Bob Nicolls publicly calling out Jordan Williams and Gabe Arnold (Bo related?)

[1032004]

29 minutes ago, BAC said:

Sorry for slow response.  I appreciate your points.  I disagree with much of it, for reasons I've given, but understand where you're coming from.  Here's my final thoughts, and happy to give you the final word.

I do think some of your criticisms of the one study are just factually wrong, and the "just media articles" I mentioned themselves refer to other studies, e.g. lower average return on IG posts, black folks having a disproportionate share relative to participation.  There's also a Penn study in 2021 that also found a stark race disparity, a WVU (Sports Marketing Quarterly) in 2022 also finding whites earn "a disproportionate share of NIL deals," and others. I'd be more open-minded to a critique if there was some contrary data that you're citing, but there really isn't -- just your off-the-cuff, 15-minute anecdotal once-over of a list you saw online, compared against actual studies by people who have an actual responsibility to be scientifically accurate.  (My own 15-minute once-over points to a different conclusion, albeit an unscientific one). You openly admit there's a racial disparity among women but not men, but again cite no data.

All of that said, I'm not sure our disagreement is really all that stark.

First, you say "will you at least acknowledge that your claim of 'people of color only get 16% of NIL dollars' is complete nonsense?"  That isn't my claim.  It's a claim from a study cited in an article, and it specifically says it was an analysis from 2021-22.  I have no reason to say that it was untrue back then, so I suspect it is accurate.  But is it true today?  I don't know. but looking at anecdotal evidence, it seems unlikely.   That was a very different landscape then.  

That leads to a second point.  The landscape is changing *dramatically*.  June 2025 compared to say, June 2023, would be an enormous difference, and going all the way back to 2021 is essentially the stone ages in the NIL world.  Much of the o the research I've seen is from 2023-24 or earlier.  So I will agree with you generally that research from back then is of limited relevance to today.  Does that mean they've magically cleared up the racial disparity? No, it doesn't, but the world is so different now, I think it's just hard to extrapolate.  (I think that is especially so as the prevalence of individual NIL donors started to give way to collectives that coordinate more closely with universities, causing pressures for equal treatment.)  So if your core point is that the 16% figure of 2021-22 is likely higher today, I'd give that one to you on suspicion.

Third, just because a racial disparity may have a non-racist explanation does not mean it exists. If you asked 100 10 year old black boys their biggest sports hero, do you think more will name a black athlete than if you asked the same question of 100 10 year old white boys?  Does that mean either are racist?   There's lots of studies on this too, but it's a social fact that people tend to relate more to people who look like themselves. 

I suspect that translates to NIL.  It's ultimately marketplace driven, and the moneyed marketplace is still predominantly white.  So if a given black and white athletes are of identical ability, I think you can expect to see the white athlete have a stronger social media following, which in turn translates to more NIL dollars, which has an objective basis.  That's why you've got these white guys who aren't necessarily the best FB players getting the most money.  It's the same rationale as gender disparities, e.g. how women in the WNBA or Women's MLS get way less.  We say "the market doesn't support it." It's less pronounced in race, but it's always been there.  In the professional sports context, there's a treasure trove of research that black athletes earn less in endorsements (relative to representation) than white athletes, ostensibly because white athletes are seen as "safer" and "appealing to a wider audience." 

None of this means NIL money isn't predominantly a meritocracy.  Of course it is.  Donors want their school to win.  But even if there's a 5% racial disparity, it's still a disparity.  How big is it in 2025?  Dunno.  

Lastly, and some may disagree, but I think there's a racial element even to some of the explanations we are hearing.  Saying "Well he's in the Manning family, of course he's getting a lot, that's not race," ignores the likely racial difference among those who are the biggest fans of the Manning family.  Saying "Livvy's super hot, of course she's getting a lot, that's not race," ignores the fact that there's a racial disparity among who her biggest fans are. 

