Texas Tech AD tweets out their breakdown of revenue sharing.
- Thread starter DesotoCountyDawg
- Start date
Another point of comparison—
Texas Tech has seventeen teams; State has 16 (no men’s cross country for the Bulldogs).
So I’d expect the percentages to be adjusted accordingly— maybe 75-17-2-2-4
Texas Tech has seventeen teams; State has 16 (no men’s cross country for the Bulldogs).
So I’d expect the percentages to be adjusted accordingly— maybe 75-17-2-2-4
The most interesting thing in the article is Deloitte being selected as the NIL clearinghouse. I just don’t see how that’s going to withstand challenges under the various state laws.
So, per player (assuming State maxes out rosters):
Football = $15,100,000 / 105 Players = $144,000 per player
Men's Basketball = $3,600,000 / 15 Players = $240,000 per player
Women's Basketball = $410,000 / 15 Players = $27,000 per player
Baseball = $390,000 / 34 Players = $11,500 per player
All Other Sports = $920,000 / 216 Players* = $4,250 per player
*Breakdown of "Other" sports and their new roster limits:
Women's Cross Country = 17
Women's Golf = 9
Men's Golf = 9
Women's Soccer = 28
Softball = 25
Women's Tennis = 10
Men's Tennis = 10
Men's T&F = 45
Women's T&F = 45
Volleyball = 18
Football = $15,100,000 / 105 Players = $144,000 per player
Men's Basketball = $3,600,000 / 15 Players = $240,000 per player
Women's Basketball = $410,000 / 15 Players = $27,000 per player
Baseball = $390,000 / 34 Players = $11,500 per player
All Other Sports = $920,000 / 216 Players* = $4,250 per player
*Breakdown of "Other" sports and their new roster limits:
Women's Cross Country = 17
Women's Golf = 9
Men's Golf = 9
Women's Soccer = 28
Softball = 25
Women's Tennis = 10
Men's Tennis = 10
Men's T&F = 45
Women's T&F = 45
Volleyball = 18
So, what is happening to NIL deals from collectives as of July 1? Are they just getting rolled into the revenue sharing plans? What if that puts a school over the revenue sharing cap?
Let's say, as a hypothetical, a football transfers from State to LSU this year. We'll calk him, Michael Fillmore. LSU's collective agrees to pay him $1MM for the 2025 season. Is LSU'S revenue sharing fund now on the hook for that money?
And what if the collective already agreed to pay its football and basketball teams over $22MM, which is well over the projected cap? Will that just be excused as unavoidable?
Let's say, as a hypothetical, a football transfers from State to LSU this year. We'll calk him, Michael Fillmore. LSU's collective agrees to pay him $1MM for the 2025 season. Is LSU'S revenue sharing fund now on the hook for that money?
And what if the collective already agreed to pay its football and basketball teams over $22MM, which is well over the projected cap? Will that just be excused as unavoidable?
The SEC will be at 85 for football next season.
SEC maintains 85-scholarship limit for 2025 season ahead of transformative House v. NCAA settlement
The SEC has provided some guidelines for 2025 rosters as college football programs await the final terms of the historic court settlement
www.cbssports.com
So how will revenue sharing mesh with Title 9? It seems that paying football players more than WBB players would violate Title 9 and result in lawsuits.
It says in the article, that was just to give guidance for the 2025 season and that they may allow them to backfill the last 20 with walk-ons. I think once House vs NCAA is settled, they'll move forward with the 105 scholarships starting with the 2026 season.The SEC will be at 85 for football next season.
SEC maintains 85-scholarship limit for 2025 season ahead of transformative House v. NCAA settlement
The SEC has provided some guidelines for 2025 rosters as college football programs await the final terms of the historic court settlement
In any case, if they stick with 85, then it's going to go up about another $30,000 per player to $177,000.
What I was about to bring up, good luck passing a title IX smell test with this.
