NIL, the House deal, and why the Big East is in the catbird seat

[noncomposmentis]

Just read an interesting article in The Athletic (my subscription ends this month, not worth it since they don't have a Kentucky beat writer anymore) about NIL. I knew, I think, that the House v NCAA litigation settlement means there will be a revenue sharing system through which schools will be allowed to distribute up to $20.5 million directly to their athletes. That settlement is supposed to be approved by Judge Claudia Wilken on April 7 (same day as the title game, coincidentally).

Two interesting things. One, after that date, all pay for play deals will be between the athlete and the school (vs the "old days" we are currently in, where collectives deal with athletes) and will have to go through an NCAA clearinghouse for approval (that they are legitimate and at a reasonable fair market value). So all the schools are scurrying right now to get deals done with returning and new players before April 7 to avoid the clearinghouse process. And two:

“I wish collectives would go away for everybody,” a Big 12 coach said. “But if anybody has one, we’d better have one. I think if you’re going to try to compete, you have to have one.” That’s especially true for basketball programs in the Power 4 leagues, which fear that non-football-playing schools, especially in the Big East, will have an advantage. SEC and Big Ten programs may have an easier time setting aside the $20.5 million for athletes because they bring in more in revenue, but what, for instance, is to stop Villanova or St. John’s from allocating $15 million for men’s basketball alone?

I hadn't thought about that. You have $20.5 million plus your NIL funds to spend, and Big East schools don't have to worry about devoting any of that to football.

 

[Son_Of_Saul]

Just read an interesting article in The Athletic (my subscription ends this month, not worth it since they don't have a Kentucky beat writer anymore) about NIL. I knew, I think, that the House v NCAA litigation settlement means there will be a revenue sharing system through which schools will be allowed to distribute up to $20.5 million directly to their athletes. That settlement is supposed to be approved by Judge Claudia Wilken on April 7 (same day as the title game, coincidentally).

Two interesting things. One, after that date, all pay for play deals will be between the athlete and the school (vs the "old days" we are currently in, where collectives deal with athletes) and will have to go through an NCAA clearinghouse for approval (that they are legitimate and at a reasonable fair market value). So all the schools are scurrying right now to get deals done with returning and new players before April 7 to avoid the clearinghouse process. And two:

“I wish collectives would go away for everybody,” a Big 12 coach said. “But if anybody has one, we’d better have one. I think if you’re going to try to compete, you have to have one.” That’s especially true for basketball programs in the Power 4 leagues, which fear that non-football-playing schools, especially in the Big East, will have an advantage. SEC and Big Ten programs may have an easier time setting aside the $20.5 million for athletes because they bring in more in revenue, but what, for instance, is to stop Villanova or St. John’s from allocating $15 million for men’s basketball alone?

I hadn't thought about that. You have $20.5 million plus your NIL funds to spend, and Big East schools don't have to worry about devoting any of that to football.

It's an interesting thought, but what about the fact that people actually have to earn revenue? How does the BE stack up in that regard?

Additionally, I really hope that our football program doesn't minimize our revenue for basketball.

 

[dynastydreamuk]

It's an interesting thought, but what about the fact that people actually have to earn revenue? How does the BE stack up in that regard?

Additionally, I really hope that our football program doesn't minimize our revenue for basketball.

I mentioned in the other thread the non - football schools having so much more for basketball.

About your comment with our football.

I am one of those UK fans that for me it's Basketball is king. I like football but really if it comes down to picking one, I would let out football program burn if it meant keeping us top 3 basketball program.

I won't be happy if we fall behind because we are giving too much money to football and we are losing out on players in basketball due to not having enough money.

 

[bucsrule8872]

Sounds as if an attempt to level the playing field ends with some schools (non-football schools) having a huge advantage over the others.

The government steps in and makes things worse. Imagine that. LOL!

 

[mbc82584]

I just want to know where the arbitrary 20.5m number comes from. That’s not a revenue share that’s socialism.

A lot of these big east athletics programs are break even at best, so where the hell is the 20.5m coming from? Sounds to me like the collective donations are about to just be routed through the schools.

Lastly, who is the NCAA to determine fair market value for players? What would that possibly be based on? That just shifts the goal posts on corruption.