Even "they're highly paid because they're QBs not because they're white" is a fraught thing to say.  Yes, black QBs command a NIL premium too, but is there a racial component to that?  I recall reading a few years ago an article saying that black fans' favorite position is RB and white fans' favorite position is QB.  Wish I could find that, but query whether there's a racial element to which positons are most valued, based on the race of the perceiver.  Also, there may be a racially-grounded difference in perception of QB abilities too.  There's evidence of racial bias inhibiting perceptions of who's the best QB (e.g. here).  Even in the NFL, where black QBs have dramatically outperformed white QBs relative to draft position (see article here).

Cheers.

Not sure why you’re saying you don’t want to reply anymore, but if you’re saying “NIL money is predominantly a meritocracy,” then seems like we agree.  But saying “well there might be a 5% disparity” is a long way from when you said “16% of NIL dollars go to people of color.”  Yes I know you were quoting something else, but you seemed to take it as fact.  And I’m not saying they fabricated that stat, I looked up where it came from and it said it came from Opendorse, so in all likelihood it was only based on transactions on Opendorse, which wouldn’t include the top athletes.

I am curious why you think my criticism of the “one study” was “factually wrong” though.  I believe @Wrestleknownothing made similar criticisms about it.

[BAC]

On 6/25/2025 at 8:48 AM, scourge165 said:

Lets START by remembering these are ESTIMATED deals. We found out after Angel Reese and Caitlyn Clark, the greatest women's CBB player of all-time was making less than the "Bayou Barbi." 

 

Now, my issue with this list;

You're taking a YouTube video that is ranking the 10 BEST players in the NFL draft.

Look at the ranking of the 10 BEST every year...and then look at the Mock Drafts. You'll have as many as 4-5 QBs going in the top 10 picks. 

BEST and Most important are very different... but this guys list is also just AWFUL. 

This is just a lazy list off ChatGTP but who are going to be the highest paid?

 

1-QBs from the The top programs(or at least the most well funded program...UT is the #1 Athletic Dept in the Country in Revenue).
LSU, Alabama, Ohio State, Michigan, Miami, Tennessee, Clemson...the typical powerhouses. 

2-The BEST of the BEST at other positions. And when I say these are just estimates, I know Kayden Proctor, the LT from Alabama is at LEAST in the top 10. 

 

You remember what Matt Rhule said about the poor QB play at Nebraska? "If you want me to go out and get a good QB, I'm going to need at least 2M or he's going to go somewhere else."

 

Nico Iamaleava is a clown. He tried to force Tennessee into paying him more and ended up stuck in the portal and I think he ended up at UCLA. And this list by the time the draft comes will DRASTICALLY change. 

Sanders was high on this list last year. Right behind Travis Hunter. 

 

This list is bad as Nussmeier is the favorite to go #1 as Arch Manning is expected back and is leaves off the QB from South Carolina...Lanoris Sellers or something like that...a Jalen Hurts type QB with a better arm(as a College QB). 

But Miami has UGA transfer Beck. 
Drew Allar at PSU has been one of the top prospects since HS.
Clemson QB Cade Klubik

Arch Manning since he was one of the most highly pursued QB in CFB History...

 

THOSE are going to be the guys who get the most NIL money. It was Caleb Williams two years ago. 

 

That you think this is about a social media following... I mean, I don't know if you're a CFB fan, but that's ridiculous. 

 

No...I don't. I think it's a ridiculous question, but again, that's a NICHE sport, but...what Women have dominated endorsement deals for the last 20 years?

The Williams Sisters and Simone Billes. So...I guess I do know the answer. Yes. They would. 

Who was the top paid Women's athlete 3 years ago? The year Caitlyn Clark, the VASTLY superior Basketball player but less attractive athlete or Angel Reese? Angel Reese...she was making 1.5M despite the fact she is...so bad at anything but rebounding. 

