Sconnies Speak

Tag: NIL

  • The Effect of the Transfer Portal and NIL on March Madness

    By: Jack Kohr

    The NCAA Tournament has always been full of surprises. However, this year, the surprise was, coincidentally, the lack of surprises. For the first time since 2008, and only the second time in the history of the NCAA Tournament, all four No. 1 seeds made it to the Final Four. This raises the question: What made the top teams this year so dominant? 

    The answer: The transfer portal and NIL. 

    The transfer portal was introduced in 2018 as a new system for NCAA athletes to declare their intent to transfer and receive contact from other programs. From 2018 to 2021, however, transfer players were required to sit out for one year after transferring before they could play for their new school.

    In 2021, transfer portal rules were updated so that first-time transfer athletes were granted eligibility to play for their new school immediately. This updated eligibility requirement, in addition to the change allowing student-athletes to profit off of their name, image, and likeness, made recruiting, particularly in basketball and football, a “pay-for-play” environment. 

    In 2024, portal rules were updated again, removing the limit on the number of times athletes can transfer during their career without penalty. Although college athletes have essentially become quasi-professional athletes today, NIL deals in tandem with transfer portal rules that allow players to jump from school to school every year give big programs a major advantage. 

    In addition to all four No. 1 seeds making the Final Four, the effect of the transfer portal and NIL was visible in the Sweet Sixteen. Other than No. 10 seed Arkansas, an SEC school with a Hall-of-Fame college basketball coach in John Calipari, all teams were, at worst, a No. 6 seed. 

    Then, the favorites in all Sweet Sixteen and Elite Eight games proceeded to go 12-0. By giving players the ability to transfer without limitations and schools the power to lure them in with NIL money, we may have just taken the madness out of March Madness. 

    The NCAA tournament coined its name of March Madness because it has been a tournament where truly anything can happen. Low-seeded schools from mid-major conferences like UMBC, St. Peter’s, FAU, Loyola Chicago, and others had the chance to shock the world and put their name on the map. 

    Now, basketball powerhouses can poach the best players from mid-major conferences with the promise of money and the opportunity to play on the biggest stage all season long. This not only leads to mid-major schools being less competitive come tournament time, but also adds firepower to the blue bloods. Take the NCAA Tournament Champion Florida Gators, for example. 

    Florida’s two leading scorers all year, Walter Clayton Jr. and Alijah Martin, were transfers. And guess from where? Mid-major schools. Clayton Jr., the 2025 NCAA Tournament Most Outstanding Player, transferred from Iona. Alijah Martin helped lead the beloved cinderella No. 9 seed FAU Owls to the Final Four during his sophomore season in 2023 before transferring to the Gators prior to the 2025 season. These are two prime examples of how the transfer portal and NIL are impacting college basketball. 

    While we only have one year of data points, there are certainly concerns for fans who cherish the unpredictability and possibility that is March Madness. If outcomes in the coming years are similar to this year’s tournament, the NCAA may need to rethink the current rules surrounding the transfer portal and NIL.

  • Are NIL Deals Going to Ruin the “Purity” of High School Athletics?

    By Maddy Schuetz

    On April 25th, the Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Association held its annual meeting, with one of the largest and most controversial topics in high school sports up for a vote. The WIAA was once again discussing the Name, Image, and Likeness amendment, also known as NIL. Despite being shot down the first time around, the NIL amendment finally passed with an overwhelming vote of 293-108 from the member schools of the WIAA.

    Despite the vote passing, many people, including Jeremy Schlitz, are still under the belief that this amendment is harmful to high school athletics. The Madison Metropolitan School District Athletic Director, Schlitz, does not see many positives to bringing money into high school sports. “When we bring money and other private interests into education-based athletics, it kind of sullies the purity of education-based athletics,” Schlitz said. However, Schlitz, like most others who are against this amendment, may lack a concrete understanding of the new amendment. An amendment that is not as scary as Schiltz and others have made it out to be.

    The new NIL amendment has many precautions in place to ensure that many of the concerns from the first amendment proposal are addressed. Students who choose to partake in any NIL deals have restrictions on how they act and who they can work with. Student athletes can not enter into any NIL opportunities that are associated with their school, team, conference, or the WIAA. They can not wear their jersey or any school/team branding in their advertisements. Don’t worry, there won’t be any 16-year-olds supporting Busch Light in their high school football jersey. It is also prohibited for student athletes to work with industries relating to gambling, alcohol, cannabis, tobacco, weapons, or any offensive subject matter. The WIAA has also addressed one of the biggest problems with NCAA NIL deals, the transfer portal. Specific athletic eligibility restrictions prohibit athletes from transferring for better NIL opportunities. These restrictions are in place not only to protect the student athletes, but also the schools that they play for.

    This amendment is expected to be implemented at the end of May. Coaches, athletic directors, parents, and fans are all on the edge of their seats waiting to see how this will impact high school athletes and athletics. Many are questioning the importance of this amendment as it will only drastically impact 1% of Wisconsin student athletes. Is it worth the risk of disrupting the current way high school sports operate? Although it may not have huge impacts on all athletes, the amendment provides an opportunity for student-athletes to make some money from their success. It also allows these athletes to familiarize themselves with the NIL process that they will experience if they choose to continue and play at the next level.