It’s all stupid but the schools and the NCAA are sick of these players cutting too deep into their revenue and are using their lobbyists to stop the bleeding.

 

[Cotaay]

“Up to $20.5 million” - what is to stop the Big East from setting aside $15 million for basketball only? The fact that they don’t have that kind of money is what. Football is what brings the money in, not having a football program is not going to give a team any kind of advantage, they are just going to have less money to split to begin with.

 

[Seth_C]

I mentioned in the other thread the non - football schools having so much more for basketball.

About your comment with our football.

I am one of those UK fans that for me it's Basketball is king. I like football but really if it comes down to picking one, I would let out football program burn if it meant keeping us top 3 basketball program.

I won't be happy if we fall behind because we are giving too much money to football and we are losing out on players in basketball due to not having enough money.

Especially because we are never, ever going to be a top 3 football school. At least not in any of our lifetimes.

 

[OliverSimmonstwinbrother]

The Big East schools would just divide the money equally between mens and women's basketball.

 

[dynastydreamuk]

Especially because we are never, ever going to be a top 3 football school. At least not in any of our lifetimes.

If Mitch Barnhart stays around much longer, i'm sure he'll find a way to have us fall behind in basketball compared to the other top programs. I have no Trust in Barney to understand Basketball is what matters here and staying the Elite program should be Priority #1

 

[G-PIP]

Just read an interesting article in The Athletic (my subscription ends this month, not worth it since they don't have a Kentucky beat writer anymore) about NIL. I knew, I think, that the House v NCAA litigation settlement means there will be a revenue sharing system through which schools will be allowed to distribute up to $20.5 million directly to their athletes. That settlement is supposed to be approved by Judge Claudia Wilken on April 7 (same day as the title game, coincidentally).

Two interesting things. One, after that date, all pay for play deals will be between the athlete and the school (vs the "old days" we are currently in, where collectives deal with athletes) and will have to go through an NCAA clearinghouse for approval (that they are legitimate and at a reasonable fair market value). So all the schools are scurrying right now to get deals done with returning and new players before April 7 to avoid the clearinghouse process. And two:

“I wish collectives would go away for everybody,” a Big 12 coach said. “But if anybody has one, we’d better have one. I think if you’re going to try to compete, you have to have one.” That’s especially true for basketball programs in the Power 4 leagues, which fear that non-football-playing schools, especially in the Big East, will have an advantage. SEC and Big Ten programs may have an easier time setting aside the $20.5 million for athletes because they bring in more in revenue, but what, for instance, is to stop Villanova or St. John’s from allocating $15 million for men’s basketball alone?

I hadn't thought about that. You have $20.5 million plus your NIL funds to spend, and Big East schools don't have to worry about devoting any of that to football.

So, where does the $20.5 million come from, if you know? Your post called it a set-aside and that made me think, "What if a school doesn't have $20.5 million to set aside?" If you're a public school (in particular) and your sports programs don't bring in $20.5 million/yr. what then? Just some questions from somebody ignorant to how this is supposed to work, if you're gracious enough to educate me a little.

 

[mc140]

With basketball players who aren't difference makers asking for 2-3 million for a season, it is going to take a lot more than 20.5 million.

 

[catfan220]

Sounds as if an attempt to level the playing field ends with some schools (non-football schools) having a huge advantage over the others.

The government steps in and makes things worse. Imagine that. LOL!

I'm not a lawyer or an expert in the judiciary by any means but I don't think this is the result of the government stepping in. It's a settlement, so an agreement between the two parties mediated by the judge, the two parties being the NCAA and whoever House is/represents. So one district court judge and their staff are involved but by and large this is an agreement between two private parties.

 

[catfan220]

So, where does the $20.5 million come from, if you know? Your post called it a set-aside and that made me think, "What if a school doesn't have $20.5 million to set aside?" If you're a public school (in particular) and your sports programs don't bring in $20.5 million/yr. what then? Just some questions from somebody ignorant to how this is supposed to work, if you're gracious enough to educate me a little.

As I understand it the school can compensate athletes up to the total of $20.5 mil so a school with a smaller budget and less revenue may well choose to pay less. This is where being in the SEC is a big advantage for us.

