIL, thus making it a wash. Money is available everywhere, so the decisions generally come down to the same things that have always mattered: Coaching staff relationships, geography, facilities, opportunity to play, track record of NFL development.
The coaches and programs that recruited well before NIL have done it well this year. The coaches and programs that weren’t high in the rankings before NIL aren’t high this year.
After all the deals are done, the overall impact on the sport’s balance of power is kind of a wash.
“The good thing about the wash is more kids got more money than they got last year, and it was in the open,” said Sonny Vaccaro, the former shoe company executive and marketer who helped convince former UCLA basketball player Ed O’Bannon to sue the NCAA in 2009 over using his likeness in a video game. “We used to think somebody got something and now we know somebody got something. It’s nice.”
NIL hasn’t been perfect. We’ve already seen some messy situations like Quinn Ewers leaving high school a year early in Texas and enrolling at Ohio State with a reported seven-figure NIL deal only to transfer a year later. We’ve seen investments that didn’t work out so well like an Oklahoma City dealership giving Oklahoma quarterback Spencer Rattler two cars before he lost his starting job and then transferred to South Carolina.
The different regulations on NIL in each state without an overarching federal bill have created some complications for coaches if they are working in a state with more limiting laws recruiting against a school in a different state. And the gray area created by the NCAA has led to some controversial implementations of NIL like the new nonprofit group of Texas boosters pledging $50,000 annually to every Longhorns offensive lineman. NCAA president Mark Emmert said last week that the enforcement division has opened investigations into some NIL deals, and we could see the NCAA try to shut down certain NIL avenues that look more like pay-for-play than endorsements.
“I’m going to be curious how the market resets itself after we get a full year into the recruiting cycle with NIL world because are businesses going to be willing to spend as much on some of these kids with some of the less than positive returns that we’ve seen with guys that signed last year?” Crabtree said. “It’s obviously a factor in recruiting, but it’s going to be something that’s similar to what we see as far as relationships with coaches, facilities and things like that. If you’re a five-star kid with 50 offers, you’ll get the NIL money no matter where you go.”
Which means it’s the same story as we’ve seen over and over in college athletics. The natural advantages and disadvantages that certain programs had before NIL are still there now.
The rich stay rich. The poor stay poor. And no matter how much money is flowing out in the open to recruits, the distribution of talent is the same as it ever was.
Follow Paste BN Sports columnist Dan Wolken on Twitter @DanWolken