House settlement news | Page 3 | The Platinum Board

House settlement news

Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

Welcome to tPB!

Welcome to The Platinum Board. We are a Nebraska Husker news source and fan community.

Sign Up Now!
  • Welcome to The Platinum Board! We are a Nebraska Cornhuskers news source and community. Please click "Log In" or "Register" above to gain access to the forums.

House settlement news

Who pays the $2.8B to former athletes? Is that a new expense Nebraska will have going forward?
The $2.8 billion settlement to former college athletes, stemming from the House v. NCAA case, is being funded by a combination of sources. The NCAA itself will contribute 41% of the total, while the remainder will come from reduced revenue distributions to Division I conferences.

NCAA: Contributes 41% of the $2.8 billion, which includes reducing its own spending, using insurance and reserve funds, and withholding payments that would otherwise be distributed to Division I schools.

Other Division I Conferences: Power 5 conferences are responsible for a significant portion of the remaining funds, accounting for 24% of the total settlement amount. Other conferences within Division I, including the "Group of Five" and the FCS (Football Championship Subdivision), will also contribute to the settlement.
 
Many sports, especially the ones that were partial scholarship ones like baseball and wrestling will be adding a lot of scholarships. The roster limits and funding scholarships for them and the revenue sharing are different parts of the same agreement.

Not accurate.

For Husker baseball, there will be a set number of scholarships funded by the athletic department directly. Anything more than that number will come out of revenue sharing. And our RS number for baseball is pathetic.

I've been able to confirm, at least 2 other (original) B1G baseball programs will have a reduction in scholarships. Yes, less than the original 11.7
 
nah, different. Funding more scholarships does not reduce the $20.5 million in revenue share. A school can give out all 105 full ride scholarships and distribute all $20.5 million in revenue sharing. That particular UCLA quote made it confusing, but giving more scholarships does not come out of the revenue share budget cap.

Point taken


Many sports, especially the ones that were partial scholarship ones like baseball and wrestling will be adding a lot of scholarships. The roster limits and funding scholarships for them and the revenue sharing are different parts of the same agreement.

Now adding a $20.5 million revenue share expense in some ADs budgets is going to cause some other items to be reduced, some scholarships in UCLA's case.
I don't see how it is possible to increase the total number of men's scholarships dramatically. First of all, they are expensive. Second, if roster sizes increase (i.e., we simply don't have the same number of participants with more on scholarship), we need to have a similar increase in roster opportunities for women, and there will be pressure on the assessment of whether or not financial opportunities are roughly proportional.

We will have reduced NCAA contributions. True, media money should be ramping up. But last year, without revenue sharing, the B1G as a whole lost money. Nebraska only made $7M. We pay out an additional $20.5M and lose NCAA distributions (maybe $5M see second graph) we are in the hole, probably even with additional media rights money

1749415665523.png


1749415763172.png


We already spend way more than most other schools in the conference

1749415862859.png


We will have to do some belt-tightening. I can't see us funding more for scholarships and perhaps an increase in roster spots. More likely the bottom half of sports measure by income get cuts, and the Athletic department as a whole take cuts. Oklahoma, for example, already riffed people and cut salaries to cope.
 
Not accurate.

For Husker baseball, there will be a set number of scholarships funded by the athletic department directly. Anything more than that number will come out of revenue sharing. And our RS number for baseball is pathetic.

I've been able to confirm, at least 2 other (original) B1G baseball programs will have a reduction in scholarships. Yes, less than the original 11.7

OK. I haven't heard what Nebraska in particular will be doing with scholarships. I believe you, sucks to hear.

But my point is that the revenue sharing number of 20.5 is a cap just for direct payments, not a cap for scholarships, which could be limited by the AD budget but not the revenue share cap.
 
Point taken



I don't see how it is possible to increase the total number of men's scholarships dramatically. First of all, they are expensive. Second, if roster sizes increase (i.e., we simply don't have the same number of participants with more on scholarship), we need to have a similar increase in roster opportunities for women, and there will be pressure on the assessment of whether or not financial opportunities are roughly proportional.

We will have reduced NCAA contributions. True, media money should be ramping up. But last year, without revenue sharing, the B1G as a whole lost money. Nebraska only made $7M. We pay out an additional $20.5M and lose NCAA distributions (maybe $5M see second graph) we are in the hole, probably even with additional media rights money

View attachment 54401


View attachment 54403


We already spend way more than most other schools in the conference

View attachment 54404


We will have to do some belt-tightening. I can't see us funding more for scholarships and perhaps an increase in roster spots. More likely the bottom half of sports measure by income get cuts, and the Athletic department as a whole take cuts. Oklahoma, for example, already riffed people and cut salaries to cope.