 

[PastorofMuppets34]

So, where does the $20.5 million come from, if you know? Your post called it a set-aside and that made me think, "What if a school doesn't have $20.5 million to set aside?" If you're a public school (in particular) and your sports programs don't bring in $20.5 million/yr. what then? Just some questions from somebody ignorant to how this is supposed to work, if you're gracious enough to educate me a little.

NCAA Revenue Sharing & NIL Estimates 2025

nil-ncaa.com

The above link provides a ton of information on how this will work. Each school is being required to use the revenue gained from their athletic departments (think ticket sales, merch, etc) on their players. There is a $20.5 million dollar cap on school spending for this. They must divide that money amongst ALL of their athletic programs (mens and womens). It's not like conference money, or a TV deal. Schools are essentially funneling money the school earned off its athletics events back into the players who helped earn it in a round about way. Schools are "encouraged" to funnel 22% of their athletic department revenue back into the programs with a hard cap of $20.5 million max per school. So if your school only generated 10 million in revenue, you'd be putting just 2.2 million back in. To be able to put all 20.5 million in, your athletic program would need to earn like $450 million a year.

 

[catfan220]

I just want to know where the arbitrary 20.5m number comes from. That’s not a revenue share that’s socialism.

A lot of these big east athletics programs are break even at best, so where the hell is the 20.5m coming from? Sounds to me like the collective donations are about to just be routed through the schools.

Lastly, who is the NCAA to determine fair market value for players? What would that possibly be based on? That just shifts the goal posts on corruption.

It’s all stupid but the schools and the NCAA are sick of these players cutting too deep into their revenue and are using their lobbyists to stop the bleeding.

This NCAA Q&A I found answers your questions (to a degree) and many other questions in this thread. On where the $20.5m number comes from:

Question No. 23: How will the initial Pool be calculated?

Answer: The Pool will be set by totaling up eight of the Membership Financial Reporting System
Reports (MFRS) revenue categories for each institution from the five defendant conferences and
Notre Dame, then dividing the total by the number of institutions from the five defendant
conferences plus Notre Dame, then taking 22% of the resulting dollar figure. The defendant
conferences’ defendants estimated the 2025-26 cap to be approximately $20.5 MM. The actual
cap number will be determined in Q1 of 2025.

The MFRS revenue categories include ticket sales, input revenue from participation in away games,
media rights revenues, NCAA distributions and grants; non-media conference distributions; direct
revenues from participation in football bowl games, as well as conference distributions of football
bowl revenues; and athletics department revenues from sponsorships, royalties, licensing
agreements and advertisements.

Question No. 24: Will the Pool change for each academic year?

Answer: Yes. Typically, the Pool will be recalculated every three years using the same formula.
In the second and third year of each three-year period, the Pool will increase by four percent from
the previous year.

 

[Wildcats1st]

Just read an interesting article in The Athletic (my subscription ends this month, not worth it since they don't have a Kentucky beat writer anymore) about NIL. I knew, I think, that the House v NCAA litigation settlement means there will be a revenue sharing system through which schools will be allowed to distribute up to $20.5 million directly to their athletes. That settlement is supposed to be approved by Judge Claudia Wilken on April 7 (same day as the title game, coincidentally).

Two interesting things. One, after that date, all pay for play deals will be between the athlete and the school (vs the "old days" we are currently in, where collectives deal with athletes) and will have to go through an NCAA clearinghouse for approval (that they are legitimate and at a reasonable fair market value). So all the schools are scurrying right now to get deals done with returning and new players before April 7 to avoid the clearinghouse process. And two:

“I wish collectives would go away for everybody,” a Big 12 coach said. “But if anybody has one, we’d better have one. I think if you’re going to try to compete, you have to have one.” That’s especially true for basketball programs in the Power 4 leagues, which fear that non-football-playing schools, especially in the Big East, will have an advantage. SEC and Big Ten programs may have an easier time setting aside the $20.5 million for athletes because they bring in more in revenue, but what, for instance, is to stop Villanova or St. John’s from allocating $15 million for men’s basketball alone?

I hadn't thought about that. You have $20.5 million plus your NIL funds to spend, and Big East schools don't have to worry about devoting any of that to football.

