NCAA in "Deep Discussion" to Implement Revenue Sharing with Athletes

[caveman99]

How much revenue share can an athlete at Nebraska expect? Is it an equal amount amoung athletes from a revenue share sport (football vs the basketballs vs volleyball) I assume they get scholarships too.

Each school has to determine how much of the rev share pie to allocate to each sport opted into. I think the football team at NU got around $14 million of the $20.5 million hey had for the 2025 fiscal year. That $14 million has to cover all 105 official rostered players, but it doesn’t have to be distributed equally. It is the same concept as a NFL salary cap, the coaches have to determine how much to allocate to each position. Let’s say that Raiola got $3 million, you would only have $11 mil to pay to 104 other players. I think the Rev share cap increased to 21 million plus this year, but you have to factor in retaining existing roster players. Barney, Cortes, etc. all probably had lots of suitors and as such they almost certainly got a pay bump. Everyone clamors to sign all these players, but it is a roster construction balancing act. They most certainly paid $750K-1mil for that OT they got. They paid the new QB $2mil+ I am guessing. NIL deals help sweeten the pot, but by all accounts the total investment this year was increased to $30 million plus+, which is is competitive with all but a handful of schools. Of that $30 million, 2/3 plus is Rev share. That is why I roll my eyes at everyone saying NU is a poverty program. Reality is they aren’t, Rhule agreed to the extension in part because Dannon secured more NIl funds to raise the ceiling. That doesn’t mean they can just spend like a drunken sailor on a payday Friday night. Spend $1mil on a running back and you can’t get that DT they wanted.

 

[krc1995]

Each school has to determine how much of the rev share pie to allocate to each sport opted into. I think the football team at NU got around $14 million of the $20.5 million hey had for the 2025 fiscal year. That $14 million has to cover all 105 official rostered players, but it doesn’t have to be distributed equally. It is the same concept as a NFL salary cap, the coaches have to determine how much to allocate to each position. Let’s say that Raiola got $3 million, you would only have $11 mil to pay to 104 other players. I think the Rev share cap increased to 21 million plus this year, but you have to factor in retaining existing roster players. Barney, Cortes, etc. all probably had lots of suitors and as such they almost certainly got a pay bump. Everyone clamors to sign all these players, but it is a roster construction balancing act. They most certainly paid $750K-1mil for that OT they got. They paid the new QB $2mil+ I am guessing. NIL deals help sweeten the pot, but by all accounts the total investment this year was increased to $30 million plus+, which is is competitive with all but a handful of schools. Of that $30 million, 2/3 plus is Rev share. That is why I roll my eyes at everyone saying NU is a poverty program. Reality is they aren’t, Rhule agreed to the extension in part because Dannon secured more NIl funds to raise the ceiling. That doesn’t mean they can just spend like a drunken sailor on a payday Friday night. Spend $1mil on a running back and you can’t get that DT they wanted.

Thank you for this. I kind of get it, but it’s a lot. What about the non revenue sports? Do they get scholarships + Nil? It seems baseball was left in the cold, but maybe some Nil + scholarships help. I think they get a benefit with more roster spots.

 

[caveman99]

Thank you for this. I kind of get it, but it’s a lot. What about the non revenue sports? Do they get scholarships + Nil? It seems baseball was left in the cold, but maybe some Nil + scholarships help. I think they get a benefit with more roster spots.

All sports at NU have to fit under the Rev share total. Baseball got a small share. The roster limits were part of the Rev share deal. 105 was the football number as we all know, baseball has 35 roster spots, all under Rev share. Scholarship values count against the Rev share total. All players can get NIL, lower revenue sports aren’t going to get much of the school’s media and apparel partners’ money as they will prioritize the big boys like football. That being said, baseball players can secure NIL deals as they have have been able to since NIL became allowed. If Amigos or Runza want to hire a baseball player to be their spokesperson then great. Bolt has less ability to secure extra NIL for his roster since football, basketball, and at NU volleyball, will take priority for the NIL sources the athletic department has more control over.

- Edit - Each school has to decide how to balance what they allocate in rev share to each sport. SEC schools probably give a higher proportion to baseball than B1G schools do for instance. The athletic department has a cap and then each sports has a salary cap based on what they were allocated. What is still to be determined is if a few schools, think Texas Tech, who are still skirting the line on the old NIL deal, ie big time boosters paying players, will win in court. IMO there are some early signs they won’t and everything will normalize, but then again some schools are already complaining about the Rev cap so who knows.

 

[krc1995]

I was told baseball is not a revenue share sport and that was done purposely to avoid the 34 man roster limit. Not sure if that’s true or I understood correctly , but that’s what was told. The athletic department was selling it as a benefit.

Will I now be asked by the athletic department to donate towards NIL? Or is NIL just big donors plus media rights revenue?

 

[caveman99]

I was told baseball is not a revenue share sport and that was done purposely to avoid the 34 man roster limit. Not sure if that’s true or I understood correctly , but that’s what was told. The athletic department was selling it as a benefit.

Will I now be asked by the athletic department to donate towards NIL? Or is NIL just big donors plus media rights revenue?

Maybe baseball isn’t opted in, I haven’t read that so I assumed it was opted in. Advantage is being able to have a larger roster, but you still only have 12.5 scholarships to share.

Regarding how NIL works going forward, or is supposed to, the days of direct pay for play by donors is supposed to be over. Deals are supposed to be legitimate NIL deals, hence the review process. How schools fund the Rev share however could look like the old NIL process, especially if they don’t have the funds to fully support the Rev share commitment under their current revenue and expenditure structures. That is where big time boosters and private donations to fill up the coffers to pay Rev share come in, just a different bucket than NIL like those funds used to go to before Rev share. Difference is that Rev share is equal for every school, but days of unequal NIL due to large donors/donations is supposed to be over. Lots to play out on that front, but that is what the settlement was supposed to bring about.