And Tennessee raised ticket prices to get ready for this. Even the very rich will have to look at the budget closely. Most likely will hurt the least revenue generating sports the most nation wide. At many schools they will have to get some donations to make the budget work. I'm just not seeing a lot of extra money for the NIL bag men that some folks think will emerge. All schools are going to have to take a hard look at their budgets to make everything work out.
 

How much will college football quarterbacks be paid in revenue-sharing era?​

Nakos updated headshot
by:Pete Nakos•about 8 hours•
PeteNakos_
Read In App
Late Friday night in the U.S. District Court for Northern California, Judge Claudia Wilken approved the landmark House v. NCAA settlement. The decision marks the beginning of a new era in college football, with players receiving more compensation than ever before.

But behind the scenes, a game of moneyball is being played. NIL collectives, boosters, general managers, head coaches and athletic directors are scheming up how the cash will be distributed. Personnel staffers have spent the better part of a year discussing hypotheticals. But the first rev-share payments will be distributed in 23 days.


Power Four schools will have $13 to $16 million from revenue sharing to spend on football in 2025, but the top budgets in college football this season will touch $25 to $30 million this season, sources have told On3, combining third-party deals and the rev sharing.

From there, schools have to decide how much money will be allocated to quarterbacks, the most important position in the game of football.

“Heading to the facility right now to try to figure that out,” an SEC source told On3 on Sunday morning. “It’s going to be the toughest decision we’ve made since this whole thing started.”

Another school added that relying on rev-share to pay for a quarterback is a dangerous game.

“Obviously, if you wind up having to pay a significant portion of the salary for a quarterback out of the rev share, it’s going to crush your allocations,” another SEC source said.

One thing is clear: The price of an elite quarterback is not dropping. In this year’s college football transfer portal, jaw-dropping quarterback numbers included a $3 million offer from Duke for Darian Mensah. Georgia’s Carson Beck transferred to Miami and stands to make more than $4 million. Missouri agreed to terms on a $1.5 million deal with Penn State transfer Beau Pribula in December, too.

Numbers have skyrocketed in recruiting top quarterbacks, too. Michigan flipped On3 No. 1 recruit Bryce Underwood from LSU last fall for a multi-year deal valued around $12 million. Elite starting quarterbacks will still command $2 to $4 million annually.

Most of these deals were front-loaded by third-party NIL collectives in previous months, so they will not have to go through the NIL Go clearinghouse run by Deloitte. The multi-million dollar packages for quarterbacks come together through a wealth of resources, including revenue sharing and NIL collectives.

“Hell no, the price for a quarterback isn’t changing,” another SEC source chimed in. “It’s the same as this spring. We’ll have rev share and above cap money — third-party money — nothing has really changed or will.”

Each school is working with a different set of circumstances. The top programs in the country will not spend their revenue sharing allocation on 2025 rosters, sources have told On3. One Big Ten NIL collective said over 80% of their roster is funded through front-loaded deals that will not have to go through the clearinghouse. Another Big Ten school said its entire roster has been front-loaded.

Some of the top programs will not have to figure out how much they want to value their starting quarterbacks in revenue sharing until 2026. But not everyone is working with the same set of wealthy donors. Throughout the weekend, sources have reached out to On3, sharing that deals are being rushed to be signed so they will not have to be put through the NIL Go clearinghouse. Others are identifying ways to backdate contracts.

“Some Big Ten schools are going to use 50 percent of their payroll this year from rev share,” another Big Ten source told On3. “It’ll just be different at every school based on where the money is coming from.”

The other big question that schools have started to tackle in recent months is the impact revenue sharing will have on recruiting. Two Power Four general managers recently speculated that they believe the number of recruits receiving upfront payments sits between 50 to 100 prospects in the 2026 cycle. The process of paying recruits is not new, however, the amount of dollars being allocated has significantly spiked in the last year.

Top programs are now paying recruits top dollar, nine months before National Signing Day, to commit and stay locked into the class. Sources have told On3’s Steve Wiltfong and I that financial packages are not limited to six-figure payments, but also include cars and real estate.

