Nov. 28—Just nine seconds into Gonzaga's basketball game against Michigan last week, Wolverine forward Yaxel Lendeborg swished a distant 3-point shot.
Lendeborg is one of Michigan's huge frontcourt players (6-9, 240), but the range of this perimeter shot looked like it came from an NBA veteran. Pure. Deadly. Practically indefensible.
AdvertisementAdvertisementAdvertisementMy first question, not 10 seconds into the game, was, "Wow, how much are they paying this guy?"
I doubt I was the only viewer with that immediate response. The name, image and likeness rule has changed the way fans watch games. And to be clear, the payouts are no longer about image and likeness rights, it's about buying players.
Athletes have long deserved to benefit from the earnings. Truly believe it.
But the topic of player earnings was never so direct as last week in Las Vegas at the Players Era Festival.
Teams were lured by the $1 million payout for participating, with bonuses up to a million more being kicked in for the final four teams advancing to the title and third-place games.
AdvertisementAdvertisementAdvertisementHow the money is being distributed has been vague, surely by intent.
For the first time I've seen, postgame news conferences were peppered with questions to players about how they're going to spend their windfall.
Clearly, this is changing the landscape of college basketball. Time will be needed to judge whether the changes are good for the game rather than the few elite teams and players.
It's great when it's your guy doing the dunking for bucks. Yeah, way to go. But an opponent? And when their payroll is double or triple your team's, shouldn't that be part of the game information?
AdvertisementAdvertisementAdvertisementEvery college game has a betting line published, with projected percentage of win probability. Shouldn't the payroll be part of the information fans and bettors see?
Faber College, 4-6 overall (NIL: $3.5 million) vs. Western University 9-1 overall (NIL: $8 million).
If you're a fan who contributed to a "collective," the agency channeling the money? Don't you want to know if you're getting your money's worth? A stats line should include points and money.
Personal note: Last year, for the first time, I donated $50 to a university's athletic collective. I wanted to feel what it was like, to understand this from a fan's perspective.
AdvertisementAdvertisementAdvertisementWhen "my" football team hit a recent losing streak, I heard myself say these words: "Well, (expletive), they're not getting my money this year." I had become one of "those" fans.
When hard-earned dollars were added to the equation, the nostalgia previously felt at the hearing the team's fight song was somewhat devalued.
The change from a recruiting perspective is obvious. If a prospect has a chance to play for a team likely to see bonus money on table, it makes the signing decision much easier.
It further separates — perhaps forever — the Haves from Wanna-Haves. That sort of thing has always been in play, to some extent.
AdvertisementAdvertisementAdvertisementBut over a longer term, it virtually blocks the chances of there ever being another Gonzaga Phenomenon, a team able to rise from middle ranks to build a foundation of elite play and sustain it over decades.
Fair to question how many of those great early Zags, who developed within the program, would have been money-whipped elsewhere by offers of life-changing paydays.
And it would be hard to blame them for cashing in.
From a recruiter's standpoint, former Auburn coach Bruce Pearl talked this week about his attempts to sign Lendeborg away from Alabama-Birmingham.
"We thought a million dollars would be good enough," Pearl was quoted as saying. "Didn't even warm him up."
AdvertisementAdvertisementAdvertisementI faced an unexpected perspective last week after the No. 12-ranked Zags were pounded by Michigan by an astonishing 40 points.
A lot of us in the analysis business have often held college "kids" to a different standard of criticism. After all, they're playing for the love of the game and the benefit of their schools. The language of fault-finding was far less harsh than used on the pros.
But some of the college players are now millionaires heading toward their mid-20s. That changes the range of valid expectations.
One of the best responses about the new earnings opportunities came from Gonzaga's best player, Graham Ike. Talking about the motivation to earn bonus money in the Players Era, Ike said: "The walk-ons don't get to touch the chicken (money) like we do. We're doing it for them."
AdvertisementAdvertisementAdvertisementGreat sentiment, and appreciation for the less-obvious contributors to a team's success.
But in light of the "chicken" at stake, it's fair to note that the Zags' loss to Michigan left a potential half-million in NIL chicken uncaptured. In that game, Ike scored one point, 16 below his pre-tournament average.
Of course, the dominance of multimillionaire Lendeborg contributed to the troubles of Ike and the Zags all game.
Details of NIL contracts aren't generally made public. Maybe that should change, since these guys are professionals now.
Near the start of that game, when I searched for estimates of Lendeborg's NIL bonanza, it came back as somewhere between $2.3 and $3 million.
Later in that game, Lendeborg broke away for a thunderous reverse dunk.
It wasn't at all unexpected. That's why he's getting the big bucks.
AdvertisementAdvertisement