    Name, Image, and Likeness opportunities are the current way of sports, whether people like it or not. It is not a surprise that over 40 states have now implemented NIL opportunities at the high school level. The WIAA is still working to ensure that fairness, sportsmanship, and the integrity of the game are not lost. People should not be worried about losing the “purity” of high school athletics. They should instead be excited about the opportunities that this amendment provides for young student athletes across the state of Wisconsin. Is there really something so impure about 14-18-year-old student-athletes making money off their own name and image?

  • If the NCAA is Going to be Paying Athletes like Professionals, then they Should Start Treating them like Professionals 

    By Trey Kenas

    If there’s three guarantees in life, it’s death, taxes, and the NCAA struggling to ensure that their policies don’t contain loopholes. The newest example of the NCAA’s mishaps resides in the NIL landscape, where collegiate athletes are allowed to transfer schools as many times as they please, without repercussions. The NCAA must institute (minimally) 2-year contracts between players and their respective programs, as well as a one-time transfer rule, to eliminate the recklessness that is the transfer portal and take college sports away from becoming a bidding war.

    To gain some perspective on this matter, flashback to 2024, where in that year over 1,000 players in Division 1 alone were in the transfer portal. In the 2023/2024 college football season, the transfer portal saw over 11,000 players across all divisions put their names in. How are coaches able to handle this wild goat rodeo, all while focusing on their team in the present? The answer: They’re not.

    When asked about the current landscape of NIL and men’s college hoops on “The Swing” podcast, Wisconsin Men’s Basketball Head Coach Greg Gard said, “You are more of a CEO than you are a coach.” Gard followed this up by adding,“In regards to recruiting, you spend a lot of time future casting how your roster needs. We used to do it in three to four year snapshots… Now you’re looking at one-year snapshots.”

    While some coaches are attempting to manage the sails on the choppy waters, some coaches have opted to step away from the dance floor. Legendary coaches such as Alabama football’s Nick Saban, Virginia men’s basketball Tony Bennett, and Miami men’s basketball Jim Larranaga have left their respective games largely impart to the ever changing landscape.

    “The game and college athletics is not in a healthy spot”, Tony Bennett said, in an interview this past fall with Fox Sports. “I think I was equipped to do the job here the old way… Now I came to the realization that I can’t do this,” Bennett said.

    Saban and Larranaga both agreed that the game had changed, and they were not willing to stick it out. They believed the foundational pieces of what makes the college game so great have drifted away, and thus, the bidding war has begun.

    These coaches are correct. The game has changed, and in many cases not for the better. As a coach who is currently coaching at the high school level, it’s a grind like no other. The countless hours put in day in and day out, all for the tiny window of opportunity to do something special at the end of the season that only one team gets to celebrate. Adding in that extra element of paying players with no boundaries, with an already taxing and stressful job, coaches are left with a mountain in front of them that’s too steep to climb. Many collegiate coaches have stayed in college and not pursued the professional side of things, doing so largely impart to not having to deal with players and their monetary desires. So simply put, if we’re going to start paying athletes at the collegiate level like professionals, we must implement rules to start treating them like professionals.

    Enter in player contracts, where each player is required to sign a minimum two-year contract with their respective university. This contract can be for more than two-years, obviously with monetary compensation in play. However, within the contract they are allowed to leave the school during their contract to pursue further athletic endeavors on three occasions. One; that they are going to play professionally, and are going to be out of the college game for good. Two; one of the head or assistant coaches on staff left for another job. Three; there is a family matter that requires them to transfer back closer to home. This way, coaches aren’t dealing with as much turnover within the zoo that is the transfer portal, and players are treated at the same level of coaches. If they committed to something, they are required to stick it out, save the three exceptions.

    The final layer lies in the amount of times a player is allowed to transfer. This would be limited to a one-time transfer opportunity, to eliminate the number of players jumping town to chase the bag. Players make a commitment to a program and sometimes it doesn’t work out. It happens for whatever reason that may be. They are given a chance t for a fresh start. If they desire to transfer on any further occasions, they will be required to sit out a year in the process and therefore lose a year of eligibility. This regulation keeps players from continuing to leave school year after year in pursuit of a “better opportunity” when in reality they are seeing who can cut them the biggest check.

    Ultimately, collegiate athletes should be entitled to as much money as they are worth, however it shouldn’t be at the expense of coaches and programs having to rebuild their teams each year. By implementing these guidelines, players will be able to obtain financial compensation for their abilities, and coaches will be able to coach, not act as a CEO.

  • NIL is a Can Opener

    by Rachel Van Hefty

    From the beginning of college sports, the NCAA insisted that college athletes should be deemed “amateurs.” Meaning, student-athletes should compete purely for the love of the game rather than a paycheck. All the while, schools, coaches, media networks and sponsors have cashed in on the millions, if not billions, made from said “amateur” talent. How does that work? 