Dunne is a COMMPLETE outlier. Lets go to last year;

 

 

So #1 QB from the MANNING Family.
#2 Black QB from the Sanders family(but also from Colorado which doesn't have the money the top programs have). 
#3-The first non-QB. Travis Hunter. Why? Because he was the best player in CFB last year. 
#4-The starting QB for Texas.
#5-the #1 overall pick in the NBA draft and one of the most hyped Basketball prospects in years(domestically, Wemby was up there with LeBron in the last 20 years). 
#6-Black QB from Alabama
#7-Black QB from Miami
#8-AsianQB from Oregon
#9-Samoan QB from UT...who cost himself money.
#10-Carson Beck...who was lured away by Miami(who has the largest NIL collective). 
#11-1st Rd draft pick Jaxson Dart
#12-Drew Allar QB PSU-The #3 overall recruit and a top 5 projected draft pick
#13 Garrett Nussmeier QB LSU and the projected TOP PICK in the draft. 

 

 

This should be obviously by now.

 

This year... who are the top?

 

 

Manning remains #1(3rd straight year). 
Beck, who'd led UGA to SEC Title Games and the CFB playoffs took the money from Miami

Jeremiah Smith, a FRESHMEN last year at WR
DJ Lagway, a guy who sat behind Graham Mertz last year
LaNorris Sellers, another FRESHMEN who is in the top 5.

 

So #3, #4, #5 are black. 

 

 

If you really don't think this is a meritocracy... you're living in the past. This isn't the 1960s Alabama team refusing to play Black CBs. 

This is a multi-billion dollar industry. These programs...and the people running it WANT TO WNI. 

 

You're going to see this change year to year. 

Why was Carter Starocci and Gable Stevenson the highest paid Wrestlers? BECAUSE THEY WERE THE BEST(well...Gable ended up losing, but you get the point). 

 

 

 

Scourge, see my above comments.  I'll just be repeating myself if I keep going, but my last few comments:

-- Counting up the number of black players isn't helpful.  We already know that black athletes are dramatically overrepresented in high-end NCAA D1 athletics.  That doesn't answer whether there's a racial disparity after taking that disproportionate representation into account.

-- When you say things like "these schools want to WIN!", it tells me you're confusing the school with the NIL donors, which are kept separate by law.  That was my whole point that indirectly led to this discussion:  NIL donors aren't beholden to follow the university's obligation not to discriminate.  Donors want to see their school win too, but they're also making an economic investment.  That's why social media following is so central. There's a separate metric for it for every athlete shown on On3, though other intangibles apply too. That means if there's a racial disparity in social media following and overall fame, that will translate to what sponsors will offer.  It's really not much different than male professional athletes earning more, on average, than women.  I don't think the racial disparity is nearly as stark as the gender one, but it's existed every time someone's take the time to examine it.     

-- Although NIL is market driven, I agree that merit is the primary driver of NIL money -- both because excellence drives social media follows, and because many donors are motivated by desire to make their team win, not just to make money.  On that, we don't disagree.  But again, the question is whether there's a racial disparity, and the answer consistently has been yes, every time it's been critically examined. It's a separate question to ask how large that disparity is, and as I said above, I'd personally join the hypothesis that it's gone down in recent years as collectives have increased, leading to greater coordination more race neutrality than you are apt to find if left to individual wealthy donors. 

-- This is just a theory, but I'd wager the racial disparity is smaller in non-revenue sports, like wrestling.  That's because donors to these sports are more apt to be driven by loyalty to a team, rather than to make money. They're not making an "investment" where they need to worry about their revenue-generation ability, so much as they're trying to build a winning team, where "marketability" is irrelevant. (See CStar.)   

In any case, I'm not sure if we really disagree all that much.  Is NIL fund allocation 100% race neutral?  80%?  95%?  My guess is the racial disparity has reduced, as I said, but some level of racial disparity is almost inevitable when (a) allocation of NIL dollars is left purely to the marketplace, where race plays at least a small role, and (b) when your main donors are old white men, some of whom may harbor old biases that the university is powerless to put in check.

[pokemonster]

On 6/24/2025 at 2:11 AM, BAC said:

Are you really sure your "peak at the football spreadsheet" of a single collective told the full story?

Some info here, here, here, here.

