Financial Realities - Some Programs Have HUGE $$

[lion1983]

So ... I cam across this article - just ... let's say a dose of reality.

See this link: https://www.mlive.com/wolverines/20...10-million-roster-next-season-per-report.html

The key source I think has been reported on here on this site: CBS Sportswriter Matt Norlander's article of this past Thursday.

Nutshell:

1) 10 basketball programs will spend $10 million on their basketball rosters for this season (I guess revenue sharing and NIL combined): Duke, Indiana, Kentucky, North Carolina, Arkansas, St. John’s, BYU, Louisville, Michigan, Texas Tech, Michigan and Indiana.

2) 8 basketball programs will have an $8 million budget: Auburn, Connecticut, Florida, Houston, Kansas, Kansas State, Miami, Purdue, Tennessee, Texas, UCLA, USC, Villanova, and Virginia (Virginia?!!!).

3) By the lists above, 5 Big 10 teams will have a budget of $8 million or more.

4) Norlander's article proclaims near the end, without NIL (separate from revenue sharing, on top of revenue sharing) of at leasst $3 - $4 million, a high major program is in trouble. RU? maybe $1 million (not including the Vegas tourney, which is split evenly amongst all players, so not really a "recruiting" - i.e. "paying" resource).

Ouch.

 

[needmorecowbell]

So ... I cam across this article - just ... let's say a dose of reality.

See this link: https://www.mlive.com/wolverines/20...10-million-roster-next-season-per-report.html

The key source I think has been reported on here on this site: CBS Sportswriter Matt Norlander's article of this past Thursday.

Nutshell:

1) 10 basketball programs will spend $10 million on their basketball rosters for this season (I guess revenue sharing and NIL combined): Duke, Indiana, Kentucky, North Carolina, Arkansas, St. John’s, BYU, Louisville, Michigan, Texas Tech, Michigan and Indiana.

2) 8 basketball programs will have an $8 million budget: Auburn, Connecticut, Florida, Houston, Kansas, Kansas State, Miami, Purdue, Tennessee, Texas, UCLA, USC, Villanova, and Virginia (Virginia?!!!).

3) By the lists above, 5 Big 10 teams will have a budget of $8 million or more.

4) Norlander's article proclaims near the end, without NIL (separate from revenue sharing, on top of revenue sharing) of at leasst $3 - $4 million, a high major program is in trouble. RU? maybe $1 million (not including the Vegas tourney, which is split evenly amongst all players, so not really a "recruiting" - i.e. "paying" resource).

Ouch.

Rutgers has $4.5-5.0 approximately. Yes, the Vegas $ is used for recruiting. It’s part of the number each player gets. If a player gets 800k it could be broken down like ($500k RS, $200k NIL deals and $100k Vegas). Is it enough for a competitive roster? Probably not but we’ll see.

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

How much money will our athletic department lose if it wants to stay competitive?

Where is this 20 million coning from? How about additional costs of hiring people to raise non revenue sharing money?

 

[bac2therac]

How much money will our athletic department lose if it wants to stay competitive?

Where is this 20 million coning from? How about additional costs of hiring people to raise non revenue sharing money?

Aren't we in a perpetual $50 plus million defecit as well

 

[Jerseylegends]

How much money will our athletic department lose if it wants to stay competitive?

Where is this 20 million coning from? How about additional costs of hiring people to raise non revenue sharing money?

They might as well just cancel Rutgers sports...any northeast school except Syracuse and Penn State...the people within the university and the state don't care enough about sports to approve of the type of spending necessary to be competitive.. we can't even get a conversation on a NJ based sports message board (not talking about you) without people complaining about the costs or athletes being paid and not really being students or coaches being the highest paid employees of the university etc..just cancel it and get intramurals going..

 

[rutgersal]

Rutgers has $4.5-5.0 approximately. Yes, the Vegas $ is used for recruiting. It’s part of the number each player gets. If a player gets 800k it could be broken down like ($500k RS, $200k NIL deals and $100k Vegas). Is it enough for a competitive roster? Probably not but we’ll see.

