Revenue Sharing
- Thread starter darkcheck
- Start date
schools are not sharing some collective revenue pot with other schools.
schools are allowed to share up to $20million of their own revenue with their athletes. How they allocate the revenue among the various sports and athletes is up to the school.
presumably, schools that do not have football have less revenue to share because they take in less on tv rights deals.
should be interesting to see how it goes.
schools are allowed to share up to $20million of their own revenue with their athletes. How they allocate the revenue among the various sports and athletes is up to the school.
presumably, schools that do not have football have less revenue to share because they take in less on tv rights deals.
should be interesting to see how it goes.
Thank you so much for educating me. I see. So big east schools may have less total revenue but the rules allowed up to $20.5 million so if a big east chooses to go to the limit they can. Wow, we’re screwed
are endowments to the athletics department considered revenue or is revenue only money that is derived directly from athletic operations?
If the former, the tax treatment of gifts to the university athletics department should be interesting (and very messy).
If the former, the tax treatment of gifts to the university athletics department should be interesting (and very messy).
Schools are allowed to use 22% of revenue brought in by athletics up to a maximum of 20.5 million dollars so schools that bring in more revenue will be able to pay out the max
Here is something to keep in mind: the House v. NCAA settlement (which is where the 22% and $20 million figures come from) settles the antitrust suit brought by the athletes; but it does not prevent the federal government from bringing its own antitrust suit against the schools. The Biden Justice Department filed objections to the settlement's cap on compensation to athletes.. I don't think we know yet what the new administration's attitude will be.
There's so much bad information out there.....the non football programs don't generate 20M in revenue so they don't get to spend 20M.....most of the articles on the Big East TV rights deal show the amounts estimated and those schools should land around 5 to 6M, not 20M
20M is the ceiling based on the combined football and Basketball revenue for those leagues....it's assumed that 80% of the 20M goes to football because football generates 80% of the TV revenue deal.
There is no rule that clearly separates how much of the 20M goes to football, or hoops. I would assume the AD has been assigned to account for the revenue once it's distributed. Even at this time, there is nothing to say when that money actually gets sent to the schools. I would assume once the spring sports are complete in May or early June is when that gets sent out.
20M is the ceiling based on the combined football and Basketball revenue for those leagues....it's assumed that 80% of the 20M goes to football because football generates 80% of the TV revenue deal.
There is no rule that clearly separates how much of the 20M goes to football, or hoops. I would assume the AD has been assigned to account for the revenue once it's distributed. Even at this time, there is nothing to say when that money actually gets sent to the schools. I would assume once the spring sports are complete in May or early June is when that gets sent out.
One note, I believe it is 22% of all department revenue, not just tv rights. So if a non football school happened to have 100M in total athletic revenue, they could share up to the 20M. Not that a school like that exists.
Why are we screwed? RU is spending the entire $20.5
No basketball school is generating 100M in revenue....
Yes, but keep in mind that everyone expects that a football school will give the vast majority of its money to football players. If a school doesn't have football, it might well be able to pay basketball players the same as football schools will.
If it ever becomes a competitive disadvantage to the football schools, the rules/laws will get changed somehow.
the concern is that say Rutgers basketball gets 20% or $4.1mm but a school that doesn't have football could give the BBall program a much higher % of a smaller overall pot and it still be well above the $4.1mm.
Using Creighton as an example.
Rutgers distributes $20.5m but only $4.1m to basketball.
Creighton distributes only $5m in revenue but $4.5m to basketball.
Plus whatever NIL funds discrepancy may occur (plus or minus for Rutgers).
This is why the notion of "but revenue sharing will fix it for Rutgers" isn't totally accurate.
Not to mention every other B10 school gets the money and we will still be behind them because of our own internal shortcomings financially
Which is why the path forward for Rutgers isn't just "more money".
It's being smarter than everyone and overcoming the money discrepancy.
Sounds as if VCU will stay competitive
The House settlement permits schools to allocate up to $20 million annually to pay student athletes. It's a budget primarily accessible to Power 4 programs that make more money due to their football programs.
