ZJSARENOTFREE said:

As an NU AD they would much rather have a MBB Natty or Final Four than a Baseball CWS appearance or Natty.

Click to expand...

As an AD, you've failed.

One has never happened, and never will, in Lincoln.

One has happened, multiple times, and could happen again.

PonyBoy said:

As an AD, you've failed.

One has never happened, and never will, in Lincoln.

One has happened, multiple times, and could happen again.

Click to expand...

K...

PonyBoy said:

Yes, college sports is about the money potential. So, why not put additional money in to a sport that gives us the potential!? Our attendance is T15 nationally, with room to grow. This is the exact argument I'm making, without impacting football, mbb & volleyball - that sport is baseball (and likely wrestling too, if we're being honest). So, let's increase the budget for a few years and see what happens. We have absolutely nothing to lose, no pun intended.

Click to expand...

I am a wrestling fan, but just don't see it ever being profitable at Nebraska. Baseball has 140k attendance for the year and wrestling 23k. That's just a huge difference, especially when you consider ticket price difference. Maybe if Wrestling turns into a national power like Penn State for a couple of decades, but even then it would maybe cover it's own expenses. The limited number of home matches hurts the chance of profitability and the fact that the South and the Coasts don't want to watch it on tv.

Baseball is the clear candidate for a fourth sport to actually turn a profit. After that I actually think that Softball has more potential than any other sport, but it would take 10+ years and some luck for that to happen, if it would even be possible, which I doubt. Really after baseball I'm not sure that any sport has profit potential at Nebraska.

Carm said:

Click to expand...

Just read the article and I was left with a couple of thoughts:

1) I'm glad SOME structure/framework will be in place to "put the toothpaste back into the tube" related to the wild, wild west days of NIL that we're currently enduring, and
2) This thing is really set up to put the "system" on one side and the student-athlete on the other. The athletes are left with no choice but to form a collective bargaining structure as a counterweight, IMO.

Also, good grief - who elected Deloitte as NCAA God?

Carm said:

Click to expand...

I honestly think it will work, for at least a few years until the ACC breaks up and things change again.

Carm said:

Click to expand...

Really interesting seeing where these ADs put their money. I wonder when Nebraska will announce how they are splitting it up. Sure didn't see tOSU spending money on Volleyball, their volleyball team has really tanked the last few years, I think they got a coach that's driving it down.

@Carm this piece that you were right about:

Answer: Yes, up to $2.5 million of new incremental athletically related financial aid (e.g., scholarships) above the current Division I institutional financial aid limits in the 2024-25 Division I Manual will count against the benefits cap each year. Beyond $2.5 million, new incremental athletically related financial aid beyond the current Division I institutional financial aid limits in the 2024-25 Division I Manual will not count against the cap. Further, financial aid that would have been countable under the 2024-25 financial aid legislation that is not based in any degree on athletics (e.g., scholarships given to all students from particular states, nonqualifying merit-based awards) will not count against the benefits cap.

This is really is messed up. So if the AD adds a Wrestling or Baseball scholarship that's going to reduce the 20.5 million cap for direct payments. That really forces the AD to make some tough choices. Pretty easy to add 2.5 million in new scholarships.

Wonder what Dannen will do? Give every coach a budget and they can add a scholarship or pay your top athletes? Sure don't see football adding many scholarships at the expense of paying the top guys, maybe a few, but certainly not 20.

Value of a out of state full ride scholarship is $47k, so $2.5 million would be 53 out of state full ride scholarships. Wonder how it will be broken down by payments and scholarships and by sport.

Another weird part of this is it looks like this continues in following years, it isn't a one time thing. If a school funds all or just a whole bunch of new scholarships, their direct payments are going to be 2.5 million less annually. That could be a big deal and ultimately really hurt new scholarship availability at the money losing sports.

Anyway, interested on your thoughts on this, just seems a weird thing to do, applying new scholarships as part of the direct payment budget.

Carm said:

Click to expand...

I'm not sure refusing to pay the rifle team is the smartest idea.

Seaofred92 said:

Click to expand...

Why wouldn't you opt in? Is there that much difference in scholarship limits or don't make enough to revenue share?