Much of that money won’t be available until the settlement is finalized. This is why we’ve only landed Francis. Contingent offers can be made based on the settlement. But they aren’t as strong as what Villanova can offer, as they have cash money today.

 

[rutgersal]

How much money will our athletic department lose if it wants to stay competitive?

Where is this 20 million coning from? How about additional costs of hiring people to raise non revenue sharing money?

The 20 million is coming from our media payout. Additional costs will come from the school, which will have to subsidize the athletic department.

We’re going to lose a lot of money.

 

[lion1983]

Rutgers has $4.5-5.0 approximately. Yes, the Vegas $ is used for recruiting. It’s part of the number each player gets. If a player gets 800k it could be broken down like ($500k RS, $200k NIL deals and $100k Vegas). Is it enough for a competitive roster? Probably not but we’ll see.

It has been reported the Vegas $$ are split evenly across every scholarship player - so EVERY scholarship player would get 1/13th of the $1 million, if there are 13 scholarship players - and if none is shared with walk-ons ... that is $80,000 per player ... diminimus when you are talking about trying to lure a portal transfer who may command $750K to $1 million. Plus, there are 32 teams in the Vegas tournament this coming season, I think, up from 8 last year. And who knows if other of these types of tournaments may yet pop up. Point being: A much more level playing field that does not give RU materially extra $$ versus teams against whom RU may be competing for portal transfers. Here are the known teams so far (18): Alabama, Auburn, Baylor, Creighton, Gonzaga, Houston, Iowa State, Kansas, Michigan, Notre Dame, Oregon, Rutgers, San Diego State, St. John's, Syracuse, Tennessee, Texas A&M and Saint Joseph's. Many (perhaps all) of those will play in 2026.

Since you cannot allocate it it disproportionately to the players of greatest value, it really is not a significant part of a team's negotiating strategy, just a small sweetener.

RU has $4.5 to $5 million - but only $1.5 to $2 million - INCLUDING the $1 million of Players Era NIL ... so just $500K to $ 1million in other NIL.

 

[bac2therac]

Much of that money won’t be available until the settlement is finalized. This is why we’ve only landed Francis. Contingent offers can be made based on the settlement. But they aren’t as strong as what Villanova can offer, as they have cash money today.

Everyone is proceeding as if the money is there. Stop making things up

 

[retired711]

The 20 million is coming from our media payout. Additional costs will come from the school, which will have to subsidize the athletic department.

We’re going to lose a lot of money.

The worst of all worlds would be if schools pay $20 million to athletes, but if the House settlement's prohibition of phony NIL deals between boosters and athletes fails. In that case, schools like ours without a lot of boosters will be at a permanent disadvantage. The school will have to ask if it's worthwhile to increase the subsidy to athletics by $20 million annually without a reasonable chance of success.

 

[rutgersal]

The worst of all worlds would be if schools pay $20 million to athletes, but if the House settlement's prohibition of phony NIL deals between boosters and athletes fails. In that case, schools like ours without a lot of boosters will be at a permanent disadvantage. The school will have to ask if it's worthwhile to increase the subsidy to athletics by $20 million annually without a reasonable chance of success.

There’s a specific clause in the house settlement which allows teams to pay NIL for “legitimate business purposes”. This was put in for the Ohio States so they can differentiate themselves.

So nothing has really changed save for the house settlement, which provides the floor for compensation. So at least our teams will get the floor plus some nominal amount that our NIL collectives raise.

We are at a permanent disadvantage as long as we are unable to raise support.

 

[Mholinko]

The people who don’t believe NIL is a problem, think we can win with what we have or don’t believe in NIL at all and won’t donate will ignore this thread and article entirely

Every time real data comes out that we are in trouble it gets explained away so that the old heads and people who want Rutgers to demote to D3 athletics or intramurals can talk about how it’s not a problem

 

[richthedentist]

Aren't we in a perpetual $50 plus million defecit as well

I think it was 75 last year?