While 52% of Division I athletes are people of color, they only received 16% of the total NIL compensation as of a couple years ago. 

i can tell you there certainly wasn't any discrimination or racial favoritism going on in that spreadsheet, and every other top d1 football program can likely say the same. that's probably by far the highest percentage of the NIL numbers out there, and the paper you linked literally only had 7 total football players. so I don't really trust your paper or your articles in the grand scheme of things. the data set sucks and is actually misrepresenting what the full story actually is. 

[1032004]

On 6/24/2025 at 2:11 AM, BAC said:

Are you really sure your "peak at the football spreadsheet" of a single collective told the full story?

Some info here, here, here, here.

While 52% of Division I athletes are people of color, they only received 16% of the total NIL compensation as of a couple years ago. 

Quoting this which was the first time you made the “people of color only received 16% of total NIL compensation” claim.

No “according to” or citation of where that stat came from…

[Caveira]

43 minutes ago, pokemonster said:

i can tell you there certainly wasn't any discrimination or racial favoritism going on in that spreadsheet, and every other top d1 football program can likely say the same. that's probably by far the highest percentage of the NIL numbers out there, and the paper you linked literally only had 7 total football players. so I don't really trust your paper or your articles in the grand scheme of things. the data set sucks and is actually misrepresenting what the full story actually is. 

Google says 

track men are 26% black and 28% female

soccer men 9.8% black 5.3% women 

Lacrosse 2% black male 2.2% female

Volleyball 4% male black 11.6% female black 

golf men 2.7% black women to few to measure 

swimming and diving lol men 1.7% black 

gymnastics 2.2% black 

rowing 2% black 

field hockey    Common.   Lol 

sailing ?   0.5% black   
 

did you cherry pick a study of the whitest sports on planet earth????   And then only survey a few football players…..  your stretching boss   

 

Edited 8 hours ago by Caveira

[Le duke]

While I find Bob Nicolls to be an unsavory character, I can’t say that I agree with the assertion that his comments were racist, or race based.

Sometimes the simplest explanation is the best: two kids who are not fulfilling their potential also happen to be black, and Bob took the opportunity to open his trap and offer them some unsolicited advice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pokemonster]

10 minutes ago, Caveira said:

Google says 

track men are 26% black and 28% female

soccer men 9.8% black 5.3% women 

Lacrosse 2% black male 2.2% female

Volleyball 4% male black 11.6% female black 

golf men 2.7% black women to few to measure 

swimming and diving lol men 1.7% black 

gymnastics 2.2% black 

rowing 2% black 

field hockey    Common.   Lol 

sailing ?   0.5% black   
 

did you cherry pick a study of the whitest sports on planet earth????   And then only survey a few football players…..  your stretching boss   

 

Lol exactly, the backbone of this whole argument is based on shoddy data in that study... I'm annoyed at how much of my time was wasted looking at that thing. 

[scourge165]

5 hours ago, BAC said:

Even "they're highly paid because they're QBs not because they're white" is a fraught thing to say.  Yes, black QBs command a NIL premium too, but is there a racial component to that?  I recall reading a few years ago an article saying that black fans' favorite position is RB and white fans' favorite position is QB.  Wish I could find that, but query whether there's a racial element to which positons are most valued, based on the race of the perceiver.  Also, there may be a racially-grounded difference in perception of QB abilities too.  There's evidence of racial bias inhibiting perceptions of who's the best QB (e.g. here).  Even in the NFL, where black QBs have dramatically outperformed white QBs relative to draft position (see article here).

Cheers.

You go on and on about anecdotal evidence and then "studies" and you are using a 2015 study(from 2017...strange they'd not use the 2017 starters) but half the starting QBs are black going into this year(actually...more than half, but it's less than white). The first two picks of the 2022 and 2023 draft...black. The first pick of this years draft class...black. 

So if you want to argue there's a "racial element to which positions are most valued," then...please account for that?" 

I mean... it's also Football. They didn't just devalue RB because due to race, they did it because it's an EASIER position to replace. QB is the most important position in Football. Who was the ROY last year? The MVP the last several years? 

