You make a salient point that isn't being appreciated in all of this. I think it affects Clemson to an even greater degree.
I want to first make a couple initial points. The collectives, but more specifically what aTm is alleged to have done (and we all know has done to the tune of allegedly $30 million) is pay non-enrolled recruits/transfer players to come and play football for aTm. This is a violation of NCAA rules and always has been. Whether the NCAA will enforce that rule or not is the question. NIL is a company or charity compensating a college athlete for the use of his or her name, image, or likeness. NIL is different than what the aTm collective(s) and other collectives associated with other schools are doing. In the 5 star WR thread I made the point that schools such as Ohio State, Alabama, and Clemson are not doing this vis-a-vis collectives, and I think this episode has proven me correct. What I never said, because it can't be said, is that not even my beloved Buckeyes have clean hands when it comes to recruiting shenanigans over the years. With that out of the way, let's get into what is a very interesting development here that you have brought up.
Before NIL, before the collectives (i.e., before the bagmen becoming legit and out in the open), it's well known that Alabama using the Bryant Bank (just check AL.com) has been doing the clandestine bagman stuff for decades. Same with Clemson via the Newspring Church, although probably more recently. It's much easier for these schools with much smaller alumni/booster bases and overall less wealthy alumni/booster bases, let alone being located in generally speaking much lower income states, to operate via the clandestine bagman approach. Because its against the rules, clandestine, the conspiracy has to be small. The larger the conspiracy, the more likely it gets exposed. So in a way, while "everyone was doing it," some did it much more effectively than others, but for all it was done at the same comparative scale. Now that it's out in the open, a collective can be as big as it wants or can be. That wealthy alumnus who was uncomfortable giving his money to the bagman via the bank conduit or was concerned the IRS was going to audit that large charitable deduction he made to the church, he doesn't have to worry anymore. Heck, that conscientous billionaire can even set up his own collective with his other rich buddies if he wants to. And that's what's happened. Schools like Bama and Clemson who did the clandestine bagman approach better than anyone else, don't have that advantage anymore. Just why is it that it seems to be that Saban and Swinney are the two coaches speaking out against what's going on the most?
Saban is calculated. He made a mistake by naming names (and he and Fisher just stuck a stake in the heart of the SEC "honor amongst theives" that the late Mike Slive worked so hard to bring about). But Saban was messaging his alumni/booster base to get with the program. I think there's something else going on. The Bryant Bank has been in charge, but it can't be a collective. I wouldn't be surprised that there's a power struggle going on down there between the Bryant Bank and other wealthy Bama alumni/boosters about who's going to be in charge of the collective(s). They don't need the Bryant Bank anymore, but you know what it is when someone or thing is in power. It's hard for them to give it up.
But even if Alabama gets their $&!T together on the collective(s), they wont' be able to scale to the degree that the collectives of aTm and even some other SEC schools will. Michigan and Ohio State may have the largest global alumni bases and are very wealthy, but no one measures up to Texas A&M in terms of its wealth and the wealth it can draw on, except Harvard, Yale, and Princeton and they don't play in this sandbox and neither does Stanford. That said, I think eventually the market self-corrects. Rich dudes don't like throwing away their money to Johnny 5 stars who bust and that's going to happen.
www.si.com