Smaller schools and those without football teams, like VCU will determine their budgets.
McLaughlin and his staff estimated they can afford to pay around $5 million per year to Ram athletes while remaining competitive.
While a majority of the $5 millions will go to men's and women's basketball players, any Ram athlete would be eligible for payment.
The House settlement permits schools to allocate up to $20 million annually to pay student athletes. It's a budget primarily accessible to Power 4 programs that make more money due to their football programs.
Smaller schools and those without football teams, like VCU will determine their budgets.
McLaughlin and his staff estimated they can afford to pay around $5 million per year to Ram athletes while remaining competitive.
While a majority of the $5 millions will go to men's and women's basketball players, any Ram athlete would be eligible for payment.
good info in this thread...thanks.
i don't think revenue sharing helps RU much at all. biggest beneficiary will be the players they are just gonna get more money on average.
but anyone who thinks we're gonna start pulling in top transfers because we have a few extra million from bball revenue sharing i think you should go watch that HBO Giants offseason show.
Joe Schoen being so excited that the salary cap went up so much and then being absolutely shocked that prices for guys he wanted was higher than he expected**
**yes i'm a bitter Giants fan who has a GM who doesn't understand intro to economics lol....
i don't think revenue sharing helps RU much at all. biggest beneficiary will be the players they are just gonna get more money on average.
but anyone who thinks we're gonna start pulling in top transfers because we have a few extra million from bball revenue sharing i think you should go watch that HBO Giants offseason show.
Joe Schoen being so excited that the salary cap went up so much and then being absolutely shocked that prices for guys he wanted was higher than he expected**
**yes i'm a bitter Giants fan who has a GM who doesn't understand intro to economics lol....
Last edited:
Schemes, player evaluations and fits for those schemes become more important
For example, a scheme that requires players be in the system 3-4 years might not be the best course for a program that is unlikely to retain their best players and experience highrr turnover each year.
This is why you see more NBA assistants being targeted as coaches
You need guys who understand how to adapt to annual roster changes and how to adapt instead of seeking talent to fit a rigid scheme
Rutgers isnt at the level of the hoops only schools anyway like Gonzaga, UConn, Nova, Marquette, Creighton who have always been able to spend tons of money on hoops and produce alot of revenue.
i dont get why anyone should complain...hoops only schools deserve their spot at the table....remember RU gets some ridiculous amount for the Big 10 tv deal so there should be no boo hooing that schools get to spend more on hoops
The bottom line is the same schools basketball only and blue blood hoops from power 5 will continue to outspend the bottom level schools like Rutgers, Northwestern, Minnesota, and a bunch of lower acc and big 12 schools.
i dont get why anyone should complain...hoops only schools deserve their spot at the table....remember RU gets some ridiculous amount for the Big 10 tv deal so there should be no boo hooing that schools get to spend more on hoops
The bottom line is the same schools basketball only and blue blood hoops from power 5 will continue to outspend the bottom level schools like Rutgers, Northwestern, Minnesota, and a bunch of lower acc and big 12 schools.
But it DOES help narrow the gap a bit (albeit more in football than in basketball - but also for basketball).
How?
Before having this $20 million of your own revenue being allowed to be allocated by the school to athletes (which is abve and beyond NIL - which still exists), a school like RU might be at a 3-1 or 4-1 disadvantage vs programs like Michigan, OSU, Alabama ... the big time SEC and Big 10 schools.
WITH that $20 million, which RUI WILL allocate fully, the gap might only be 1.5 to 1 or 2-1.
So it does not SOLVE the problem, but if does help level the playing field a bit - materially, in fact.
The RUMOR is that for RU. the $20 million will go about $15-16 million to football, $3-$4 million to Men's basketball, $500,000 to $1 million to Women's hoops and the rest to the other sports (leaves less than $1 million total for other sports).
At a minimum, I would think it would help RETENTION quite a bit - and for coaches like Schiano and Pikiell, who rely heavily on building team culture and developing players, RETENTION is a big deal.