 

Are you a Football fan? Because...if not, I get it, but if you are, I have to question how honest some of these questions are... this is SUCH basic stuff.  

The top young QBs, Jayden Daniels, Caleb Wiliams

The top QBs in the NFL overall, Mahomes, Lamar, Allen, Burrows.

Who's the top paid QB in the NFL? Mahomes.
Top paid in GTD money? Dak.

 

You're really muddying this conversation by oscillating back and forth between NFL QB play(which is 10-years old and even a casual NFL fan would know is antiquated)...why QB is valued more than RB and asking if there's a racial component to it(that doesn't even seem serious frankly). 

 

Lets go to the 2nd most valuable position. WR. Just like NIL and CFB, the highest paid non-QBs are ALMOST all WRs.

Tyreke Hill, Davante Adams, Justin Jefferson, Jamar Chase, Ceedee Lamb, DK Metcalf... Terry McClaurin...

 

The correlation is NOT with QBs becoming more highly valued as RBs became LESS valued, the correlation is WRs becoming more highly valued as RBs became devalued. 

 

All really moving off the College NFL deals where... you're using a year that fits your narrative but then ignoring the one that doesn't. 

[scourge165]

4 hours ago, BAC said:

-- When you say things like "these schools want to WIN!", it tells me you're confusing the school with the NIL donors, which are kept separate by law. 

Dude... C'mon... I don't care what they're "legally" separated from, they CAN legally communicate with each other Which ...AGAIN is why Matt Rhule, the Nebraska HC and former coach of the Panthers came and said, "you want a good QB, it's going to cost US 2M in the portal, that's just the reality."

These coaches are talking to the heads of the NIL collectives, they're coordinating. The school can't push you to pay one player, the Collectives can... and MANY of those Collectives...such as the one at Miami that is giving Carson Beck a massive amount of money. 

4 hours ago, BAC said:

But again, the question is whether there's a racial disparity, and the answer consistently has been yes, every time it's been critically examined.

Right...so now we're back to the positions and frankly, what year you want to look at. 

Look at least year, it was Sanders, Hunter...a CBB player I hadn't heard of who were at the top...ALONG with Arch Manning who comes from maybe the most famous Football family(or possibly sports family) in the league's history. 

5 hours ago, BAC said:

-- Although NIL is market driven, I agree that merit is the primary driver of NIL money -- both because excellence drives social media follows, and because many donors are motivated by desire to make their team win, not just to make money.

Are you off the opinion that the large revenue sports have NIL collectives that make money? 

LOL...no, they DEFINITELY do not. They basically work as Charities but for...the least charitable reasons. They may end a year with more money than they had going into the year... that money doesn't get spread back over the collective. You just end up rolling it over. 

 I'm dying to know where my money went! I put 10K in just at the start of the year the last several years(not...exactly a high roller). I got back...0 dollars. Any money they make, that just goes into their war chest. 

You're not making money from it. 

5 hours ago, BAC said:

-- This is just a theory, but I'd wager the racial disparity is smaller in non-revenue sports, like wrestling.  That's because donors to these sports are more apt to be driven by loyalty to a team, rather than to make money. They're not making an "investment" where they need to worry about their revenue-generation ability, so much as they're trying to build a winning team, where "marketability" is irrelevant. (See CStar.)   

Non-Revenue... I don't think it changes.

Non-revenue is more often just a couple larger donors who are more invested in the programs.

 

5 hours ago, BAC said:

In any case, I'm not sure if we really disagree all that much.  Is NIL fund allocation 100% race neutral?  80%?  95%?  My guess is the racial disparity has reduced, as I said, but some level of racial disparity is almost inevitable

I don't think we are on most issues, but on this, I think it's almost 100% race neutral.

There may be some nepotism that goes into it...you have teammates who are often given money to entire other teammates.

This could in theory happen with the Bassett Family(though they're Brothers). 

With schools like IMG pumping out 30-40 D1 Athletes a year, the only way I see it not being based on merit at this point is... who has the bigger name or connections and I still think that's in service of winning, not race.