|
Replies: 31
| visibility 3882
|
All-TigerNet [5956]
TigerPulse: 96%
39
|
Clemson is NOT behind on NIL.
1
3
Jan 31, 2025, 1:21 AM
|
|
Playoff team NIL
1. Texas $22.3M
2. Ohio State $20.3M
3. Georgia $18.3M
4. Clemson $15.3M
5. Penn State $13.8M
6. Indiana $13.6M
7. Tennessee $11.6M
8. Oregon $10.6M
9. Arizona State $10.6M
We can hang with anyone.
Teams Not Listed:
Notre Dame and SMU are private. Boise State was not listed in the Top 60 and likely is less than $2 million.
And keep in mind, it doesn’t matter how much the conference brings in - that money can’t be used for NIL, aka buying players.
|
|
|
|
 |
CU Medallion [20786]
TigerPulse: 100%
52
Posts: 18722
Joined: 2012
|
Source ***
2
Jan 31, 2025, 7:09 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [66677]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 24689
Joined: 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Phenom [14114]
TigerPulse: 100%
49
|
No he is not correct; here is the breakdown of the ESTIMATE from the article
2
Jan 31, 2025, 8:43 AM
|
|
You posted
For those not interested in reading it all I'll summarize. They estimate the total NIL market and then allocate to each school it's portion of the total based on its current reported booster base. So just because IPTAY is very successful they assume we also do well in NIL. There is no actual info about NIL in the article it's all 100% a guess.
https://nil-ncaa.com/methodology/
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [20786]
TigerPulse: 100%
52
Posts: 18722
Joined: 2012
|
This was my assumption; estimates based on estimates/assumptions
Jan 31, 2025, 10:28 AM
|
|
I’ll give them credit for the transparency - but like you said not actual. Didn’t dive into the methodology but good for them in taking a stab.
I’ve never seen NIL as fact since collectives are private. I did find a few articles where collectives tax filings were examined. Many if not most are still classified as non-profits.
Here is one discussing one of ND collectives that was shuttered. Granted it just talks inputs and not distributions - but gives a little insight into just one of NDs collectives.
But this info is few and far between and doesn’t specifically say what went to FB.
https://www.sportico.com/leagues/college-sports/2024/notre-dame-fund-foundation-nil-collective-2023-revenue-1234821499/
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [5956]
TigerPulse: 96%
39
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [20857]
TigerPulse: 100%
52
Posts: 14648
Joined: 2009
|
The numbers don't represent what each school ACTUALLY paid, though.
Jan 31, 2025, 4:54 PM
|
|
Relative or not, some NIL funds will pony up extra for less relative talent just because they have the resources, and can do it as it provides the depth and/or talent they're seeking at a certain position that they feel they have to meet. Schools that get into bidding wars for a particular player will shoot over the norm even more.
There are simply too many assumptions here being made, along with the idea that every school is allocating their estimated proportional amount accordingly and that all things outside of money among each school is equal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [5956]
TigerPulse: 96%
39
|
Well the NIL *guess* is based on
Jan 31, 2025, 5:39 PM
|
|
the cumulative number of donations and contributions to each university's NIL collectives this year.
Again, the NIL numbers are relative and based on each school’s contributions to their NIL collectives. And it’s safe to assume that none of the schools are hoarding their contributions. Would it work better if I said, “Clemson is NOT behind in NIL (contributions)”?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [5956]
TigerPulse: 96%
39
|
You may have missed this?
Jan 31, 2025, 4:48 PM
[ in reply to No he is not correct; here is the breakdown of the ESTIMATE from the article ] |
|
“Before we dive into the rankings, there is an important distinction between the numbers. These amounts are not the combined dollar amount of each university athlete's NIL deals but the cumulative number of donations and contributions to each university's NIL collectives this year”.
So like already pointed out, we are NOT behind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Phenom [14114]
TigerPulse: 100%
49
|
YOU may have missed this
Jan 31, 2025, 5:34 PM
|
|
“Accordingly, our estimates are not what specific collectives receive in contributions. Instead, we are providing what we believe to be a reasonable estimate of funding a collective(s) supporting the school might be expected to generate in funding, given the school’s historic level of support from boosters."
The authors of the study said MIGHT be expected to generate in NIL. The world respected news source "Nttany Lionswire" misquoted the study that the use as a basis for their article.
The author clearly said it's NOT a measure of actual NIL funding but an estimate of what they MIGHT be. No one knows who has what.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [5956]
TigerPulse: 96%
39
|
The numbers I listed are estimated based on ACTUAL contributions
Jan 31, 2025, 5:42 PM
|
|
“These amounts are not the combined dollar amount of each university athlete's NIL deals but the cumulative number of donations and contributions to each university's NIL collectives this year”.
Clemson is NOT behind in NIL (contributions). Hopefully that wording works better for you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Phenom [14114]
TigerPulse: 100%
49
|
I dont know why this is so hard for you to understand
1
Jan 31, 2025, 5:57 PM
|
|
The statement you keep posting is false. That it’s false isn’t just my opinion it’s based on the study that your article quotes as its source. Nil-NCAA.com produced a study where they clearly said they’re estimating NIL resources not measuring actual resources.
Then Nittany Lionwire took their data and misquoted it saying it was actual donations when it is not. It’s fake news and bad writing.