I think one thing that’s not clear is whether the rev share has to be equal among players. So we may be able to front load 40-45 guys and then just hope we hit at a high clip
On the other 40-45
Some of the articles I've read on this has brought this up and one thing I found interesting is that it likely won't be the NCAA or the Conferences that are sued for Title IX disputes; it will be the individual schools. The other issue is whether revenue sharing makes the athletes 'employees' of the school. If they're employees of the schools, then you start getting into FLSA, Lilly Ledbetter, EEOC, gender-based discrimination, etc., and that's just the federal stuff. Each state then has their own employment laws, etc. It's going to be a śhit show for the next decade. There are 68 schools in the Power 4 and pretty much every one of them is going to have to deal with some version of this.
Yes, but the current deals with collectives are "faux NIL" deals which will no longer be allowed.
I suppose the collectives can try to find a bunch of sponsors to make their NIL deals legit, but if you promised Michael Fillmore money just to play ball, how to you get him to do commercials for free?
Or, like I asked, are the current deals allowed to stand and faux NIL deals are only banned going forward?
Like I said in a different thread, there is no big 3. There is a big 2. Our fanbase will never accept it, so we'll continue to slowly die, propped up by the conference welfare until we either change or are kicked to curb.
I highly doubt that's going to be strictly enforced and if it is, then Michael Fillmore is going to either appear on your car lot for 15 minutes or he won't get his deal. He's going to have the same issue wherever he goes to play.
Fake NIL deals will Continue. The minute Deloitte tries to declare an NIL invalid because of an inordinate FMV there will be a lawsuit under state NIL laws.
Elimination of "faux NIL" deals is a major part of the pending settlement. Policing NIL deals will replace investigating recruiting violations for the NCAA. But they have already agreed to use third party arbiters instead of letting the NCAA be prosecutor, judge, and jury.
Ends up being a little over $50k / athlete if you spread even.
Yeah there's going to be a ton of lawsuits here or some sort of CBA. I agree with a general rev share concept but you can't tell me the long snapper deserves $144k while the women's goalie gets 1% of that. The average fan couldn't name either so the rev share aspect is going to get beat up hard when you dissect it.
Got any links on this idea? Curious how this is planned to work out. I'd love to see the slush fund collective fake NIL stuff go away. Who regulates that and will they have teeth?
So much of this mess is based on terrible assumptions
The assumption that anything but maybe 1% of NIL dollars are actual NIL
The assumption that a player needs the portal for NIL. If you have NIL value you have NIL value
The assumption that these players are the reason these schools bring in all this money. If these guys all left today the money would be the same.
Last edited:
I don't disagree, but the current deals with collectives seem like a no brainer: if you aren't doing anything to earn the money, then you are overpaid, and the deal is clearly being used to circumvent the revenue sharing cap.
Maddy Anderson was our Goalkeeper this season. I don't know who the long snapper was.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...se-settlement-lawyers-file-judge/75399080007/
This article has a decent discussion of the settlement agreement discussion of faux NIL deals. They are primarily targeting the collectives, and the intent is for revenue sharing to replace the collectives. They are also trying to prevent people who participated in the collectives from continuing to provide faux NIL deals under a different name.
But, the judge also said she does not think they should take away things that have already been given, which is why I'm still curious how deals signed with collectives this off-season will be treated once the settlement is approved.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m 110% certain that there will be lawsuits. However, this is quite literally revenue sharing, and my guess is that they’re going to get around it by providing accounting proof that WBB is in fact getting the appropriate split based on the revenue that they are generating.
Yeah. Huge issues right now regarding what to do about the faux NIL deals entered into before the settlement is finalized. I think what they're going to find though is, this is going to be a completely unenforceable quagmire trying to stop the faux NIL deals and this is how schools are going to blatantly ignore the revenue sharing cap.
As long as the revenue sharing is not considered financial aid, then they have some wiggle room. They cannot discriminate based on sex, but they can treat the distinguish between different sports. As long as their treatment of the women's sports is based on factors other than sex, they MIGHT be okay.
