Do all SEC schools (now that basketball is taken more seriously) have the same percentage split between football and basketball? What I mean is: If Ole Miss is 70-30 football to basketball, does that apply in general to every other school?
NIL - SEC schools football vs basketball.
- Thread starter CaptainBoogerBuns
- Start date
Nope….each school divides the revenue sharing as they see fit.
I read earlier this spring UGA was going 75% football, 15% men's bb and 10 % for everything else. I think this will lead to teams that don't play D1 football dominating BB because they will have more money, like the Big East.
The entire big East distribution share is only 5.7m a school. If that 15% is accurate of 53m sec share sec should be in good shape.
Not swearing those numbers are 100% accurate, just what I read. But I think they are close to being accurate.
You still could end up right it all depends on this 20m hard cap and whether it stays in the settlement and how it’s administered. And if there is no outside funding spend or whether they allow the nil outside with a clearinghouse to legitimize that portion. If that 15% is of a 20m cap then that would be less than a big east school if they decided to commit all of that 5,7 to basketball
Accurate or not, it's around what I think it ought to be given FB's revenues generation & the number of players involved.
Programs without football won’t have that chunk of revenue sharing from the conference.
That doesn’t necessarily mean they won’t have some nice NIL via booster/local collectives.
Couple million + from a group of alumn goes a long way without having to share with a football 3 deep.
So I can see some Big East and other top end G5 programs becoming destinations for portal talent.
That doesn’t necessarily mean they won’t have some nice NIL via booster/local collectives.
Couple million + from a group of alumn goes a long way without having to share with a football 3 deep.
So I can see some Big East and other top end G5 programs becoming destinations for portal talent.
It's department revenue that they will be distributing, not just TV deal revenue. They can distribute up to 20ish% of their annual department revenue, up to the first $100 million in revenye...that's where the $20.5 million comes from.
So, it's 15% of $20.5 million, or $3,075,000 that would be distributed to basketball at an SEC school if the 15% is accurate (I have also heard a similar number). If a Big East school has annual revenue of $50 million, which gives them $10 million in revenue sharing based off the 20%, then they would probably allocated 75% or more to men's basketball since they don't have football, bringing their revenue sharing allocation to about $7.5 million for basketball.
Hope that makes sense.
Adam Zagoria spoke to a few Big East ADs back in late March. He reported that expectations within the conference were that all Big East schools would budget between $4-$8 million in revenue sharing.
Given that it was a basketball focused article, I’m assuming that he meant that $4-$8 million is the amount that would go to men’s basketball specifically. That range would align with your thinking. The head of Opendorse was also thinking the average revenue share for Big East men’s basketball teams would be $5.7 million, which is also in that ballpark.
Although FWIW, I will say that the way Zagoria wrote that sentence in his article was a little ambiguous to me. He didn’t say that those amounts were for basketball specifically (i.e., you could interpret it as Zagoria saying that $4-$8 million is the total revenue share across all sports at Big East schools).
Yep. They are going to make Olympic sports basically unaffordable.
I can't find the article. I think it was something about renewing the contract or something. I remember it came up when FSU was threatening to leave the acc because nil and profit sharing was going to make it impossible for them to compete while in the acc. they mentioned the SEC and BiG were looking at over $70M per school in the next few years but acc wasn't renegotiating until like 2031 or something.
But also just looked and it looks like acc income increased this year anyway so people may have renegotiated early to keep the acc together. Too much happened since then to remember all the details. LoL
It has been reported in the NYT/Athletic and a few other sources that UGA's revenue sharing plan is $13.5mm to the football team which is just under 66% of the $20.5mm and basketball will receive 13%. I have seen the 75%/15% reported in various places, but cannot figure out their math.
How Georgia Will Distribute $20.5 Million to Athletes
Georgia’s revenue-sharing plan will allocate $20.5 million, with $2.5 million going toward new scholarships and $18 million being paid directly to athletes.Projected Payouts by Sport
| Sport | Projected Payout | |
|---|---|---|
| Football | $13.5 million | |
| Men’s Basketball | $2.7 million | |
| Women’s Basketball | $900,000 | |
| Other Sports (Baseball, Track, Gymnastics, etc.) | $900,000 |
I may be misunderstanding what is happening. But what i understand schools will still be able to fund the Olympic programs from the athletic budgets at somewhat near what they are getting now. But as far as the revenue sharing goes they will only be getting a small portion. But isn't that about right? It is revenue sharing, how much revenue do the Olympic sports produce? The best players will be signing NIL deals of their own.
I really dont know what is fair, but when 1 program is producing 85% of the revenue, they should be getting the biggest cut. But something has to change, it can continue at the pace we are going now.
Football gets 75% of the cash portion of the revenue share.