Sources speaking with On3 on Sunday wondered if paying recruits up to $250,000 before stepping on campus will keep up now that the settlement has been approved. Paying recruits before they enroll, however, has become the cleanest way to avoid the revenue-sharing cap.

“The high school market will go way down unless someone views a kid as a Day 1 starter,” a source said. “The Jackson Cantwell and other commits with these stupid numbers will be interesting to follow.”
 

How much will college football quarterbacks be paid in revenue-sharing era?​

Nakos updated headshot
by:Pete Nakos•about 8 hours•
PeteNakos_
Read In App
Late Friday night in the U.S. District Court for Northern California, Judge Claudia Wilken approved the landmark House v. NCAA settlement. The decision marks the beginning of a new era in college football, with players receiving more compensation than ever before.

But behind the scenes, a game of moneyball is being played. NIL collectives, boosters, general managers, head coaches and athletic directors are scheming up how the cash will be distributed. Personnel staffers have spent the better part of a year discussing hypotheticals. But the first rev-share payments will be distributed in 23 days.


Power Four schools will have $13 to $16 million from revenue sharing to spend on football in 2025, but the top budgets in college football this season will touch $25 to $30 million this season, sources have told On3, combining third-party deals and the rev sharing.

From there, schools have to decide how much money will be allocated to quarterbacks, the most important position in the game of football.

“Heading to the facility right now to try to figure that out,” an SEC source told On3 on Sunday morning. “It’s going to be the toughest decision we’ve made since this whole thing started.”

Another school added that relying on rev-share to pay for a quarterback is a dangerous game.

“Obviously, if you wind up having to pay a significant portion of the salary for a quarterback out of the rev share, it’s going to crush your allocations,” another SEC source said.

One thing is clear: The price of an elite quarterback is not dropping. In this year’s college football transfer portal, jaw-dropping quarterback numbers included a $3 million offer from Duke for Darian Mensah. Georgia’s Carson Beck transferred to Miami and stands to make more than $4 million. Missouri agreed to terms on a $1.5 million deal with Penn State transfer Beau Pribula in December, too.

Numbers have skyrocketed in recruiting top quarterbacks, too. Michigan flipped On3 No. 1 recruit Bryce Underwood from LSU last fall for a multi-year deal valued around $12 million. Elite starting quarterbacks will still command $2 to $4 million annually.

Most of these deals were front-loaded by third-party NIL collectives in previous months, so they will not have to go through the NIL Go clearinghouse run by Deloitte. The multi-million dollar packages for quarterbacks come together through a wealth of resources, including revenue sharing and NIL collectives.

“Hell no, the price for a quarterback isn’t changing,” another SEC source chimed in. “It’s the same as this spring. We’ll have rev share and above cap money — third-party money — nothing has really changed or will.”

Each school is working with a different set of circumstances. The top programs in the country will not spend their revenue sharing allocation on 2025 rosters, sources have told On3. One Big Ten NIL collective said over 80% of their roster is funded through front-loaded deals that will not have to go through the clearinghouse. Another Big Ten school said its entire roster has been front-loaded.

Some of the top programs will not have to figure out how much they want to value their starting quarterbacks in revenue sharing until 2026. But not everyone is working with the same set of wealthy donors. Throughout the weekend, sources have reached out to On3, sharing that deals are being rushed to be signed so they will not have to be put through the NIL Go clearinghouse. Others are identifying ways to backdate contracts.

“Some Big Ten schools are going to use 50 percent of their payroll this year from rev share,” another Big Ten source told On3. “It’ll just be different at every school based on where the money is coming from.”

The other big question that schools have started to tackle in recent months is the impact revenue sharing will have on recruiting. Two Power Four general managers recently speculated that they believe the number of recruits receiving upfront payments sits between 50 to 100 prospects in the 2026 cycle. The process of paying recruits is not new, however, the amount of dollars being allocated has significantly spiked in the last year.

Top programs are now paying recruits top dollar, nine months before National Signing Day, to commit and stay locked into the class. Sources have told On3’s Steve Wiltfong and I that financial packages are not limited to six-figure payments, but also include cars and real estate.

Sources speaking with On3 on Sunday wondered if paying recruits up to $250,000 before stepping on campus will keep up now that the settlement has been approved. Paying recruits before they enroll, however, has become the cleanest way to avoid the revenue-sharing cap.

