Does Texas Tech NIL model hint at what ours will look like?

[Batt Boy]

In a joint interview Friday, Hocutt and deputy AD Jonathan Botros said Tech will distribute about 74% to football players, 17-18% to men's basketball, 2% to women's basketball, 1.9% to baseball and smaller percentages to other sports. In dollar amounts, it's about $15.1 million to football, $3.6 million to men's basketball and less than $500,000 each to the other teams.

Tech's decision to not add scholarships goes for all sports. Tech baseball, a four-time College World Series participant over the past decade, will remain at 11.7 scholarships for the new roster limit of 34.

Kirby Hocutt details Texas Tech athletics plan for revenue sharing, scholarships

July 1 is expected launch of college sports revenue sharing. Texas Tech has percentages for each of its teams and has made a decision on scholarships

www.lubbockonline.com

 

[336Heel]

I heard UNC is actually increasing scholarships in the other sports. Question I have is where is all this money coming from?

 

[dcf2]

Not to hijack the thread (apologies to the OP - and I will remove if you prefer) but further for the football money how does it break down by position or unit - QBs, O-line, DBs etc. More generally, I wonder about market inefficiency in NIL % allocation. I do appreciate that an entertainment/charisma feedback loop (outside of only winning) may exist in obtaining NIL funding.

 

[Willy]

Per capita, it looks like basketball may come out ahead, right? Is it 13 scholarships vs. 95?

 

[BlooVooDoo]

Not to hijack the thread (apologies to the OP - and I will remove if you prefer) but further for the football money how does it break down by position or unit - QBs, O-line, DBs etc. More generally, I wonder about market inefficiency in NIL % allocation. I do appreciate that an entertainment/charisma feedback loop (outside of only winning) may exist in obtaining NIL funding.

That’s an interesting question.

 

[336Heel]

Private Equity has been rumored to be interested in college athletics. I'm wondering if that's where all this money is coming from? It's such a drastic increase across the board (Salaries, NIL, Scholarships all increasing all at once.)

 

[PTOHeel]

Just an aside, but the OP article is regarding their revenue sharing structure, not any NIL programs. But I think that will be in the ballpark of what most schools, who are able to have a significant revenue sharing program, will look like.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

Private Equity has been rumored to be interested in college athletics. I'm wondering if that's where all this money is coming from? It's such a drastic increase across the board (Salaries, NIL, Scholarships all increasing all at once.)

I think it's a combination of three things.

1. Don't kid yourself. The stars were all getting paid but you can add one or two zeros to the end now. So some of those same boosters are still contributing.

2. Now that it's legal and advertised, you are seeing new boosters that are willing to contribute to see their team that they enjoy watching perform better.

3. The money that used to be going to the coaches and the facility upgrades are now going directly to the players. I think you'll see a whole lot less of the state-of-the-art indoor practice facilities and athlete lounges and more money going to that junior quarterback transfer from Troy State.

 

[Huh?]

I want to buy every ACC AD a copy of the book "Moneyball" for Christmas.

Your school has fewer NIL dollars than schools in the Big Ten and the SEC, and that trend will continue for a decade. Why not focus most of your NIL on the revenue-producing sport that has 13 participants instead of 85? When that sport with 13 participants is how your conference made its reputation in the first place.

But no, let's compete from an inferior position using the same approach that our better-funded competitors are using. That'll work.

I mean at this point the SEC regular-season champion has probably earned the right to make the play-in game of the NBA playoffs. If the most recent ACC-SEC challenge isn't the sign that dollars need to be redirected, what is?

 

[SnoopRob]

Not to hijack the thread (apologies to the OP - and I will remove if you prefer) but further for the football money how does it break down by position or unit - QBs, O-line, DBs etc. More generally, I wonder about market inefficiency in NIL % allocation. I do appreciate that an entertainment/charisma feedback loop (outside of only winning) may exist in obtaining NIL funding.

Schools get to determine that themselves, I believe. I would imagine that it will be a baseline to all players plus some will be allocated extra based on performance or perceived value.

I know that Belichick & Lombardi have talked about having a plan for positional value for NIL, I would assume that would extend to revenue sharing funds. But that's the most I've heard from any school and have no idea how others will do it.

 

[dcf2]

Schools get to determine that themselves, I believe. I would imagine that it will be a baseline to all players plus some will be allocated extra based on performance or perceived value.

I know that Belichick & Lombardi have talked about having a plan for positional value for NIL, I would assume that would extend to revenue sharing funds. But that's the most I've heard from any school and have no idea how others will do it.

One wonders if going after a Cam Newton or Ndamukong Suh level player who may consume a relatively large percent of the NIL allocation is a better model (top heavy) than spreading the money around? Running backs would seem relatively more valuable at the NCAA level than the NFL level but that may be wrong. Invest in 7 or 8 D-lineman for rotation or invest in 4? So many things to consider. It'll be interesting to see how Lombardi, who presumably has thought about this at the NFL level to a great extent, sees best value under the NIL model.

 

[SnoopRob]

One wonders if going after a Cam Newton or Ndamukong Suh level player who may consume a relatively large percent of the NIL allocation is a better model (top heavy) than spreading the money around? Running backs would seem relatively more valuable at the NCAA level than the NFL level but that may be wrong. Invest in 7 or 8 D-lineman for rotation or invest in 4? So many things to consider. It'll be interesting to see how Lombardi, who presumably has thought about this at the NFL level to a great extent, sees best value under the NIL model.