Of the $20.5 million in revenue share, $18 million will be in the form of cash payments and $2.5 million will be in the form of new scholarships.
So, football gets 75% of the $18 million allocated to cash.
Thank you for that, I had not read that they are taking scholarships out of the revenue share. That will hurt private schools/higher cost schools disproportionally. Maybe we can finally get the state legislatures to fully fund public higher education and bring the costs down if the incentive is tangentially helping the athletic teams?
State schools here in FL cost half or less than UK and I know the B!G is significantly more expensive.There are two pools for division. The first if the pool of $22M that will be paid directly to the athletes. The remaining monies fund the athletic department budget and schools vary in how that money is divided. Obviously football most likely consumes the most given the size of team and staff. Still, some may complain thatBB gets more for recruiting than other SEC schools.
I don't mind having a big budget for basketball as long as we don't move it from football. 75/15/5
I want UK football to be great but realistically I know we don't stand much of a chance to win any kind of championship because of the resources and tradition of the SEC powerhouses. There's just too many of them. And with Texas and Oklahoma added to the conference our schedules are gonna be so tough from here on out, a great season may be getting to 6-6.
So, I would be ok if UK football continues to be a doormat if it means that UK basketball is great again and dominates the conference. I think this is realistic if we focus our resources on basketball because most of the SEC will allocate the majority of their money to football. This may be our best strategy to get back on top and stay there.
So, I would be ok if UK football continues to be a doormat if it means that UK basketball is great again and dominates the conference. I think this is realistic if we focus our resources on basketball because most of the SEC will allocate the majority of their money to football. This may be our best strategy to get back on top and stay there.
Not on my watch. You can take that bullshit to Rafters
Last edited:
Agree with you except the basketball. I want both sports to excel.
The schedule is going to be so tough and resources so limited in comparison, i do agree fans need to reset expectations and view 6 wins as a really good year.
Well let me be the first to say we don’t need to be paying Mark Stoops a Top Ten coaching salary for a six win ceiling that’s for damn sure.
We could hire Neil Brown to do that and at least we’d have an actual modern offense that skill guys want to play in instead of the garbage Stoops trots out on the field most seasons.
Neil brown couldn't win vs much worse competition.
I have no issue with complaints on stoops salary. I think the answer is to let the market solve the issue. Coaching salaries are going through the roof so soon he will be adequately compensated.
Plus it is certainly important to remember at uk he gets no nil support from the ad. How much market value gets assigned to that burden? Hard to say because most major coaches arent going it alone.
Lack of NIL support didn’t make a mediocre coach one of the top 10 highest paid coaches in the country.
Yes I think Brown or any halfway competent coach could manage beating four tomato cans at home and scraping two sec victories most years.
Prior to nil, he was worth the money. Anyone who could consistently win 8-10 games a year at uk is an outstanding coach.
Since you are clamoring for brown, who already failed in his chance at a much easier task, i assume you are in the crowd complaining about not throwing the ball enough.
Eh. Anybody on that level would do for a ceiling of six wins which is what you said we should readjust to.
It could be Jim Beaman at Bayside High for all I care.
I love football and basketball. Enjoy football more. But our football program had its chances when the SEC east was down and still couldn't get it done. And Stoops sure isn't helping things. So yeah I agree, might as well invest in basketball where we have a chance.
Absolutely not. We've shown we can compete even when the SEC is good. Aside from the UF, USC and Vandy flops
We played UGA within 1
We beat 6 ole miss at their place
Lost to a great offensive UT squad by six.
We took a dump in some games, but proved we can compete in others. Football is king in this conference, and putting it all in basketball is being chickenshit.
Not one dime. Nada
I thought like you as early as a couple of years ago. And back then I would have given someone all kinds of hell for saying what I've said. So I understand you. But I'll never let UK Football disappoint me again. I both envy and feel sorry for you.
If UK decides to throw the kitchen sink at basketball like that, then I'm done with UK sports. It's where I graduated from--and to be Frank, I'm not a fan of basketball the sport. I can never see myself just hopping on the basketball bandwagon if I never had that much of an interest for past decades--no matter how good they are.
Honestly as I get older have more responsibilities, I'm less and less interested in sports as a whole, but my sports identity has always been primarily UK Football.
I’ve always thought KY making a Bowl is a great season. We need to realize how hard it is to stay consistently good enough to win 6-7 games a season in the SEC.
With the LLC framework it may be difficult to determine how the money is allocated. An article I saw today showed the Big 10 schools getting more than SEC for past year. Unless they can somehow limit NIL (making it true NIL) there will only be about a dozen schools that can really compete for championships. Considering that half of these are in the SEC and 2 or 3 will always be on our schedule out chances are very low. It would be much easier in another conference (see UL in ACC) to possibly sneak in.
