CJ Dippre on NIL: “I Do Think the NIL Has Kinda Gotten Out of Hand”

The Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) era has transformed college football in ways few could have predicted just a few years ago. What started as an opportunity for athletes to capitalize on their personal brands has quickly evolved into a free-market arms race, with some schools and boosters pouring millions of dollars into securing top talent.

Alabama tight end CJ Dippre recently shared his thoughts on the current state of NIL, voicing concerns that echo sentiments from many within the sport.

“I do think the NIL has kinda gotten out of hand,” Dippre said when asked what he believes needs to change in college football.

His comments add to an ongoing national debate about whether NIL deals have gone too far and what—if anything—should be done to restore balance to the sport.

The Rise of NIL: A Game Changer for College Football

When NIL was introduced in July 2021, it was hailed as a monumental step forward for student-athletes. For years, the NCAA had prohibited players from profiting off their name, image, and likeness, even as schools and conferences made billions of dollars from TV contracts, merchandise sales, and ticket revenue.

NIL changed everything. Suddenly, players could sign endorsement deals, participate in advertising campaigns, and receive compensation for their influence and popularity.

In the beginning, NIL deals were mostly small, localized endorsements—things like:
✅ Sponsorships from local businesses
✅ Social media promotions
✅ Autograph signings and personal appearances

However, it didn’t take long for wealthy boosters and collectives to realize they could use NIL as a tool for recruiting. Today, NIL is no longer just about branding opportunities—it’s about which school can offer the biggest financial package to top recruits and transfers.

CJ Dippre’s Concerns: Where Has NIL Gone Wrong?

Dippre, who transferred to Alabama from Maryland in 2023, has seen firsthand how NIL has changed the game. While he supports players being compensated, he worries that the system has morphed into something unrecognizable.

One of the biggest concerns? NIL has become pay-for-play rather than true name, image, and likeness endorsements.

“There are guys picking schools not because of football, not because of development, but strictly because of the money being offered,” Dippre said.

This pay-for-play model has led to:
🚨 Players chasing the biggest NIL deal instead of the best football fit.
🚨 Massive roster turnover with transfers leaving for bigger paydays.
🚨 Some schools leveraging NIL to create “bidding wars” for top talent.

Dippre believes that while financial opportunities are great, they shouldn’t become the main reason players choose schools. College football has always been about development, coaching, and competition, but NIL has shifted the focus toward who can write the biggest check.

The Transfer Portal & NIL: A Dangerous Combination?

One of the biggest challenges with NIL is how it has intersected with the transfer portal.

Under the new rules, players can transfer once without penalty, and many use NIL as leverage to secure better financial offers from other schools.

In recent years, we’ve seen:
🔄 Star players entering the portal to negotiate bigger NIL deals.
🔄 Boosters offering lucrative NIL packages to lure talent away.
🔄 Programs struggling to keep rosters intact amid frequent departures.

Dippre is not alone in his frustration. Several high-profile coaches have spoken out about how the current system lacks structure and hurts team continuity.

“We’ve got to find a way to balance NIL with actual football,” one SEC coach recently said. “Right now, it’s the Wild West.”

What Needs to Change? Possible NIL Solutions

While Dippre acknowledges that NIL is here to stay, he believes there needs to be more regulation to ensure that college football remains about the game—not just the money.

Here are some potential solutions being discussed:

1. NCAA-Enforced Salary Cap or Revenue Sharing

One idea gaining traction is to implement a salary cap or revenue-sharing model where all players receive a set amount of NIL money based on their school’s revenue. This would prevent bidding wars and ensure that players are still compensated fairly.

2. Contracts to Prevent Immediate Transfers

Another proposed solution is to introduce contracts that require players to stay at a school for at least two years before transferring. This would reduce roster turnover and discourage players from jumping ship for a better NIL deal every season.

3. Transparency in NIL Deals

Currently, NIL contracts are private, making it difficult to regulate. Requiring schools and players to disclose NIL earnings could help prevent under-the-table deals and bring more accountability to the system.

4. Limiting Booster Influence in Recruiting

Some coaches have suggested banning booster-led collectives from negotiating NIL deals for recruits and transfers. This would ensure that NIL remains about endorsements—not recruiting incentives.

What’s Next for NIL in College Football?

Dippre’s comments reflect what many players, coaches, and administrators are feeling: NIL has drastically changed college football, and not always for the better.

While players should absolutely have the right to earn money, the lack of structure has led to a system where NIL is being used as a tool for talent acquisition rather than what it was originally intended for.

The NCAA and college football leaders face a critical decision in the coming years:
✔️ Do they let NIL continue without major restrictions, allowing the market to dictate its future?
✔️ Do they implement new rules to restore balance between financial opportunities and competitive integrity?

CJ Dippre and many others believe some level of reform is necessary—but whether that happens remains to be seen. One thing is certain: NIL isn’t going away, but how it’s managed moving forward will shape the future of college football for years to come.