Also it should be pointed out the nil-NCAA.com is not the same as the NCAA.com. It’s not affiliated with the NCAA and you would wonder why they would attempt to confuse people into thinking they are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [5956]
TigerPulse: 96%
39
|
Its not hard to understand the quotes I posted
Jan 31, 2025, 7:31 PM
|
|
Is it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Phenom [14114]
TigerPulse: 100%
49
|
Sigh; it's like trying to talk to a lawn ornament
Jan 31, 2025, 8:18 PM
|
|
You're never gonna get it; so, I'm just gonna let you carry on in your misunderstanding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [5956]
TigerPulse: 96%
39
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [5956]
TigerPulse: 96%
39
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Day Hero [4364]
TigerPulse: 89%
36
|
|
|
|
|
|
Head Coach [919]
TigerPulse: 95%
24
|
Re: Clemson is NOT behind on NIL.
2
Jan 31, 2025, 7:20 AM
|
|
If true, this sure does blowup alot of narratives on this site....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Head Coach [911]
TigerPulse: 97%
24
|
Re: Clemson is NOT behind on NIL.
1
Jan 31, 2025, 7:44 AM
|
|
How exactly is this stuff calculated? also if , true this busts two competing narratives big time:
1. That Dabo is reluctant to use NIl and that due to this perceived reluctance, Clemson is behind in our NIL program.
2. Clemson shouldn’t engage in NIL because it is harmful to our “culture”
Both of these narratives are false!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gridiron Giant [16029]
TigerPulse: 100%
50
|
Re: Clemson is NOT behind on NIL.
2
Jan 31, 2025, 8:19 AM
|
|
Our NIL funds are likely mostly used to retain our players already on our roster.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [102354]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 98914
Joined: 2009
|
I think most of the complaints are based on not...
Jan 31, 2025, 8:31 AM
[ in reply to Re: Clemson is NOT behind on NIL. ] |
|
heavily recruiting from the portal. It's certainly not about the money. Dabo plainly refused to tamper. In essence, that's what the whining was about and done by those who throw money at a problem rather than working though it with good solutions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Phenom [14114]
TigerPulse: 100%
49
|
For the billionth time it's made up BS no one knows how much any team pays
1
Jan 31, 2025, 8:48 AM
|
|
In NIL unless the people paying it disclose it. Anything they estimate is a broad swag. This estimate is based on booster club payments. So if you are an IPTAY donor ask yourself how much have you donated to an NIL collective, and is it even comparable to your IPTAY donation level? For most of us probably not; which is one reason this methodology is flawed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [5956]
TigerPulse: 96%
39
|
Incorrect. NOT *made up*.
Jan 31, 2025, 4:55 PM
|
|
“Before we dive into the rankings, there is an important distinction between the numbers. These amounts are not the combined dollar amount of each university athlete's NIL deals but the cumulative number of donations and contributions to each university's NIL collectives this year. The higher the number, the more resources each university has available, and therefore, their respective football programs can spend on NIL deals.”
Point stands, we are NOT behind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Phenom [14114]
TigerPulse: 100%
49
|
Go back and read the source article that is misquoted by Nittany Lionwire
Jan 31, 2025, 5:36 PM
|
|
They have no idea what is actually being generated by anyone's collective.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2299]
TigerPulse: 100%
32
|
Re: Clemson is NOT behind on NIL.
2
Jan 31, 2025, 8:55 AM
|
|
The fact that Oregon sits below Clemson tells me this list is inaccurate. It's pretty widely known that one man is bankrolling that team to a championship and has more money than god.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [5956]
TigerPulse: 96%
39
|
Please share your source.***
Jan 31, 2025, 4:24 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Day Hero [4344]
TigerPulse: 100%
36
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Day Hero [4344]
TigerPulse: 100%
36
|
Re: Please share your source.***
1
Jan 31, 2025, 5:03 PM
|
|
Excerpt from the methodology:
“ Accordingly, our estimates are not what specific collectives receive in contributions. Instead, we are providing what we believe to be a reasonable estimate of funding a collective(s) supporting the school might be expected to generate in funding, given the school’s historic level of support from boosters.”
So basically they swag 110 Society based on IPTAY historically. That’s no where close to what Clemson donors behavior has been towards 110 Society. If it was Dabo would not have an emergency call for NIL funding back in late November.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [5956]
TigerPulse: 96%
39
|
The numbers I showed are based on total NIL contributions
Jan 31, 2025, 5:15 PM
[ in reply to Re: Please share your source.*** ] |
|
Perfectly valid comparison:
“Before we dive into the rankings, there is an important distinction between the numbers. These amounts are not the combined dollar amount of each university athlete's NIL deals but the cumulative number of donations and contributions to each university's NIL collectives this year. The higher the number, the more resources each university has available, and therefore, their respective football programs can spend on NIL deals”.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2299]
TigerPulse: 100%
32
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [50695]
TigerPulse: 79%
58
Posts: 36987
Joined: 2003
|
Please stop, youre hurting the narrative that we are poor
2
Jan 31, 2025, 5:02 PM
|
|
and just can’t compete with the “big money” schools.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Valley Protector [1419]
TigerPulse: 100%
29
|
Re: Clemson is NOT behind on NIL.
Jan 31, 2025, 5:45 PM
|
|
It's my understanding that those figures are the school collective's NIL dollar$ and does not include NIL from private sources or private deals such as auto dealers, local businesses, oil dollars given directly to players, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 31
| visibility 3882
|
|
|
50
