No, I would say "null model" essentially has the same meaning as "null hypothesis": the model if the null hypothesis is true. What this means, in a particular case, of course depends upon the concrete null hypothesis.
Your interpretations as "the average value" (you probably want to say "the marginal distribution on response variable") not taking into account any predictors, is one possibility, corresponding to the null hypothesis of an "omnibus test", testing all the parameters (except the intercept) simultaneously.
But interest could well focus on a model of the form
$$
y_i = \beta_0 + \beta_1^T x_{1i} + \beta_2^T x_{2i} + \epsilon_i
$$
where $x_1$ contains the predictors you know are affecting the outcome, so are not wanting to test, while $x_2$ contains the predictors you are testing.
So the null hypothesis will be $\beta_2 =0$ and the null model would be
$y_i = \beta_0 + \beta_1^T x_{1i} + \epsilon_i$. So it depends.
fit = lm(formula = y ~ 1, data)and you should see the mean ofy. Also, see MorganBall's answer. I would agree with his response the most. Also, a null model can be a model with $p$ predictors, with an alternative model being one with $p+k$, where k can be 1,2,... additional covariates. – Jon 15 hours ago