 

[retired711]

There’s a specific clause in the house settlement which allows teams to pay NIL for “legitimate business purposes”. This was put in for the Ohio States so they can differentiate themselves.

So nothing has really changed save for the house settlement, which provides the floor for compensation. So at least our teams will get the floor plus some nominal amount that our NIL collectives raise.

We are at a permanent disadvantage as long as we are unable to raise support.

Things are bad but not that bad. The exception for "legitimate business purposes" is designed to get rid of phony NIL deals between boosters and athletes. The key question is whether it will work.

 

[rutgersal]

Things are bad but not that bad. The exception for "legitimate business purposes" is designed to get rid of phony NIL deals between boosters and athletes. The key question is whether it will work.

You can easily justify big payments based on social media followers, based on market rate. All the kids have to do is make a few posts per month.
The USCs, Ohio States, Michigan’s, And Alabama’s were never going to let go of their financial advantages. College sports have always been played on a tilted field. Nothing has changed.

 

[retired711]

You can easily justify big payments based on social media followers, based on market rate. All the kids have to do is make a few posts per month.
The USCs, Ohio States, Michigan’s, And Alabama’s were never going to let go of their financial advantages. College sports have always been played on a tilted field. Nothing has changed.

We'll see if that's true. There's no way to know yet whether and how the House settlement's ban on NIL deals between boosters and athletes that lack a valid business purpose will work.

 

[PSAL_Hoops]

We'll see if that's true. There's no way to know yet whether and how the House settlement's ban on NIL deals between boosters and athletes that lack a valid business purpose will work.

Correct. But I keep going back to the question of who had the power to push for Deloitte in the first place. Clearly it was the blue bloods of the SEC and BIG. That breeds a glimmer of light for programs like Rutgers who reside in areas where legitimate deals could be possible with renewed interest which would go hand in hand with up and coming BB and football programs. We’re a flagship. The only state school in NJ.

In my opinion, it bodes less well for the sugar daddy programs such as the Miamis, SMUs and even Auburns who benefit more from the wild Wild West since it will be next to impossible to present deals to Deloitte justifying the current spend levels at places like those. There isn’t enough of a true following or regional commercial value. Similar concept for the VCU and midmajor types with boosters. The goal of the new restrictions will be to ensure that the OSUs, NDs, and Alabamas of football stay at the top. Their brands dictate market value for players regionally and in some cases nationally. The sugar daddy programs do not.

 

[retired711]

Correct. But I keep going back to the question of who had the power to push for Deloitte in the first place. Clearly it was the blue bloods of the SEC and BIG. That breeds a glimmer of light for programs like Rutgers who reside in areas where legitimate deals could be possible with renewed interest which would go hand in hand with up and coming BB and football programs. We’re a flagship. The only state school in NJ.

In my opinion, it bodes less well for the sugar daddy programs such as the Miamis, SMUs and even Auburns who benefit more from the wild Wild West since it will be next to impossible to present deals to Deloitte justifying the current spend levels at places like those. There isn’t enough of a true following or regional commercial value. Similar concept for the VCU and midmajor types with boosters. The goal of the new restrictions will be to ensure that the OSUs, NDs, and Alabamas of football stay at the top. Their brands dictate market value for players regionally and in some cases nationally. The sugar daddy programs do not.

Keep in mind it's the athletes, not the programs, who engage in third-party NIL deals. That's true now and will continue to be true.

 

[Nycrusupporter]

The worst of all worlds would be if schools pay $20 million to athletes, but if the House settlement's prohibition of phony NIL deals between boosters and athletes fails. In that case, schools like ours without a lot of boosters will be at a permanent disadvantage. The school will have to ask if it's worthwhile to increase the subsidy to athletics by $20 million annually without a reasonable chance of success.