My hunch is that chasing the biggest names is not a great idea unless you're a school that has more funds than nearly everyone else or you can fundraise temporary additional funds for specifically for that player.

I think we'll end up seeing similar results to the NFL where QBs will be highly compensated and RBs not given as much. (If you can spend money on a good O-line that protects your QB and opens good holes for a RB, you probably put your money there and assume a decent RB can fill the position.)

I think what will warp the CFB game as opposed to the NFL game is the lack of salary cap for NIL and that the top teams will be able to spend so much more than the majority of teams. If tOSU or Bama can swoop in and offer 10-20% more than even Nebraska or Ole Miss, then they're likely to get those players and there is not much the rest of the schools can do about it.

 

[CRHeel94]

Interesting implications. At the end of the day it becomes an exercise in resource allocation and value. Feels like there's great opportunities for apologists in the college ranks.

 

[CharmCityTiger]

FWIW we are going with a revenue sharing model with 75% going to football, 15% to basketball, 5% to women's basketball, and 5% to remaining sports. However, we are also adding 150 scholarships next year including 22 for baseball and 18 for men's soccer. I would imagine all ACC schools will participate in the maximum allowable revenue share of $20.5 million but many (most?) won't add a full compliment of scholarships. The teams like Wake whose only bright spot was olympic sports is now probably going to fall behind in those as well.

Clemson embraces new NIL, revenue landscape but the upcoming months are critical

It’s a new day in collegiate athletics, and as the landscape changes monthly, weekly, and even daily, schools are working to not only keep up but also stay ahea

www.tigernet.com

 

[gtyellowjacket]

FWIW we are going with a revenue sharing model with 75% going to football, 15% to basketball, 5% to women's basketball, and 5% to remaining sports. However, we are also adding 150 scholarships next year including 22 for baseball and 18 for men's soccer. I would imagine all ACC schools will participate in the maximum allowable revenue share of $20.5 million but many (most?) won't add a full compliment of scholarships. The teams like Wake whose only bright spot was olympic sports is now probably going to fall behind in those as well.

Clemson embraces new NIL, revenue landscape but the upcoming months are critical

It’s a new day in collegiate athletics, and as the landscape changes monthly, weekly, and even daily, schools are working to not only keep up but also stay ahea

www.tigernet.com

That's pretty interesting about the baseball and soccer scholarships. Did title 9 change or was it just an agreement between all the NCAA schools or what? I thought the reason they had so few baseball scholarships was that they had to have a roughly even mix between men's and women's scholarships and football ate up so many of them that they had to limit men's scholarships in other sports.

 

[Zoo_View]

I want to buy every ACC AD a copy of the book "Moneyball" for Christmas.

Your school has fewer NIL dollars than schools in the Big Ten and the SEC, and that trend will continue for a decade. Why not focus most of your NIL on the revenue-producing sport that has 13 participants instead of 85? When that sport with 13 participants is how your conference made its reputation in the first place.

But no, let's compete from an inferior position using the same approach that our better-funded competitors are using. That'll work.

I mean at this point the SEC regular-season champion has probably earned the right to make the play-in game of the NBA playoffs. If the most recent ACC-SEC challenge isn't the sign that dollars need to be redirected, what is?

Pour revenues into basketball and continue to lose.

 

[CharmCityTiger]

That's pretty interesting about the baseball and soccer scholarships. Did title 9 change or was it just an agreement between all the NCAA schools or what? I thought the reason they had so few baseball scholarships was that they had to have a roughly even mix between men's and women's scholarships and football ate up so many of them that they had to limit men's scholarships in other sports.

My understanding is that title ix is still in effect and any men’s sports scholarships will have to be matched by adding scholarships in women’s sports. The only thing that has changed is that scholarship limits have been replaced with roster limits and schools are free to provide as many scholarships as they would like up to the limit in that sport. The gap is certainly going to grow though between teams like Clemson who will provide a full roster of 34 scholarship players in baseball and Texas Tech who said they will stay at 12.

 

[Huh?]

Pour revenues into basketball and continue to lose.

Maybe. But UNC football has been slightly above average to mediocre for my entire life. Maybe all it takes to wake the sleeping giant is to bet on the right 72 year old instead of the wrong one. But I'm betting every incremental dollar spent on basketball will produce more wins, more championships, and more visibility for the university.

 

[farce©]

Maybe. But UNC football has been slightly above average to mediocre for my entire life. Maybe all it takes to wake the sleeping giant is to bet on the right 72 year old instead of the wrong one. But I'm betting every incremental dollar spent on basketball will produce more wins, more championships, and more visibility for the university.

But football earns the money. ESPN and other networks don’t pay nearly as much for basketball rights as football rights. CBS pays a fortune for March Madness but that money goes to the NCAA to support all their endeavors. Football TV money goes directly to the conferences and down to the schools. This conversation is less about how to spend money than how to get money, and the answer to that question is football.

 

[stankeylegjones]

But football earns the money. ESPN and other networks don’t pay nearly as much for basketball rights as football rights. CBS pays a fortune for March Madness but that money goes to the NCAA to support all their endeavors. Football TV money goes directly to the conferences and down to the schools. This conversation is less about how to spend money than how to get money, and the answer to that question is football.

There's a discussion about this very topic on IC. Greg mentioned that if Clemson or SMU makes it to the title game, then they're looking at 33 million...just for their school. He also mentioned that they are guaranteed 4 million for making it to the playoffs - UNC made 4 million for the title game run a few years ago, and that number will drop due to rev shares going into effect.