Jim14510 said:

Why wouldn't you opt in? Is there that much difference in scholarship limits or don't make enough to revenue share?

Click to expand...

During a quick google search I found a two-year old article saying only 18 athletic departments operated in the black. There’s going to be a lot of programs going further in debt with revenue sharing.

How NIL Go Works​

NIL Go offers a simple way for student-athletes to report third-party NIL deals to be evaluated for rules compliance. NIL Go also provides student-athletes the option to clear a third-party NIL deal prior to accepting the deal to confirm that acceptance will not affect their eligibility, allowing student-athletes to move forward with their deals confidently while protecting their eligibility.

Evaluation will be based on:​

Payor Association​

Valid Business Purpose (VBP)​

Range of Compensation (RoC)​

Payor Association​

Deals must be evaluated to determine the relationship between the payor and the student-athlete’s school, namely, whether or not the payor is deemed to be an “associated entity”.

An associated entity is:

• 
  An entity that is or was known (or should have been known) to the athletics department staff of an institution, to exist, in significant part, for the purpose of (a) promoting or supporting a particular institution’s intercollegiate athletics program or student-athletes; and/or (b) creating or identifying NIL opportunities solely for a particular institution’s student-athletes;
• 
  An entity that has been directed or requested by an institution’s athletics department staff to assist in the recruitment or retention of prospective or current student-athletes, or otherwise has assisted in the recruitment or retention of prospective or current student-athletes; or
• 
  Any entity owned, controlled, or operated by, or otherwise affiliated with an associated entity or individual other than a publicly traded corporation.

It is critical that schools provide the College Sports Commission with information about the entity involved in the deal when it’s requested. Responses to this information are critical to the ability of the Commission to evaluate submitted deals in a timely manner.

Valid Business Purpose (VBP)​

Deals must demonstrate a legitimate commercial rationale, including:

• 
  Evidence of using the student-athlete’s NIL to promote a good or service being offered to the public for profit
• 
  Compliance with industry-standard NIL practices

An entity with a business purpose of providing payments or benefits to student-athletes or institutions, rather than providing goods or services to the general public for profit, does not satisfy the valid business purpose requirement set forth in NCAA Rule 22.1.3.

The requirement is not met even if the particular deal with the student-athlete purports to provide goods or services to the general public. For example, a NIL collective that has a business purpose to pay student-athletes associated with a particular school or schools does not satisfy Rule 22.1.3 when it reaches a deal with a student-athlete to make an appearance on behalf of the collective at an event even if that event is open to the general public and the collective charges an admission fee (e.g., a golf tournament).

In this example, the NIL collective’s purpose is to raise money at the event to pay that student-athlete and potentially fund deals with other student-athletes at that school, which are not goods or services available to the general public for profit. The same collective’s deal with a student-athlete to promote the collective’s sale of merchandise to the public would not satisfy the valid business purpose requirement for the same reason; the collective’s whole purpose in selling merchandise is to raise money to pay that student-athlete and potentially other student-athletes at a particular school or schools, which is not a valid business purpose under NCAA Rule 22.1.3.

These same deals would satisfy the valid business purpose requirement if the entities paying the student-athletes, and receiving the proceeds from the general public, were businesses that had a broader purpose outside of paying student-athletes at a particular school or schools (e.g., a golf course, an apparel company).

Such deals might also satisfy the requirement even if the NIL collective made the payments to the student-athletes, provided that there is documentation establishing that the sources of those specific funds were the entities with a valid business purpose that received the benefit of the student’s NIL (e.g., the golf course, the apparel company). In other words, NIL collectives may act as marketing agencies that match student-athletes with businesses that have a valid business purpose and seek to use the student’s NIL to promote their businesses.

Range of Compensation (RoC)​

RoC is anchored in valuation principles to determine if a student-athlete’s third-party NIL compensation is commensurate with compensation paid to similarly situated individuals with comparable NIL value. The RoC is a deal level calculation that is intended to capture a student-athlete’s unique NIL value based upon multiple factors, including but not limited to, the deal’s performance obligations, the student-athlete’s athletic performance and social media reach, the local market and the market reach of his or her institution and program. The RoC will also be informed by external benchmarks.

