loyalty, NIL is destined for failure.

Two systemic features that have to come before I open my wallet are:

1. Sliding scale of earnings limits that increases with tenure at a single school. I.e., a guy who moves every year can’t make as much as a guy who is loyal and stays a second, third or fourth year somewhere.

2. Playing time is required for earnings. I.e., if you get hurt, you can only earn up to a much lower minimum. I’m looking at you, Cam Rising. Don’t play: don’t get paid big $$. Don’t play well: earn less. This could potentially be done with a system of accelerators and decelerators—come in and underperform: earn less; come in and over perform: earn more. But minutes would be the metric—not wins or points, etc. That way, you more or less control what you can control (i.e., you can compete with your teammates for minutes—you may not be able to win games if the other pieces around you aren’t ideal).

Both of these mechanics would increase competition, and help schools in the long tail of funding get more bang for their buck. A small school could make a bet on a guy and he could make a bet on them. If they play him a lot, they pay him a lot (for them). And if he’s loyal to them, they will pay him. If not, they don’t have to.

And guys who like to jump around ultimately cap their earning potential.