The judge seems to be struggling for a legal basis in order to approve limitations on NIL. Unless you define it as a bribe, it may be difficult to come up with legal reason to prevent people from spending their money however they want to, including paying for players.

 

[retired711]

The judge seems to be struggling for a legal basis in order to approve limitations on NIL. Unless you define it as a bribe, it may be difficult to come up with legal reason to prevent people from spending their money however they want to, including paying for players.

I think it can be done. Restraints on trade can be upheld if "reasonable." Judge Wilkin can decide that restrictions on NIL deals between athletes and boosters are a reasonable way to ensure that college sports continues to function in a sustainable way. She asked a lot of questions about the proposed NIL limits at the hearing. Maybe that means she doesn't like them -- but I think it's more likely that she's trying to create an adequate record to find them reasonable.

 

[PSAL_Hoops]

Keep in mind it's the athletes, not the programs, who engage in third-party NIL deals. That's true now and will continue to be true.

Of course - but does it matter? At the end of the day it’s allowable or prohibited funds for paying players on the respective teams.

A huge under the table NIL “deal” from a booster to a player will be reported by a rival school to the clearinghouse presumably, if attempted. It technically will not be allowed anymore, correct? Right now the school is serving as the intermediary of sorts to legally facilitate pay for play. There is no point in Deloitte if on paper it is permitted for booster A to simply pay whatever they want to individual players. I don’t believe that ever was the intent. If so, there is no purpose whatsoever for the cap or clearinghouse.

 

[-RUFAN4LIFE-]

We'll see if that's true. There's no way to know yet whether and how the House settlement's ban on NIL deals between boosters and athletes that lack a valid business purpose will work.

Eliminating "pay-to-play" in the House settlement will just bring bagmen back into the picture. Frankly it will be easier this time as they have NIL agents they can negotiate through.

When one door closes, another always opens. Always been the case in college athletics. The power schools didn't get to their lofty status by playing within the rules.

 

[retired711]

Of course - but does it matter? At the end of the day it’s allowable or prohibited funds for paying players on the respective teams.

A huge under the table NIL “deal” from a booster to a player will be reported by a rival school to the clearinghouse presumably, if attempted. It technically will not be allowed anymore, correct? Right now the school is serving as the intermediary of sorts to legally facilitate pay for play. There is no point in Deloitte if on paper it is permitted for booster A to simply pay whatever they want to individual players. I don’t believe that ever was the intent. If so, there is no purpose whatsoever for the cap or clearinghouse.

It will not be permitted for a booster to pay individual players unless there is a "valid business purpose" for the deal. Again, we'll have to see if that works.

 

[PSAL_Hoops]

It will not be permitted for a booster to pay individual players unless there is a "valid business purpose" for the deal. Again, we'll have to see if that works.

Yes - that was my point. We don’t know how it will work exactly, but in theory, it figures to be harder to present a legitimate business purpose for a team like Miami with less branding than a traditional blue blood with a national, or at least strong regional fan base.

Rutgers doesn’t have this either but we don’t have the heavy hitter boosters so it doesn’t matter. What we do have, is at least the potential for legitimate NIL deals for players who build a recognizable relationship with Rutgers - kids like Geo and Caleb, who develop in a program that shows success. Local businesses want to support kids like that because the Tri State area casual sports fans follow us when we are good. Miami and company do not have that. Even if they compete for a national championship nobody in Florida cares except alumni and students attending there. They are not a flagship with community ties to the state or region. Not at all.

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

The 20 million is coming from our media payout. Additional costs will come from the school, which will have to subsidize the athletic department.

We’re going to lose a lot of money.

How about the gubernatorial race in November?

