Judge approves House settlement - Schools to pay

[Carm]

Interesting approach. The AD has essentially capped the # of scholly's for the football and basketball programs in exchange for increased distributions per player on those teams. I hope that was done after consulting with the corches, who will be competing against teams with larger squads. Good luck.

I think this is what most teams were expected to do. I think the SEC adopted this as a conference-wide approach.

 

[vailhusker]

It will be interesting to see how the College Sports Commission and the "NIL Go" will be set up and how quickly the SEC and others will find ways to manipulate it.

 

[mcgradynu]

It will be interesting to see how the College Sports Commission and the "NIL Go" will be set up and how quickly the SEC and others will find ways to manipulate it.

I am sure there are lobbyists working the language to ensure that there are loopholes “that no one could have foreseen” (except for those that had a seat at the table to craft the language).

 

[Stan Raymond]

Interesting approach. The AD has essentially capped the # of scholly's for the football and basketball programs in exchange for increased distributions per player on those teams. I hope that was done after consulting with the corches, who will be competing against teams with larger squads. Good luck.

Well UCLA is one of the few programs in the B1G with money issues, I don't think that their budget allows them to just add 20.5 million for revenue share so they had to cut some costs somewhere.

 

[LoudHogRider]

Well UCLA is one of the few programs in the B1G with money issues, I don't think that their budget allows them to just add 20.5 million for revenue share so they had to cut some costs somewhere.

True, but $20.5M is still $20.5M spread across 85 or 105 (football), 13 or 15 (basketball). It sounds as if they’re still planning on distributing the full amount, per the article.

 

[Stan Raymond]

True, but $20.5M is still $20.5M spread across 85 or 105 (football), 13 or 15 (basketball). It sounds as if they’re still planning on distributing the full amount, per the article.

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.

 

[Carm]

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.

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.

 

[Stan Raymond]

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.

 

[Blakejc]

Who pays the $2.8B to former athletes? Is that a new expense Nebraska will have going forward?

 

[Stan Raymond]

Who pays the $2.8B to former athletes? Is that a new expense Nebraska will have going forward?

The NCAA, so while not a direct expense for Nebraska it will affect the bottom line some over the next decade.

 

[Carm]

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.

 

[PonyBoy]

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

 

[Carm]

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







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




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.

 

[Stan Raymond]

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.

 

[Stan Raymond]

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.

 

[Carm]

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

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.”

 

[Stan Raymond]

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

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.

 

[nja13]

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?

 

[nja13]

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)

 

[Stan Raymond]

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.