    Now, a new player is in the game – Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL). With NIL deals in full effect, college athletes can finally cash in and make a profit. The ideology behind NIL deals is to allow athletes to profit from their personal brand by signing deals with other brands. Athletes can earn money through things ranging from endorsement deals and autograph signings to TikTok partnerships and social media posts without violating their amateur status. They are finally getting a slice of the pie they’ve long helped bake.  For some athletes, this has been life-changing! 

    For example, Arch Manning has the highest NIL valuation, reaching a staggering 6.5 million dollars. While some star football and basketball players are reaping the benefits, athletes in less marketable sports are paying the price. This is where NIL acts as a can opener, one that changes the entire landscape of college athletics, for better and for worse. Can of worms: open. 

    As seen in the NIL era, the deals tend to favor male athletes in revenue-generating sports such as football and basketball. For athletes in non-revenue-generating sports like swimming, softball, or wrestling, the opportunities become limited, and the gap widens. Not only does this affect the individual athletes, but NIL also heavily affects athletic departments. According to USA Today, they are shifting their attention towards NIL collectives — donor-funded groups to help athletes monetize their brand —  to keep programs like football and basketball stay competitive. With the attention of the athletic departments shifted, there has been less attention and potentially less funding for other sports. It also brings Title IX considerations into play. If NIL-related fundraising efforts are disproportionate between men’s and women’s teams, could there be legal challenges? 

    Name, Image, and Likeness is meant to empower athletes and give them control over their own worth, but the lack of structure risks turning the college athletics landscape into one where only a select few can benefit. According to ESPN, “The NCAA has expressed concern that, without a federal law, enforcing its own NIL rules could violate antitrust rules — so while the organization has hoped that Congress will pass a federal standard, there’s no national set of rules.”  The concerns of the NCAA voice the concerns of many. Non-revenue generating sports could begin to shrink or even disappear without meaningful regulation. The gap between men’s and women’s sports could widen. These are only a few of the “worms” in the can that the NIL era has opened. While fair compensation is necessary, this complete free-for-all is not sustainable. If schools, the NCAA, and/or lawmakers don’t step in to create a more equitable approach, college sports may become unrecognizable. 

    NIL is here to stay, but like any can opener, when the lid pops, everything inside it spills. So, the question is, who’s cleaning up the mess?

  • Issues Surrounding College Athletes Getting Paid Through NIL

    By Sydney Grossfeld

    There is an ongoing debate surrounding college athletes getting paid through Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) deals and the unequal distribution of funds. NIL deals have given athletes the opportunity to profit from their name, image, and likeness. However, athletes that play certain higher profile sports receive disproportionately larger deals. NIL contacts heavily favor higher profile sports like football and men’s basketball that tend to have larger audiences. This discrepancy leaves lesser known sports at a massive disadvantage. In addition, NIL was not permitted until 2021. Athletes who played college sports prior to NIL were not entitled to any monetary compensation. 

    In a larkmark lawsuit, House v. NCAA colleges reached a settlement, dedication to implement a revenue-sharing agreement. For the first time in NCAA history, schools will be able to directly pay their athletes. The NCAA would distribute $2.8 billion to current and former players. Football and men’s basketball players were at the top of the list. Players were receiving $135,000 on average. Women’s basketball players were allotted significantly less, $35,000. 

    There is no question that NIL has given power back to athletes, but the new system is broken and lacks regulation. This settlement is creating a tiered system within college athletics with high profile sports at the top. Rather than evening the playing field, NIL is widening the already substantial gap between high profile sports and less profitable ones. 

    What does this mean for college athletics? Programs are now scavenging to find the funds to pay back their athletes. University of Wisconsin-Madison Athletic Director Chris McIntosh shared that “it will be critical for us to make adjustments in the way we have operated and to generate additional revenues through new opportunities.” In other words, departments are being forced to make difficult decisions; cutbacks disproportionately targeting less revenue generating programs could become the norm. While this settlement may be good for former athletes, current athletes are faced with the unknown as their sports programs hang in the balance. Programs that have already been operating on smaller budgets face the potential of coaches losing their jobs, athletic department restructuring, and roster spots shrinking. 

    There is a lot of controversy surrounding the distribution of the settlement. LSU gymnast Olivia Dunne objected to the settlement, telling Eccker Sports that there is “a lack of transparency, inequitable distribution, and exclusion of athletes from the decision making process.” Dunne is among the top earners in the NIL realm, bringing in around $4.2 million. She is an advocate for underrepresented sports and the success they can bring to the sports industry. She believes it is frustrating for an athlete to put in the same amount of work as their peers and receive less compensation, or even none at all.

    The traditional ideals of amateurism are now being challenged with NIL. While we await the final decision from a U.S. District Court on the settlement agreement we have to ask ourselves: Are college athletes students of their universities or employees? How do we maintain the integrity of college sports? Where do we draw the line between professionalism and amateurism? 

    Athletic departments should strive to provide equal opportunities for all of their athletes. This will inspire athletes from all sports to want to come to their schools. Rather than just being a football or basketball school, athletic departments can be most successful when they invest in all of their sports teams. The NCAA should strive to implement better regulations so that there is not another settlement case like this one in 10 years. And lastly, student athletes should continue to voice their opinions and stand up for themselves.