 

[Groz]

It has been reported the Vegas $$ are split evenly across every scholarship player - so EVERY scholarship player would get 1/13th of the $1 million, if there are 13 scholarship players - and if none is shared with walk-ons ... that is $80,000 per player ... diminimus when you are talking about trying to lure a portal transfer who may command $750K to $1 million. Plus, there are 32 teams in the Vegas tournament this coming season, I think, up from 8 last year. And who knows if other of these types of tournaments may yet pop up. Point being: A much more level playing field that does not give RU materially extra $$ versus teams against whom RU may be competing for portal transfers. Here are the known teams so far (18): Alabama, Auburn, Baylor, Creighton, Gonzaga, Houston, Iowa State, Kansas, Michigan, Notre Dame, Oregon, Rutgers, San Diego State, St. John's, Syracuse, Tennessee, Texas A&M and Saint Joseph's. Many (perhaps all) of those will play in 2026.

Since you cannot allocate it it disproportionately to the players of greatest value, it really is not a significant part of a team's negotiating strategy, just a small sweetener.

RU has $4.5 to $5 million - but only $1.5 to $2 million - INCLUDING the $1 million of Players Era NIL ... so just $500K to $ 1million in other NIL.

I don't know where this notion that all of the money from the Vegas tournament was divided equally for our players came from. It was not even close to that from what I have been told. But, it has been kept pretty secretive.

Best of Luck,
Groz

 

[red sail]

The reality is the schools in OP's 1 & 2 have probably been paying for players illegally for decades in both Hoops and Football. We always knew there were bag men but Rutgers never paid to play. I can't see us catching up in this race to zero. This will eventually bankrupt some programs.

 

[bac2therac]

I don't know where this notion that all of the money from the Vegas tournament was divided equally for our players came from. It was not even close to that from what I have been told. But, it has been kept pretty secretive.

Best of Luck,
Groz

yeah i thought for sure that on premium a couple months back there were some posts saying it wasnt equal, then all of a sudden the narrative said it was, i tend to believe it wasnt.

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

Everyone is proceeding as if the money is there. Stop making things up

2 Facts
1. Before the $20,000,000 we need to "find" we were losing tons of $
2. Cutting costs (lowering taxes) will be the #1 campaign promise in the NJ gubernatorial race

 

[retired711]

2 Facts
1. Before the $20,000,000 we need to "find" we were losing tons of $
2. Cutting costs (lowering taxes) will be the #1 campaign promise in the NJ gubernatorial race

I don't see the relationship between your two points. The subsidy to the athletic program. does not come from taxpayer money. Taxpayers pay for some of the costs of student instruction (tuition pays the rest) and that's essentially it.

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

I don't see the relationship between your two points. The subsidy to the athletic program. does not come from taxpayer money. Taxpayers pay for some of the costs of student instruction (tuition pays the rest) and that's essentially it.

Of course it does. last year NJ gave Rutgers $1.17 billion. That number would/could be $1.11 billion if it wasn't for athletics.

Taxpayers pay for Schiano, Pikiell and soon all players.

i am a Rutgers fan and i think it is wrong and irresponsible for the athletic department to lose $60+ million

 

[PSAL_Hoops]

I don't see the relationship between your two points. The subsidy to the athletic program. does not come from taxpayer money. Taxpayers pay for some of the costs of student instruction (tuition pays the rest) and that's essentially it.

I think it goes without saying that his point is money is fungible so ultimately it’s all the same.

 

[retired711]

I think it goes without saying that his point is money is fungible so ultimately it’s all the same.

That's what the faculty says. The money comes from interest on Rutgers' investments and endowment. It's not obvious that the money would instead be used to directly or indirectly subsidize the costs of instruction, which is what the state's appropriation does. It might well just sit in the university's investment accounts.

 

[PSAL_Hoops]

That's what the faculty says. The money comes from interest on Rutgers' investments and endowment. It's not obvious that the money would instead be used to directly or indirectly subsidize the costs of instruction, which is what the state's appropriation does. It might well just sit in the university's investment accounts.

