I looked at some databases ( mostly provided by Business of College Sports, an excellent website)
And focused on what schools have the most presence ....and those that do not
NIL came into existence 10 months ago so changes occur regularly
There are 3 levels
NIL Collectives....booster lead groups that are school specific and direct money via donation and other means to athletes
University sponsored NIL exchanges.....MU has or had one with Opendorse that exist to facilitate NIL activity ( no donations)
NIL Exchanges ....allows athletes to cut NIL deals
Here's how it breaks down
NIL Collectives (Donations)
SEC........13 of 14 schools
Big 12.....9 of 10 schools
ACC........8 of 14 schools
Big 10.....7 of 14 schools
PAC 12....6 0f 14 schools
If you include University sponsored NIL exchanges with Collectives it breaks down as follows
SEC..........13 of 14
Big 12........9 of 10
ACC ..........9 of 14
Big 10........9 of 14
PAC 12.......6 of 14
Some private universities have (Notre Dame GA Tech etc) have organized separate NIL entities.
Duke Northwestern USC Baylor Stanford are among those that have not However we know Duke and USC are directing money to athletes But they are not included above
While NIL is allowed in absence of state law its interesting to note that certain states do not have an executive order or state law.
Compare the list above to the one below
Schools that reside in states with no enabling legislation
SEC ......none
ACC.....1 ( New York)
Big 12 ...3 (Iowa Kansas W Va)
PAC 12....2 (Washington Washington St)
Big 10..... 4 (Iowa Wisconsin Minnesota Penn)
So Iowa has no legislation while ISU has a Collective Iowa does not
Are some Big 10 programs moving slower because their executive branches and legislators are moving cautiously or see no reason to consider?
There is nothing out there to say how much money is in play...these are dark pools
And some universities have multiple Collectives as well as exchanges. (For example Alabama has a closed Collective of 195 donors...no doubt we'll heeled donors as well as a separate open Collective open to any booster)
About 6 SEC schools appear to follow that model
Nationally there are not 6 schools that have that same level of organization
So what conclusions can be drawn
The hyper competitive SEC not only have embraced NIL but is working the system
The PAC 12 which has lagging fan support is lagging the other 4
The Big 10 appears conflicted....Michigan Wisconsin Michigan St Iowa Nebraska Purdue and Northwestern lag peers in other conferences. The same is true in the ACC where BC NC St Syracuse Duke ( maybe) Pitt have not embraced Collectives or exchanges
Despite others in their conferences USC Oregon Clemson Fla St Ohio St are more "SEC like" in their approach What will that mean if their members continue to move slowly? (Ie do they leave?)
The PAC 12 is bringing up the rear....Stanford Cal UCLA Oregon St Colorado have no organized NIL function....at least at this point
No wonder their Commissioner is in DC lobbying hard for federal legislation
As mentioned were less than a year in. Because a s hool does not have a Collective or Exchange does not mean boosters are not involved But it does indicate a less than coordinated effort
While things can and will change ...at this point it's hard to envision 64 schools having the desire or resources to be on par in the future
And focused on what schools have the most presence ....and those that do not
NIL came into existence 10 months ago so changes occur regularly
There are 3 levels
NIL Collectives....booster lead groups that are school specific and direct money via donation and other means to athletes
University sponsored NIL exchanges.....MU has or had one with Opendorse that exist to facilitate NIL activity ( no donations)
NIL Exchanges ....allows athletes to cut NIL deals
Here's how it breaks down
NIL Collectives (Donations)
SEC........13 of 14 schools
Big 12.....9 of 10 schools
ACC........8 of 14 schools
Big 10.....7 of 14 schools
PAC 12....6 0f 14 schools
If you include University sponsored NIL exchanges with Collectives it breaks down as follows
SEC..........13 of 14
Big 12........9 of 10
ACC ..........9 of 14
Big 10........9 of 14
PAC 12.......6 of 14
Some private universities have (Notre Dame GA Tech etc) have organized separate NIL entities.
Duke Northwestern USC Baylor Stanford are among those that have not However we know Duke and USC are directing money to athletes But they are not included above
While NIL is allowed in absence of state law its interesting to note that certain states do not have an executive order or state law.
Compare the list above to the one below
Schools that reside in states with no enabling legislation
SEC ......none
ACC.....1 ( New York)
Big 12 ...3 (Iowa Kansas W Va)
PAC 12....2 (Washington Washington St)
Big 10..... 4 (Iowa Wisconsin Minnesota Penn)
So Iowa has no legislation while ISU has a Collective Iowa does not
Are some Big 10 programs moving slower because their executive branches and legislators are moving cautiously or see no reason to consider?
There is nothing out there to say how much money is in play...these are dark pools
And some universities have multiple Collectives as well as exchanges. (For example Alabama has a closed Collective of 195 donors...no doubt we'll heeled donors as well as a separate open Collective open to any booster)
About 6 SEC schools appear to follow that model
Nationally there are not 6 schools that have that same level of organization
So what conclusions can be drawn
The hyper competitive SEC not only have embraced NIL but is working the system
The PAC 12 which has lagging fan support is lagging the other 4
The Big 10 appears conflicted....Michigan Wisconsin Michigan St Iowa Nebraska Purdue and Northwestern lag peers in other conferences. The same is true in the ACC where BC NC St Syracuse Duke ( maybe) Pitt have not embraced Collectives or exchanges
Despite others in their conferences USC Oregon Clemson Fla St Ohio St are more "SEC like" in their approach What will that mean if their members continue to move slowly? (Ie do they leave?)
The PAC 12 is bringing up the rear....Stanford Cal UCLA Oregon St Colorado have no organized NIL function....at least at this point
No wonder their Commissioner is in DC lobbying hard for federal legislation
As mentioned were less than a year in. Because a s hool does not have a Collective or Exchange does not mean boosters are not involved But it does indicate a less than coordinated effort
While things can and will change ...at this point it's hard to envision 64 schools having the desire or resources to be on par in the future