“The high school market will go way down unless someone views a kid as a Day 1 starter,” a source said. “The Jackson Cantwell and other commits with these stupid numbers will be interesting to follow.”

Top recruits in the class of 26 and beyond are kinda getting screwed compared to the gravy train that the 25 class is going to get in up front cash.

I wouldn't give to much to a QB out of revenue share. NFL may be a QB league, but college games are often decided on the lines. A million towards OL could easily give you more wins than a million towards a QB.
 
Correct, they are planning on spending all 20.5 revenue share dollars, but the aren't fully funding all 105 football scholarships and other scholarships in other sports. They are cutting some spending in order to pay for the revenue sharing.
Semantics, but they aren't cutting anything. They are choosing not to add scholarships, right?
 
A lot of schools are choosing to stay at 85, etc. At 85 you get the full 20.5M to distribute. You can increase to 105, but the additional scholarships get funded out of the 20.5M. Going to 105 means you no longer have 20.5M to distribute.

To me it doesn't make sense to pay money for the last 20 scholarships. Those last 20 guys are unlikely to ever play a meaningful down for you. If you plan on developing them, someone is likely to snatch them up from the portal because you really can't pay 105 worthwhile guys enough revenue sharing to keep them around. The top 50 or so will get all the PT, better to invest in making those guys better.

nah, different. Funding more scholarships does not reduce the $20.5 million in revenue share. A school can give out all 105 full ride scholarships and distribute all $20.5 million in revenue sharing. That particular UCLA quote made it confusing, but giving more scholarships does not come out of the revenue share budget cap.

Many sports, especially the ones that were partial scholarship ones like baseball and wrestling will be adding a lot of scholarships. The roster limits and funding scholarships for them and the revenue sharing are different parts of the same agreement.

Now adding a $20.5 million revenue share expense in some ADs budgets is going to cause some other items to be reduced, some scholarships in UCLA's case.
Doing some research on this and I think Carm is right:


New Roster Limits Set by House v. NCAA​

New Scholarships Can Be Created​

It’s not all bad news. Schools do have the option to increase scholarships in sports where the previous scholarship limits were lower than the new roster limits. It was initially anticipated that not many would do this, as the value of new scholarships up to $2.5 million will count against the amount a school can distribute for revenue sharing.

However, some schools have announced they will be fully funding scholarships for all of their rosters up to the new limits, including Clemson, Tennessee and Texas A&M.

(
Linky)
 
Doing some research on this and I think Carm is right:


New Roster Limits Set by House v. NCAA​

New Scholarships Can Be Created​

It’s not all bad news. Schools do have the option to increase scholarships in sports where the previous scholarship limits were lower than the new roster limits. It was initially anticipated that not many would do this, as the value of new scholarships up to $2.5 million will count against the amount a school can distribute for revenue sharing.

However, some schools have announced they will be fully funding scholarships for all of their rosters up to the new limits, including Clemson, Tennessee and Texas A&M.

(
Linky)

That will kill creating any new scholarships if it takes $2.5 million out of the revenue share pool. I thought A&M said that they were going full scholarships for everything, so their Revenue share pool is only $18 million?

Looks like he is right, but that looks pretty dumb.
 
Does this ok the SEC schools to continue the payments to high school commitments while they are still in high school? That one is unbelievably stupid but yah know the south.
 
Last edited:

Congress could soon introduce a very NCAA-friendly bill​

The Post obtained copies of draft legislation from two House committees that addresses the priorities the NCAA has spent years lobbying for.

June 9, 2025 at 12:28 p.m. EDTToday at 12:28 p.m. EDT

By Jesse Dougherty

Now that a judge has approved the settlement of three major antitrust cases against the NCAA and power conferences, the political jostling over college sports legislation is expected to heat up on Capitol Hill.

The Washington Post obtained copies of draft legislation from two House committees, which would amount to a bill that checks off every item the NCAA has spent years — and millions of dollars — lobbying for: a preemption of state laws that conflict with rules set by the NCAA and/or its conferences; a prohibition on college athletes being classified as employees; and broad antitrust protection that lines up with the House v. NCAA settlement approved Friday, which could insulate the NCAA and its members from legal challenges of a new salary cap for schools’ direct payments to athletes and attempts to regulate booster spending in the name, image and likeness (NIL) market.