Okay - but at the end of the day, at the top of all of that, the school has an overarching budget that includes annual anticipated costs associated with instruction, athletics, research, etc. Taxpayer money might be earmarking only for specific things, but in the end, that just means that a larger allocation of other money that would’ve also gone towards the things tax payer dollar are funding get shifted to athletics - aka the fungible property of financial resources.

 

[LotusAggressor]

Things are bad but not that bad. The exception for "legitimate business purposes" is designed to get rid of phony NIL deals between boosters and athletes. The key question is whether it will work.

Or how/if it will be enforced. If it's actually enforced, it will be selectively, like the NCAA used to do it in the past.

 

[-RUFAN4LIFE-]

Of course it does. last year NJ gave Rutgers $1.17 billion. That number would/could be $1.11 billion if it wasn't for athletics.

Taxpayers pay for Schiano, Pikiell and soon all players.

i am a Rutgers fan and i think it is wrong and irresponsible for the athletic department to lose $60+ million

If they want to lower taxes they’d start by eliminating all the no show jobs for their cronies and the related pension hit. Then do a DOGE style review of where depts are spending and analyze how much headcount bloated there is. Thats a much bigger pot than the 20% of RU’s budget that they fund.

 

[Fat Koko]

yeah i thought for sure that on premium a couple months back there were some posts saying it wasnt equal, then all of a sudden the narrative said it was, i tend to believe it wasnt.

Perhaps you are referring to this thread from January 24, 2025.

In post #5, I asked Richie, "Any idea how the Rutgers collective allocated the money across the players and recruits?"

In post #12, Richie answered, "Nope and I don't expect that to ever come out, that's a personal matter that was dealt with amongst the team."

On the debates surrounding NIL figures, my view is NIL numbers lack transparency and are unreliable. I wish people wouldn't confidently parrot unreliable figures as facts so often.

 

[lion1983]

Perhaps you are referring to this thread from January 24, 2025.

In post #5, I asked Richie, "Any idea how the Rutgers collective allocated the money across the players and recruits?"

In post #12, Richie answered, "Nope and I don't expect that to ever come out, that's a personal matter that was dealt with amongst the team."

On the debates surrounding NIL figures, my view is NIL numbers lack transparency and are unreliable. I wish people wouldn't confidently parrot unreliable figures as facts so often.

For what it is worth, lately, whenever I talk about what total $$ are available, I generally cite Richie's assumptions, and saying "assuming Richie's numbers ..." ... not saying he is right or wrong, but it gives a baseline for theoretical discussion about available $$ as players get brought in or retained. Lord knows I have no idea myself! But at least there is ONE source willing to give an opinion, so that is what I use.

 

[retired711]

Okay - but at the end of the day, at the top of all of that, the school has an overarching budget that includes annual anticipated costs associated with instruction, athletics, research, etc. Taxpayer money might be earmarking only for specific things, but in the end, that just means that a larger allocation of other money that would’ve also gone towards the things tax payer dollar are funding get shifted to athletics - aka the fungible property of financial resources.

The University does not spend all of its income. Some of its income from investments is normally held rather than spent. It is my strong impression that the subsidy for athletics from from these funds.

 

[needmorecowbell]

Of course - but does it matter? At the end of the day it’s allowable or prohibited funds for paying players on the respective teams.

A huge under the table NIL “deal” from a booster to a player will be reported by a rival school to the clearinghouse presumably, if attempted. It technically will not be allowed anymore, correct? Right now the school is serving as the intermediary of sorts to legally facilitate pay for play. There is no point in Deloitte if on paper it is permitted for booster A to simply pay whatever they want to individual players. I don’t believe that ever was the intent. If so, there is no purpose whatsoever for the cap or clearinghouse.

I have heard there will be pay to play (Rev Share and NIL without fair work returned) and true NIL ( NIL with fair work returned). Pay to play will be capped and true NIL will not. The governing body will determine what is pay to play and what is true NIL (fair work).