Without NIL (which more accurately is Pay the Player and Hope They Play) I would agree,. I live in the Salt Lake City area and it is commonly reported here that Rising is getting more than $1 million in "NIL" money each season (even though I never see him on any commercials or on any billboards). So why would he leave? He is making a massive windfall in money, more than he can make in any other job, and has no accountability for his performance. He gets all his $$ up front if he can't play (or play well) he already has cashed in. It is in his best interests to milk this deal as long as possible, and frankly if he stays at Utah he will continue to soak up a lot of "NIL" $$ that would otherwise go to other quality players so I'm all for having him stay and Scam the Utah boosters for all they have.
I think this highlights some of the inherent flaws in the current college sports model. I am all for these athletes being able to utilize their celebrity status (even if only in each local market) to promote businesses and other market activities. I also agree that the revenue generating athletes should be entitled to a share of the revenue they generate. But this so-called "NIL" we have now is not NIL. Very few athletes have significant marketing value, even in their local markets, to justify the significant $$ that are demanding now. I hope soon that a more standardized model can be implemented that provides players with a fair (and even generous) portion of the revenue they help generate and places college football and basketball on a long-term, stable and competitive foundation (despite the fact that neither the SEC or BIG want it)
In the meantime, I'm all for Scam Rising to stay at Utah, soak up a big part of their NIL money and drive that arrogant program in the bottom half of the conference
apple.news
