New Era of NIL.

[RobEStacy]

Will be intresting how UK, Given Mitchs tendiences to spread the wealth m, spends its money... I just don't see the basketball team only getting 2-4 million out of the men's share of the 20.5 million cut based on the articles proposed splits ... Title 9 gives a hard split of the cash for Men's and Women's teams... Plus the whole $600 clearing house for NIL deals.. I can see Pope and Stoops fighting for their price of the pie.

Ohio State plans to distribute their $20.5 million pool in two ways, Bjork says, “proportionally” based on male-female split and a “market-based approach” determined through valid market factors such as a sport’s television viewership, social media impressions, etc.

Though Bjork declined to reveal specific percentages by sport, many of the football-generating giants of FBS plan to disburse the vast majority of their revenue, as much as or more than 90%, to football and men’s basketball — the only two profit-turning sports at many universities. For schools offering the maximum $20.5 million of rev-share pool money, the formula means that football rosters would receive $13-16 million and men’s basketball rosters $2-4 million, according to estimates.

With NIL era ending, college sports is on verge of seismic change. How will schools adapt with industry in upheaval?

College football’s more professionalized era arrives in July, and historic powerhouses like Ohio State and Texas could lose both their inherent recruiting advantage and their financial edge.

sports.yahoo.com

 

[bigblueinsanity]

This will really be a test for mitch. Most schools are going to use sport specific revenue to go to those athletes. Given Mitch's past spending projects, he doesn't put revenue sports above others.

If he follows suit on this, it will really hurt football because that revenue sharing is the only thing thats an equalizer for us vs the rest of the nation (not vs the rest of the sec, which is another story).

We'll have to see what happens.

 

[sieken]

Unless I'm understanding this revenue sharing wrong, it means little. It looks to establish a new floor, there isn't anything legally that keeps the bigger schools as it relates to football from spending even more on their roster. To me, this will shape what the pecking order is among the middling schools. How much the middling schools earmark towards their football roster will help establish their spot below those wealthy fanbases.

 

[sieken]

The more you read about this the more broken it appears to be. Very similar to how the Government got themselves in the mess that they are in currently. Every rule that is put in place requires more people to be put in place to enforce said rule. Then there are offshoots of people brought in to circumvent the new rule put in place, the pie gets carved into so many pieces that at some point down the road, everyone is getting to be looking at each other asking the age old question, "where did all the money go?".

 

[satcheluk]

Unless I'm understanding this revenue sharing wrong, it means little. It looks to establish a new floor, there isn't anything legally that keeps the bigger schools as it relates to football from spending even more on their roster. To me, this will shape what the pecking order is among the middling schools. How much the middling schools earmark towards their football roster will help establish their spot below those wealthy fanbases.

The revenue sharing model is expected to come along with a new law/s from Congress that gives the NCAA anti-trust exemptions and enforcement powers. If the later happens, then NIL will no longer be used as a pay for play, rather it will go back to what it was intended, which is strictly name and image marketing. If that happens, then we may see the collectives go away or they would have to develop a new business model because they couldn't may $1mm to sign some autographs and attend a bar mitzvah or two.

 

[sieken]

The revenue sharing model is expected to come along with a new law/s from Congress that gives the NCAA anti-trust exemptions and enforcement powers. If the later happens, then NIL will no longer be used as a pay for play, rather it will go back to what it was intended, which is strictly name and image marketing. If that happens, then we may see the collectives go away or they would have to develop a new business model because they couldn't may $1mm to sign some autographs and attend a bar mitzvah or two.

That's a huge IF imo. The rule itself is already being looked at by attorneys to see if it is even legal. I hope they can come up with a solution, whatever form that takes.

 

[satcheluk]

That's a huge IF imo. The rule itself is already being looked at by attorneys to see if it is even legal. I hope they can come up with a solution, whatever form that takes.

Congress has the power to give anti-trust exemptions. Every pro sports franchise asked for and received it. If they get that, then that gives them the ability to do a lot of things they can't do now and centralizes their control over football and away from the conferences that have it now.

 

[sieken]

Congress has the power to give anti-trust exemptions. Every pro sports franchise asked for and received it. If they get that, then that gives them the ability to do a lot of things they can't do now and centralizes their control over football and away from the conferences that have it now.

I didn't mean to suggest they didn't, it's just an extremely divided body of people for the next two years. I will be surprised if they get much of anything meaningful done until the mid terms, if one group or the other gets a little more voting power.

 

[bthaunert]

Title 9 gives a hard split of the cash for Men's and Women's teams.

Title IX does not dictate that you need to split the $20.5 million evenly. The same way, men's basketball has a much larger budget than women's basketball. The article talks about how Ohio State plans to approach Title IX, when it says, "Ohio State plans to distribute their $20.5 million pool in two ways, Bjork says, “proportionally” based on male-female split and a “market-based approach” determined through valid market factors such as a sport’s television viewership, social media impressions, etc."

I do not believe Mitch is going to steer far away from giving a majority of it to basketball and football. Then I see women's basketball and baseball in the next group, then the remainder with programs like women's volleyball and track and field topping them.

I think that's a good approach. It seems to me, the way to go is to put about 85% or so of the money towards football and men's basketball. From there, you need to have a system that determines what a player's worth is to the team. I'm unsure the best way to do this, but no way should the 85th best player on the football team be getting the same amount as a starter. Maybe you have 4 tiers of players. With the 100 players from football and basketball, you would average about $175,000 per player.