That’s why the SEC is what it is. Schools that can compete across the board. 20 million just goes to the budget and in the end ole miss will have more money to put toward basketball if they want.

 

[Dead Cat Bounce]

Not to sound too cynical, but it sounds like there will be room for corruption.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

I just want to know where the arbitrary 20.5m number comes from. That’s not a revenue share that’s socialism.

A lot of these big east athletics programs are break even at best, so where the hell is the 20.5m coming from? Sounds to me like the collective donations are about to just be routed through the schools.

Lastly, who is the NCAA to determine fair market value for players? What would that possibly be based on? That just shifts the goal posts on corruption.

It’s all stupid but the schools and the NCAA are sick of these players cutting too deep into their revenue and are using their lobbyists to stop the bleeding.

20.5M is the cap. Schools are allowed to share UP TO 22% of the athletics departments revenue. Somehow UConn claims 99M but schools like St Johns are sitting at 50ishM and are already losing money.

This sharing program is going to create the haves and have nots. Every SEC school will have 20.5 to play with. I think all P5 schools will have the max available. The Big East, overall, is going to have struggles.

 

[noncomposmentis]

“Up to $20.5 million” - what is to stop the Big East from setting aside $15 million for basketball only? The fact that they don’t have that kind of money is what. Football is what brings the money in, not having a football program is not going to give a team any kind of advantage, they are just going to have less money to split to begin with.

I'm piecing this together. You're right, the SEC and Big10 dollars dwarf the Big East. I think it's important to distinguish between the two buckets of money schools will have. First is the revenue share, and that's where being in the SEC helps. We'll probably have enough money to in fact put the full $20.5 million to student athletes, and the BE won't have nearly that much. The second pool are donations from boosters, right now to 'collectives' and maybe they'll still be called that. A school like Villanova or St. John's likely has the advantage here, simply because of sheer numbers of big boosters willing to contribute. And it's important to remember that schools can't funnel money to collectives directly.

Math. The estimates are that Power 4 schools that spend the full $20.5 million expect around 15% to go to men's basketball (or around $3 million). The point there is an SEC school might have a ton more revenue from TV, but after splitting it up between sports and giving the $3 million to basketball........that may be less than what a BigEast school gives to basketball, even from a lower starting number. Auburn gets $53 million from conference payouts, gives $20.5 million to athletes, and of that $3 million goes to men's basketball. St. John's gets sat $8 million from TV, only contributes 6 million to athletes, and 2 million to men's basketball. But then you get to the second bucket, the donor bucket, and the Vitamin Water dude gives Pitino $10 million......

 

[noncomposmentis]

So, where does the $20.5 million come from, if you know? Your post called it a set-aside and that made me think, "What if a school doesn't have $20.5 million to set aside?" If you're a public school (in particular) and your sports programs don't bring in $20.5 million/yr. what then? Just some questions from somebody ignorant to how this is supposed to work, if you're gracious enough to educate me a little.

I think we're all just guessing - but your instinct is right I think. Just because the rules will allow a school to contribute up to $20.5 million (and that number is set at "22% of the average power conference revenue" so it will continue to increase), doesn't mean a school has that much money. We've all been told for decades that only a handful of schools have athletic departments that make money, even in the Big10 and SEC. So a lot - like most - schools won't be able to put the full $20.5 million toward athletes, you'd think.

I think the bottom line is schools will still depend on wealthy donors to fund most payments to athletes. I've never thought that was sustainable. For it to be a consistent stream of money year after year, you have to have a bunch of wealth donors who love sports and don't mind "misses." Most donors wealthy enough to give are going to get tired of doing it every year - especially when "I gave you $500,000 last year and that kid turned out to be a dud" or "you went 20-12 and lost in the first round."

 

[noncomposmentis]

NCAA Revenue Sharing & NIL Estimates 2025

nil-ncaa.com

The above link provides a ton of information on how this will work. Each school is being required to use the revenue gained from their athletic departments (think ticket sales, merch, etc) on their players. There is a $20.5 million dollar cap on school spending for this. They must divide that money amongst ALL of their athletic programs (mens and womens). It's not like conference money, or a TV deal. Schools are essentially funneling money the school earned off its athletics events back into the players who helped earn it in a round about way. Schools are "encouraged" to funnel 22% of their athletic department revenue back into the programs with a hard cap of $20.5 million max per school. So if your school only generated 10 million in revenue, you'd be putting just 2.2 million back in. To be able to put all 20.5 million in, your athletic program would need to earn like $450 million a year.