Might. The DOE has said Title IX will apply to revenue sharing, but otherwise has declined to give any guidance as to how. Meanwhile, college athletes have to decide whether to approve the revenue sharing agreement within 90 days of finality. This means poor Michael Fillmore has to vote up or down with no knowledge of whether Title IX might affect his future income.
It will be a mess, but short term it will close the collectives. There will still be boosters willing to overpay for endorsement deals, though. And, thanks to the State of Tennessee, schools can use these opportunities in recruiting.
If every QB for a highly ranked P4 school gets paid $2MM to be on a billboard ad, then who is to say what FMV for that really is?
https://sports.yahoo.com/as-expande...-display-it-is-absolute-bedlam-135732172.html
So, Ross Dellenger says the deals signed with collectives before the settlement is approved will be allowed to stand. Part of the reason the deals have been so high this year is they were "frontloaded" since they will no longer be allowed ('frontloading' sounds strange since you can't stop a player from leaving after one year, but okay). That at least answers my initial question: in 2025 schools will be able to use deals with collectives in addition to revenue sharing.
Next recruiting season will be interesting.
Question for anyone since I have no access to the AD P&L.
I'm assuming we've operated historically at a small losses and surpluses. What won't we be spending on in the future cover the rev share payments? The internet says we had $115 million in revenue for FY23. 15% to 20% of that is now earmarked for the athletes. What is getting tossed? Bridge the gap with donations? Defer maintenance costs? Pay cuts? Layoffs? That's a big cash flow being redirected.
I'm assuming we've operated historically at a small losses and surpluses. What won't we be spending on in the future cover the rev share payments? The internet says we had $115 million in revenue for FY23. 15% to 20% of that is now earmarked for the athletes. What is getting tossed? Bridge the gap with donations? Defer maintenance costs? Pay cuts? Layoffs? That's a big cash flow being redirected.
There will be nil on top of revenue sharing, so Georgia, Auburn, SMU etc will have 30 million dollar pay rolls. This won’t change much
Right. Rev share is the baseline entry fee. "NIL" is the gravy on top to assemble rosters. I'm clear on that. But it sounds like they are at least thinking of ways to snuff out the payments made under the guise of NIL that really aren't NIL. The slush funds to get 1 yr pay for play commitments have got to go. I'm not optimistic they will though...
No, the toothpaste is out of the tube, sec podcast discussed this yesterday. For the wealthy schools their NIL funds will continue to buy players on top of the floor of revenue sharing. I don’t think this changes anything other than further separate the power conferences from everyone else.
True the bigger market schools have more NIL opportunity, but they will in no way be able to do it like they are doing it now. Anything over $600 will have to go through the Deloitte clearinghouse just like the NFL does. NFL has exact same type of rule in place to keep owners from violating the salary cap by lining up BS advertising opportunities. If the settlement holds, this will not be perfect but will be a HUGE step to ending the current crisis of 40% of your roster hitting the portal every year. Rev share is essentially the salary cap, and NIL has to be real legitimate NIL not just payments from a collective.
Correct. This is revenue sharing and women's sports do not bring in any revenue. The argument I saw in this thread about the soccer goalie vs the football long snapper is not a good one. The long snapper is on a team the brings in 90% of the sports revenue and the goalie is on a team that loses well over a million dollars a year (funded by the football team). Reminds me of when the WNBA wanted the same rev share agreement as the NBA until someone pointed out each player would owe the league $170,000 in that scenario
Did not know that about the NFL. I would think all that data would severely depress the college NIL FMVs.
This is not a salary cap, you are kidding yourself. Georgia, SMU , Ohio State will have a 30 million+ payroll
Texas Tech has a somewhat egalitarian NIL system. 100 football players each get $25,000 from the Texas Tech boosters.
P.S. Worked in Lubbock a month earlier this year. Caught some Texas Tech baseball games there. Field was okay but nothing like Dudy Noble. My general impression of Texas Tech was that it was Mississippi State with a Med School.