 

[caveman99]

@krc1995 One more thought, sorry drank a few too many IPAs so my thoughts are jumbled a bit. Everyone needs to remember that the big paydays of this past summer were right before the settlement went into effect. The Texas Tech softball player, the Texas Tech football team, the IU team, etc. were all funded by large deals under the old model. It will be interesting to watch what transpires going forward under the current model. Can Texas Tech sign another 30 player transfer class or do they sign 15-20 with a few high dollar signings? Do they try and use the old NIL system anyway and bet on winning in court? Who knows, but based on the posts Mav posted tonight with links to stories about schools already complaining about the current amount allocated for rev share would indicate that that the new structure is at least somewhat solid and levels the playing field significantly. Who constructs their roster the best and coaches the best will win ala the NFL. That is assuming the courts don’t say otherwise of course.

 

[krc1995]

Thanks again. I think I read that the NCAA has disallowed a number of NIL deals because they didn’t seem legitimate. And I think it was a large amount of deals. What is a legitimate NIL deal in your opinion? Like the Decoldest deal for the air conditioning company?

I am assuming that programs are pissed that they can’t pass through sham NIl deals, and thus the cries to increase the revenue share

 

[Mavric]

Thanks again. I think I read that the NCAA has disallowed a number of NIL deals because they didn’t seem legitimate. And I think it was a large amount of deals. What is a legitimate NIL deal in your opinion? Like the Decoldest deal for the air conditioning company?

The number of denied deals is relatively small, but for a relatively large amount of money.

 

[I am I]

Are you talking just for football or all sports?

Just for football.
In general, if there are 105 man rosters and most players making money (and at the top, many making 6-7 figures), why have scholarships at all? Just make 105 man rosters and put a cap for every team at $50M.

Every university can spend to that amount, or much less if they prefer. 105 players divided by $50M for each university.

The market, with a cap (which is necessary) on money and how many players on each team, will eventually correct itself.

i.e. many fewer players will enter the portal based on perceived value. With no scholarships, some might be afraid to leave because of no guaranteed school money. The Universities will be more diligent to dole out money with a cap (and their own internal cap on what they are willing spend anyway) and the market will decide what a player or a position, plug and play, productivity v potential, and natural fit will mean to each team.
If damn near 5,000 players were in the portal this winter, the only way to correct it is with a market correction.
Until then, let’s buy a $35,000,000 roster and see if our coaches can get really close to a Conference and Playoff championship.

 

[I am I]

Would a multiple formation, Power I, with an option attack mixed with play action pass not work today?

 

[caveman99]

Thanks again. I think I read that the NCAA has disallowed a number of NIL deals because they didn’t seem legitimate. And I think it was a large amount of deals. What is a legitimate NIL deal in your opinion? Like the Decoldest deal for the air conditioning company?

I am assuming that programs are pissed that they can’t pass through sham NIl deals, and thus the cries to increase the revenue share

Yes the Decoldest commercials would be a legitimate NIL deal. As are the Addidas spokesman/woman deals Dylan and Harper got. The Addidas deals are representative of what schools are leveraging for NIL these days. Relies on the sponsors being willing to agree to offer deals to the school’s athletes. If not, do we start to see some cases where the school agrees to offset the cost by taking less for itself? That would seem shortsighted since that revenue source is also needed to fund the Rev share bucket, but if the school feels like a certain player is worth it, maybe they go into salary cap hell in the future for short term gain.

 

[caveman99]

Just for football.
In general, if there are 105 man rosters and most players making money (and at the top, many making 6-7 figures), why have scholarships at all? Just make 105 man rosters and put a cap for every team at $50M.

Every university can spend to that amount, or much less if they prefer. 105 players divided by $50M for each university.

The market, with a cap (which is necessary) on money and how many players on each team, will eventually correct itself.

i.e. many fewer players will enter the portal based on perceived value. With no scholarships, some might be afraid to leave because of no guaranteed school money. The Universities will be more diligent to dole out money with a cap (and their own internal cap on what they are willing spend anyway) and the market will decide what a player or a position, plug and play, productivity v potential, and natural fit will mean to each team.
If damn near 5,000 players were in the portal this winter, the only way to correct it is with a market correction.
Until then, let’s buy a $35,000,000 roster and see if our coaches can get really close to a Conference and Playoff championship.

Well you just described Rev Share, except the amount allowed for all opted in sports for each school is $20.5 million and not $50 million just for football. Most P4 schools are giving $14+ million a f that to football. The universities are under a cap. NIL is a way to extend that cap, but it is limited in how much they can extend do to the review process, only a few players are going to have schools break the bank for them. Mav posted article links in which schools are already complaining about how much they get to spend, they want it higher. We are still in the first year, resets on July 1st IIRC, so more market correction is coming. If this holds in the almost certain court battles to come, the Rev share model will work more like you described. What unfortunately is happening is that a lot of players are getting bad advice from their “agents” who tell them there is no risk to go into the portal. They are being told if they don’t find a better deal then can always just return to their current team. Well that hasn’t been the case, teams are backfilling those roster spots from the portal and those players who went into the portal are finding they don’t have a team roster spot to go back to. It is unfortunate, but it is a needed market behavior correction. Give this a couple of cycles and things should normalize a bit. IIRC the NCAA put out a stat that portal entries were already down 24% or something from prior years under the first year of rev share. Expect that to continue to decline.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Would a multiple formation, Power I, with an option attack mixed with play action pass not work today?

Maybe. How much would your sponsorship group pay to have the coaches implement it?