Thanks for that link - a lot of great information, and clarity, there.

Also, while you don’t want to make too much of one example, all the noise about Kevin Willard probably leaving Maryland for Villanova over NIL and other support issues, goes to show that it’s not as simple as “the big 10 and SEC will have a lot more money so teams in other conferences will be in trouble”.

 

[Fox2monk]

It's an interesting thought, but what about the fact that people actually have to earn revenue? How does the BE stack up in that regard?

Additionally, I really hope that our football program doesn't minimize our revenue for basketball.

It's an interesting thought, but what about the fact that people actually have to earn revenue? How does the BE stack up in that regard?

Additionally, I really hope that our football program doesn't minimize our revenue for basketball.

For one do Big East schools even make 20 million In profit without football, and is their any rule regarding how much can be spent per sport? If so we should allocate 30-40% of that money to basketball ourselves. 40%-50% for football, and 10-20% for other sports. If we allocate 35% to basketball that is 7 million dollars. Add that to our collective and we easily hit 10m payroll a year.

 

[Fox2monk]

With basketball players who aren't difference makers asking for 2-3 million for a season, it is going to take a lot more than 20.5 million.

They can ask for 20 million, don’t mean they will get it.

 

[JASUN74]

If Mitch Barnhart stays around much longer, i'm sure he'll find a way to have us fall behind in basketball compared to the other top programs. I have no Trust in Barney to understand Basketball is what matters here and staying the Elite program should be Priority #1

No no no no no! We all love basketball my friend but Football is king of the world and the attitude from our fans is killing us with our program not moving forward. We may not win a championship in football but it’s still going to bring in millions and millions more dollars than all other sports combined. I Bleed Blue and White when it comes to Basketball but I also love Football and want to compete in the SEC. I just don’t understand why fan can’t realize how much different the game is between the two ! You don’t have to choose. We need to support Our Football Program and if they succeed, everyone succeeds! It’s ashame it takes people to actually live thirty plus years on this planet to start understanding Football is King. I appreciate the love for our Basketball program, they deserve it, but if we
Can keep growing our football program, Kentucky sports would rule the world. Thanks.

 

[Bluesnky]

The Big East plan to spend $20 million of revenue sharing per school on basketball rosters:

Step 1: Get $20 million.

 

[The-Hack]

I am one of those UK fans that for me it's Basketball is king. I like football but really if it comes down to picking one, I would let out football program burn if it meant keeping us top 3 basketball program.

Lol.

If “football burns,” you risk losing two-thirds to 3/4ths of your total athletic revenue.

Weaken football, and risk being left out of the perpetually shifting dynamics of conference affiliation!!

Those BILLION dollar TV deals the SEC and Big Ten have are largely based on the massive popularity of college football, especially SEC Football, and nothing of a “dollars and cents” perspective will allow neglect of football.

 

[BlueSince92]

That is some really wild wording if true.

I mean, “reasonable fair market value” can only mean one of two things:

1. It can mean nothing at all (typical of the NCAA but not exactly what we generally expect from a U.S. District Court)

2. It can mean all schools have the same limit they can offer any particular player (sounds like it will vary per player but doesn’t sound like it will be flexible enough to include any A.J. Dybysanta Five Million Dollar Man nonsense) and recruiting will go back to being at least somewhat about basketball.

Right? What else could it mean?

 

[RobEStacy]

If a school participates, they don't have to in revenue sharing... They have to share 22% of total revenue... If that equals 9mil that's all they are legally required to pay.... They can go above that, if they wish... Up to the cap of 20.5 mil. From the list above, almost all schools without a football program, will struggle to get to 5-10mil in revenue... Unless Title IX comes into play.... The athletic director has complete control as to what to do with that money.... He could give it all to men's basketball... All to gymnastics, track and field.... His choice.... There is zero requirements, unless title IX lawsuits win.. And if he gives 5 mil to the basketball team, he can give one player 3 mil, and split the rest how he sees fit... There is zero rules outside the 20.5 cap... Which in 10 years is expected to be around 30mil...which will be even harder for non football schools to reach.