Deal Review & Outcomes​

After submission, NIL Go analyzes the information provided by the student-athlete to determine if based on the information provided the third-party NIL deal is:

• 
  Cleared – The deal meets necessary requirements and can proceed.
• 
  Not Cleared – The deal fails to meet necessary requirements. The student-athlete has three options to consider (further explained below).
• 
  Flagged for Additional Review – A deal may be flagged for additional review due to concerns regarding payor identity, compensation amount, or contract terms. In these cases, the College Sports Commission will conduct an additional review and provide guidance to the student-athlete.

If a deal is not cleared, student-athletes can:

1. 1.Revise the deal and resubmit: Student-athletes have the option to work with the payor to renegotiate the deal and resubmit it to NIL Go.
2. 2.Cancel the deal: Student-athletes have the option to cancel the deal and refund any money already received.
3. 3.Appeal to neutral arbitration: Student-athletes can appeal through a neutral arbitration process to obtain a neutral review of the decision.

If the student-athlete continues with the deal as submitted, they may face enforcement consequences, which could include loss of eligibility.

What does August's revenue-sharing offer date mean for high school recruits?​

by:Pete Nakos•34 minutes ago•
PeteNakos_

As athletic departments distribute their first revenue-sharing payments to players, Aug. 1 looms as a monumental day in high school recruiting. For the first time in college sports history, institutions will be able to offer written revenue-sharing contracts to recruits.

According to the NCAA, the offers regarding NIL payment are only allowed to be sent to recruits entering their senior year of high school. The contracts are not allowed to be signed until the athletes’ applicable signing dates. Aug. 1 marks the first day recruits can receive revenue-sharing offers on paper.

But speaking with a range of sources across the Power Four in recent days, On3 has learned schools are approaching the Aug. 1 date in a multitude of ways. Some programs are sending out full contracts with compensation before the start date, but forward-dating the agreement to Aug. 1 or later.

Sources also said that other programs are sending out full templates of their contracts for agents to review without compensation, giving representatives time to redline agreements so deals can be quickly signed next month. Meanwhile, compensation can be easily discussed over the phone.

“We have offers that will not be executed until August 1,” an agent with multiple top 2026 recruits told On3. “We also have templates that have been reviewed with the intent to sign on or after the first of next month.”

Other schools are staying away from offering any form of compensation or a contract until Aug. 1. Auburn athletic director John Cohen recently said that the Tigers’ understanding is that any offer made to an athlete before Aug. 1 is only verbal. He also went on to say that a third-party NIL offer guaranteed to a recruit by a university would go against the $20.5 million revenue-sharing cap.

But that is not how other schools see it. As On3 previously reported, some schools are opting to pay recruits monthly before even walking on campus. Georgia head coach Kirby Smart highlighted at SEC spring meetings how third-party NIL collectives are paying high school recruits.

Sources have told On3 that some top recruits are earning anywhere between $5,000 to $25,000 on a monthly basis. Some programs have made the decision not to enter the game, waiting on the sidelines until Aug. 1 to offer deals.

“There’s some really new things on the horizon that have never happened before,” Cohen said. “And I’m here to tell you, we’re going to do this the right way. We’re going to do it just like Coach (Hugh) Freeze just mentioned — we’re going to be honest, we’re going to be forthright and we’re looking very much forward to Aug. 1 and dates beyond.”

As On3 reported on Wednesday, the influx of spending in the high school market comes as third-party NIL deals in college are being held up by the recently established NIL clearinghouse. The College Sports Commission (CSC), the newly created independent enforcement arm that is implementing the House settlement’s terms, released guidance on Thursday around NIL collective deals going through the Deloitte-run NIL clearinghouse.

The CSC states that deals must provide evidence of using the athlete’s NIL to promote a good or service offered to the public. It states that an associated entity (NIL collective) with a business purpose of providing payments or benefits to athletes or institutions does not meet “the valid business purpose requirement.” But the CSC states that collectives can still provide compensation to athletes as long as the events meet the definition of a valid business purpose.

As NIL collectives figure out how to navigate the clearinghouse, spending in recruiting is not slowing down. That’s backed by programs offering contracts before the Aug. 1 start date. One SEC general manager speculated to On3 that another SEC school is committing $15 million to its 2026 recruiting class.

“How can they pay that?” he said.