Republican lawmakers first sent the drafts around last week, meaning there could be changes, subtle or substantial, before they are publicized. The main draft has been circulated by Republicans from the House’s Energy and Commerce committee (in conjunction with its subcommittee on commerce, manufacturing and trade). The subcommittee is holding a legislative hearing on college sports Thursday, which was announced as a session for the “SCORE Act to Standardize NIL for Student-Athletes.”

The main draft, which is expected to be introduced at that hearing, leaves a key spot for the House Judiciary committee to provide language on antitrust protection and a preemption of state laws. The Post obtained the Judiciary committee’s language, too.

As of Monday morning, it was unclear which lawmakers will put their names on the legislation draft (those spots were left blank in the obtained copies). The House’s Energy and Commerce committee is chaired by Brett Guthrie (R-Kentucky). The subcommittee for commerce, manufacturing and trade is chaired by Gus Bilirakis (R-Florida), who introduced a draft of a college sports bill in January 2024. The Judiciary committee is chaired by Jim Jordan (R-Ohio). But no matter who it is, it’s notable that Republicans from multiple House committees are working together on this. A half-dozen congressional staffers, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private negotiations, say they believe that’s the only way a college sports bill has a chance to move through the House. According to multiple people familiar with the discussions for this legislation, some House Republicans are also seeking involvement from the Education and the Workforce committee, particularly to ensure college athletes cannot become employees.
The draft language includes antitrust protection for:

  • Preventing an associated entity or individual from providing a student-athlete compensation greater than fair market value for name, image and likeness agreements. (The House settlement establishes a clearinghouse — run with the help of Deloitte by the College Sports Commission, the entity formed by the power conferences to implement the settlement and enforce its rules — that will review any NIL deal that exceeds $600.)
  • A school, conference or interstate association setting the maximum amount of money that can be distributed to athletes in a given year. (The House settlement establishes an initial spending cap of $20.5 million for money paid from schools to athletes in 2025-26. That cap is expected to rise throughout the decade-long legal agreement.)
  • Limiting the eligibility of athletes based on the number of seasons played or years exhausted. (This is not part of the House settlement but would provide the NCAA with protection from a slew of antitrust lawsuits challenging eligibility rules.)
The draft goes on to outline additional antitrust protection for enforcing transfer rules and an agent registration process. Multiple athlete advocates say they believe the latter could create conflicts of interests if agents must be certified by the same people they are ultimately negotiating with on behalf of the athletes they represent. The NCAA currently has a voluntary registry for NIL agents.
Since the summer of 2021, there have been more than a dozen college sports hearings in Washington. To date, only one bill has reached a committee vote. There has otherwise been little traction toward legislation, though a small handful of senators have held many discussions about a bipartisan solution. Those conversations have mainly included Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Jerry Moran (R-Kansas), Cory Booker (D-New Jersey), Richard Blumenthal (D-Connecticut) and Chris Coons (D-Delaware).
Schools will start sharing revenue with athletes July 1 under the terms of the House settlement, increasing the NCAA and power conferences’ urgency for legislation.

On Saturday, NCAA President Charlie Baker sent a letter to members of Congress, reiterating his organization’s main asks and hammering the need for action. The letter, obtained by The Post, outlined why the NCAA wants Congress to pass a bill “affirming student-athletes are not employees,” “providing limited liability protections” and “resolving conflicting state laws.”
All along, the NCAA’s plan has been to settle the House, Carter and Hubbard lawsuits, then leverage that development on Capitol Hill, where lawmakers have historically been very skeptical of the NCAA’s push for antitrust protection and other measures. Baker, a former Republican governor of Massachusetts, was hired, at least in part, for his track record of working with politicians on both sides of the aisle.
“With a new system in place for schools to greatly expand direct financial benefits to student-athletes, they are more modern and more future-ready than ever,” Baker wrote in his letter. “The progress we’ve made, especially with the House settlement, represents a significant step forward. And, in the narrow areas where we lack the authority needed to address outstanding issues, we look forward to working with you and your staff to advance solutions that will ensure that college sports continue to provide fair opportunities to all student-athletes, for generations to come.”