It helps maybe against the non P4 schools we’re competing against but in terms of moving up the pecking order of your OWN LEAGUE it’s not going to do much
If every b10 school gets this boost then it doesn’t do anything to shrink the gap with Wisconsin Illinois etc
right...thats why even before this when people said Rutgers is getting 50 million, its really going to help..not when every other big 10 school is getting the same amount and the far majority are actually in a stable revenue situation not constant defecit and almost all the schools have athletic facilities top notch and have had major success in sports and have large fanbases
take a school like Houston who Eddie Jordans team even beat at the RAC a decade ago and look where they are now. When from headed to obsecurity to Big 12 powerhouse because they made some smart choices....rennovated their facility and hired Sampson....and all that parlayed to the Big 12 invite rescuing them from the AAC. Rutgers was given a total lifeline based solely on tv market rather than on the field success and collectively the athletic department has done little in a decade beside one decent ncaa tourney from Pike
I’m not sure it helps with retention.
Suppose a Big Ten starter is worth $2m in the transfer portal (post revenue sharing)
Wouldn’t our own Big Ten starters also be worth the same in the transfer portal?
Unless we’re getting a discount - the cost for retention or transfer will be the same for the same talent level.
It may help with retention of less talented players already on roster that aren’t wanted by other teams.
But the moment they become “wanted” the cost is going to be the same.
use Owen Freeman (Iowa) as an example.
Someone posted that rumors he is going to Auburn/Kansas for $2m.
Wouldn’t he cost Iowa $2m for retention?
If Iowa couldn’t afford a $2m transfer then how are they affording $2m for retention?
Same thing would apply to Rutgers.
Someone posted that rumors he is going to Auburn/Kansas for $2m.
Wouldn’t he cost Iowa $2m for retention?
If Iowa couldn’t afford a $2m transfer then how are they affording $2m for retention?
Same thing would apply to Rutgers.
Houston is a great example of a school that made a credibility boosting hire
When the MLB salary cap increases, it doesn’t help only the TB Rays. It also helps the Yankees because they can spend more as well.
“We have an extra $20m to spend! Oh everyone else does as well.”
So why do you think other schools have more ? That's easy they have people that give more and don't tell their fans why they shouldn't give. And don't give me your asinine statement we have only 5000 fans,that's idiotic.
Thanks for clearing this up Hawk. I've seen articles that say every school gets $20mil. They go on to say basketball only schools like the Big East would be able to spend $20 mil on NIL vs football schools that have to split the pie. Good to see that's false otherwise coaches would be flocking to the Big East.
This. If ever schools in conferences like the Big East start consistently sharing higher revenues to the basketball teams compared to schools in conferences like the BIG and SEC that will be the day the P4 schools will start their own post season tournaments. Conferences like the Big East will have much less revenue to share.
GO RU
I can't link the article for specific reasons, but I did a cut and paste to clarify how this actually works for the non Power 4 schools without football.....
The new NCAA revenue-sharing model still has to clear one final hurdle—a court settlement in the House v. NCAA case, which is expected to be finalized in April. If approved, this agreement will allow schools to directly pay athletes for the first time, marking a massive shift in college athletics.
But just because the new system isn't in place yet doesn't mean schools and collectives are waiting around. The looming changes have already reshaped how teams are recruiting, retaining players, and spending NIL money.
With the transfer portal opening on March 24, this year's cycle could be the most chaotic yet.
Schools will be allowed to share up to 22% of their annual athletic revenue with athletes, with a projected cap of $20-22 million per school per year. This marks the first time players will receive direct payments from their schools, in addition to NIL opportunities. While Power 4 programs are expected to distribute more than mid-tier schools, not all will reach the cap due to financial constraints. While this technically isn't a salary cap, it does put some structure on player compensation, which could help schools compete if they use their resources wisely.