 

[RobEStacy]

Also... The extra scholarships, if used, has to come out of this money as well.... 2 for basketball.. And 15 for football.

 

[Fox2monk]

No no no no no! We all love basketball my friend but Football is king of the world and the attitude from our fans is killing us with our program not moving forward. We may not win a championship in football but it’s still going to bring in millions and millions more dollars than all other sports combined. I Bleed Blue and White when it comes to Basketball but I also love Football and want to compete in the SEC. I just don’t understand why fan can’t realize how much different the game is between the two ! You don’t have to choose. We need to support Our Football Program and if they succeed, everyone succeeds! It’s ashame it takes people to actually live thirty plus years on this planet to start understanding Football is King. I appreciate the love for our Basketball program, they deserve it, but if we
Can keep growing our football program, Kentucky sports would rule the world. Thanks.

I agree with this and I want us to be good to keep brining it In the cash but the fact remains we can afford a 25M football roster and that’s what it takes to compete now. Spend what we can but make basketball the best.

 

[bigblueinsanity]

Just read an interesting article in The Athletic (my subscription ends this month, not worth it since they don't have a Kentucky beat writer anymore) about NIL. I knew, I think, that the House v NCAA litigation settlement means there will be a revenue sharing system through which schools will be allowed to distribute up to $20.5 million directly to their athletes. That settlement is supposed to be approved by Judge Claudia Wilken on April 7 (same day as the title game, coincidentally).

Two interesting things. One, after that date, all pay for play deals will be between the athlete and the school (vs the "old days" we are currently in, where collectives deal with athletes) and will have to go through an NCAA clearinghouse for approval (that they are legitimate and at a reasonable fair market value). So all the schools are scurrying right now to get deals done with returning and new players before April 7 to avoid the clearinghouse process. And two:

“I wish collectives would go away for everybody,” a Big 12 coach said. “But if anybody has one, we’d better have one. I think if you’re going to try to compete, you have to have one.” That’s especially true for basketball programs in the Power 4 leagues, which fear that non-football-playing schools, especially in the Big East, will have an advantage. SEC and Big Ten programs may have an easier time setting aside the $20.5 million for athletes because they bring in more in revenue, but what, for instance, is to stop Villanova or St. John’s from allocating $15 million for men’s basketball alone?

I hadn't thought about that. You have $20.5 million plus your NIL funds to spend, and Big East schools don't have to worry about devoting any of that to football.

Its a good thought exercise but why isn't it already happening? St John's is the only one spending. Nothing is stopping the other schools.

The only answer is they don't have the big donors. No shame in that, because not many do. But its an entire article based on hypotheticals.

 

[ralphdaltonfan]

I mean the attention to this is to just complain about a system? Let's face it there's no "cap" in sports now. If you have one, programs are just going to exceed (CHEAT) and do what they have to do.

As for the Big East--they've won 4 of the last 8 National Titles before this went into effect and have been a relevant conference in CBB Since the 1980's. I view them as a Power Conference in CBB, so not sure WTF the point is of hyping their "advantage"? You've got Coach K and his Duke media Mafia BEGGING the Big East to form a merger with ACC schools to save the conference that Duke has ruined due to their greed/obsession with ruling over everyone. My response to that if I were the Big East? **** YOU. We're just fine without your self absorbed ass.

As for the UK FB/Basketball discussion, I'm in the Basketball is the sport and needs to be invested in but also realize the importance of a functional FB program and why it gets the focus. To that I tell the hardcore UK FB fan--get a better HC and then we can talk. The Stoops fallacy is tired. He can't beat top tier programs enough to justify his whining. Once Cal left--the shine was on him and he made Cal look like he was tame when talking of the lack of support. Got that Ole Miss upset which was impressive but over the course of his tenure, that's just the exception to the rule-which is him get pimp slapped by top tier programs.