Rep. Lori Trahan (D-Massachusetts), a former Georgetown volleyball player, has been very involved in college sports discussions in Washington. On Saturday, Trahan released a statement commending the athletes who pushed for the progress resulting in schools paying athletes directly for the first time. But Trahan, a minority member of the House Energy and Commerce committee — and the subcommittee on commerce, manufacturing and trade — is not in favor of the congressional action the NCAA seeks.
“With this momentum, athletes can, and must, keep pushing. There’s much more work ahead to strengthen Title IX, ensure NIL rights extend to all college athletes, and center the health and safety of athletes in every conversation about reform,” Trahan said in her statement. “The greatest threat to that progress is misguided intervention by Congress that chokes off the hard-won gains athletes have fought to achieve. If Congress acts, it must focus on the actual challenges facing college athletics — not the balance sheets of powerful conferences.”
Once Republicans took control of the Senate, House and White House after November’s elections, it seemed the NCAA had an easier path to its desired bill. President Donald Trump’s overhaul of the National Labor Relations Board led multiple groups to pause efforts to have athletes recognized as employees. On Sunday, Trump golfed with SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey and Notre Dame Athletic Director Peter Bevacqua. The plan was to discuss the future of college sports, according to people familiar with the outing. The White House has kicked around forming a commission to explore that topic. On Monday morning, in a virtual news conference to discuss approval of the House v. NCAA settlement, Sankey called for Congress to act on college sports. Expect those calls to come at an even faster pace.
And now on Thursday, the latest draft for a House bill would begin the post-settlement discussions on a very friendly note for the NCAA. But as the past few years have shown, the path to actual legislation will always be winding and complicated.
 
And Tennessee raised ticket prices to get ready for this. Even the very rich will have to look at the budget closely. Most likely will hurt the least revenue generating sports the most nation wide. At many schools they will have to get some donations to make the budget work. I'm just not seeing a lot of extra money for the NIL bag men that some folks think will emerge. All schools are going to have to take a hard look at their budgets to make everything work out.
It makes you wonder if prices for players are going to be real high to start and then bottom out as time goes on due to budget cuts.
 
It makes you wonder if prices for players are going to be real high to start and then bottom out as time goes on due to budget cuts.
I read an article that said economists contend the people that will suffer the biggest loss from House are coaches; they contend that the money that wasn't paid to players largely ended up as higher salaries paid to coaches.
 
I read an article that said economists contend the people that will suffer the biggest loss from House are coaches; they contend that the money that wasn't paid to players largely ended up as higher salaries paid to coaches.
Makes sense, coaching salaries need to come back down. Especially Women's Basketball salaries, nobody makes more to lose money than Women's Basketball coaches, often make Women's Basketball the biggest money loser in athletic departments.
 
Doing some research on this and I think Carm is right:


New Roster Limits Set by House v. NCAA​

New Scholarships Can Be Created​

It’s not all bad news. Schools do have the option to increase scholarships in sports where the previous scholarship limits were lower than the new roster limits. It was initially anticipated that not many would do this, as the value of new scholarships up to $2.5 million will count against the amount a school can distribute for revenue sharing.

However, some schools have announced they will be fully funding scholarships for all of their rosters up to the new limits, including Clemson, Tennessee and Texas A&M.

(
Linky)

Rechanged my mind. To many schools have announced that they will be using all 20.5 million of revenue sharing and are increasing scholarships. Maybe at one point 2.5 million would count against the revenue share cap, but I don't believe that is the case at this time, to many schools have announced increased scholarships and using all 20.5 for revenue share, so I think something has changed. Just read an article on Michigan, their AD said they were increasing some scholarships and budgeting all 20.5 for revenue share.
 

The how exactly they're going to "analyze" the deals is kind of a giant missing detail. There are something like a half a million student athletes eligible for NIL payments. If just 10% of them sign deals, that's 200 cases to process each business day. Probably going to be some AI-driven algorithm that bulk-approves the majority based on whether they fall safely into a set of mystery criteria, and red flags the potential outliers for further research.
 
Doing some research on this and I think Carm is right:


New Roster Limits Set by House v. NCAA​

New Scholarships Can Be Created​

It’s not all bad news. Schools do have the option to increase scholarships in sports where the previous scholarship limits were lower than the new roster limits. It was initially anticipated that not many would do this, as the value of new scholarships up to $2.5 million will count against the amount a school can distribute for revenue sharing.

However, some schools have announced they will be fully funding scholarships for all of their rosters up to the new limits, including Clemson, Tennessee and Texas A&M.

(
Linky)

Changed my mind yet again. Does look correct. Just read an article that Clemson was going to do just that. Add a whole bunch of scholarships and then have 18 million left for direct payments. Odd way to do it, but Carm does look to be correct.
 
Back
Top