 

[CincinnatiWildcat]

I'm not quite understanding why 1 lawsuit that does not involve individual schools is being treated this way. Why is the result of this lawsuit to combine all the power schools figure their resume and divide for a salary cap? legally speaking couldn't they just make whoever the school in question for this lawsuit is do that very thing? Why is it collectivized to create a cap situation instead of individualized so each school can pay out based on what they make? Why is this not a giant overstep by the courts to overall college athletics because of 1 case?

 

[dynastydreamuk]

Lol.

If “football burns,” you risk losing two-thirds to 3/4ths of your total athletic revenue.

Weaken football, and risk being left out of the perpetually shifting dynamics of conference affiliation!!

Those BILLION dollar TV deals the SEC and Big Ten have are largely based on the massive popularity of college football, especially SEC Football, and nothing of a “dollars and cents” perspective will allow neglect of football.

Well when you put it that way, I understand. If there was a real threat one day we would be kicked out of the sec if our football program was 4 wins every year, yea that's no good. But Vanderbilt has never been booted out yet lol. My opinion on this has little weight by my own admission. I don't watch football, I like it, I just don't have time for 4 hour games. I understand it's what makes the real money

 

[CaptainBoogerBuns]

Lol.

If “football burns,” you risk losing two-thirds to 3/4ths of your total athletic revenue.

Weaken football, and risk being left out of the perpetually shifting dynamics of conference affiliation!!

Those BILLION dollar TV deals the SEC and Big Ten have are largely based on the massive popularity of college football, especially SEC Football, and nothing of a “dollars and cents” perspective will allow neglect of football.

There are some seriously whacked tastes on this board. SonofSaul is the dimmest bulb I've ever read.

I hate UK losing in anything, but if there is a silver lining it's that losing will kill him/her/he/she/it/them

 

[noncomposmentis]

More from The Athletic (I don't know why I can still see content, subscription expired last week). This is a Q&A with Stewart Mandel, a football guy - but Kentucky basketball makes an appearance. He makes a good point:

The House settlement will force schools to publicly prioritize their sports. Is having an excellent women’s soccer team more important than signing an excellent defensive tackle prospect? It will be fascinating. Who will go all in on football and who will spread the wealth? — Melissa B.

As of now it appears all P4 schools that play football are going all in on football. Georgia announced in February it plans to allocate $14 million of the $20.5 million cap on football, and that’s become a commonly referenced number. Tellingly, Maryland, known more as a basketball school, announced that same $14 million football number, much to the chagrin of men’s basketball coach Kevin Willard, who’s been using his NCAA tournament press conferences to outwardly leverage interest from Villanova against Maryland.

It’s not surprising. Football accounts for 60 to 80 percent of revenue at most schools. And it drives realignment. Everyone wants to ensure they have a relevant football program if/when the next shoe drops – especially if it’s a Super League. But it definitely stands to puts pressure on schools such as Duke, North Carolina and Kentucky, where it’s no secret which sport the fans care about most. I’m particularly fascinated to see what Kentucky does, given it’s going to be incredibly expensive to fund a competitive SEC football roster.

As for other sports, certainly schools will need to reserve funds for women’s basketball, where the top players are now earning well into the six figures. But I’m not sure about the rest. As much as Vanderbilt cares about baseball and Oklahoma cares about softball, the reality is most of those players aren’t making big money. If you allocate, say, $2 million on baseball transfers, you may be inventing a market that doesn’t exist.

Finally, as I’ll say every week until proven otherwise, collectives aren’t going away. If you’re Duke, you may be able to spend two-thirds of your budget on football knowing the donors will gladly pitch in for a McDonald’s All-American. But no one will say that out loud because they somehow believe the fabled Deloitte clearinghouse is going to survive the instant legal challenges.

 

[Docpath1972]

I didn’t make it all the way through this thread so apologize if already cleared. The percent up to the 20+ million has nothing to do with profit but revenue.

 

[SemperFiCat]

All I know is neither Kentucky basketball nor Notre Dame football will ever die. The rest of the chaos that will happen over the next five to ten years as they try to un-F what they've created is gonna be a year to year ish show. They've let a psychotic genie out of the bottle with no clue of how to contain it. But Kentucky basketball and Notre Dame football are big enough to survive this crap.