Big East schools will participate in revenue sharing, but since most don't have football-driven TV revenue, they don't have new money to fund these payments. Schools will likely redirect donor money that previously went to NIL collectives into the university itself, which will then pay players through the new system. This could be an advantage, as it adds legitimacy to athlete payments, but it also means revenue-sharing money is still coming from the same pool as NIL funds were. The biggest unknown is whether the cap will limit how much the biggest programs (Big Ten & SEC) can outspend everyone else, or if those schools will still dominate by maxing out both revenue sharing and NIL deals.
Starting in July, the NCAA will enforce stricter oversight on NIL deals, banning pay-for-play promises and requiring contracts to be reviewed for fair market value. A third-party clearinghouse will monitor large NIL deals (above a certain threshold) to prevent blatant inducements for recruiting and retention. While this sounds like an effort to clean up the NIL marketplace, don't expect it to eliminate bidding wars. Schools and collectives will find loopholes, and the NCAA's track record of enforcement has been weak. Wealthy programs will get creative with how they structure deals, using businesses, boosters, and legal workarounds to ensure they can still outbid competitors.
Even though the transfer portal doesn't officially open until March 24, coaching staffs across the country are already deep in preparation mode.
Film Study & Scouting – Staffs are reviewing potential transfer targets, including players who haven't entered the portal but are rumored to be available.
Roster Evaluation – Coaches are analyzing who they want to retain from their current team, who they think they can keep, and which positions will need upgrades.
Retention Battles – Schools are quietly re-recruiting their own rosters, offering NIL incentives or early revenue-sharing promises to prevent key players from leaving.
Even though contacting players before they enter the portal is technically against NCAA rules, backchannel discussions are happening. Coaches, agents, and collectives are gauging player interest, setting up potential NIL deals, and putting together financial packages so that top targets will commit immediately once they officially enter the portal. Some players may already have handshake agreements before March 24.
At the same time, schools are also trying to lock in their own players before the portal opens. If a player knows they can get a better NIL or revenue-sharing deal elsewhere, schools want to get ahead of it by securing their own roster with preemptive deals. The first few days of the transfer window will move fast—many of the best players will already have commitments lined up before their names officially hit the database.
Some collectives are emptying their clip before revenue sharing begins on July 1, knowing that NIL deals may face tighter NCAA regulations once the new system takes effect. This could lead to increased bidding wars over the next few months as collectives throw out big, frontloaded contracts to secure players before revenue-sharing money becomes available.
This "one-time NIL spending spree" could be a game-changer, especially for programs willing to use short-term deals to land elite transfers. Some schools are structuring contracts so that players receive the bulk of their NIL money upfront, with less reliance on long-term revenue-sharing payouts. The next few months could see some of the biggest individual NIL deals yet, as collectives try to make their last big plays before the landscape shifts in July.
The new NCAA revenue-sharing model still has to clear one final hurdle—a court settlement in the House v. NCAA case, which is expected to be finalized in April. If approved, this agreement will allow schools to directly pay athletes for the first time, marking a massive shift in college athletics.
But just because the new system isn't in place yet doesn't mean schools and collectives are waiting around. The looming changes have already reshaped how teams are recruiting, retaining players, and spending NIL money.
With the transfer portal opening on March 24, this year's cycle could be the most chaotic yet.
Schools will be allowed to share up to 22% of their annual athletic revenue with athletes, with a projected cap of $20-22 million per school per year. This marks the first time players will receive direct payments from their schools, in addition to NIL opportunities. While Power 4 programs are expected to distribute more than mid-tier schools, not all will reach the cap due to financial constraints. While this technically isn't a salary cap, it does put some structure on player compensation, which could help schools compete if they use their resources wisely.
Big East schools will participate in revenue sharing, but since most don't have football-driven TV revenue, they don't have new money to fund these payments. Schools will likely redirect donor money that previously went to NIL collectives into the university itself, which will then pay players through the new system. This could be an advantage, as it adds legitimacy to athlete payments, but it also means revenue-sharing money is still coming from the same pool as NIL funds were. The biggest unknown is whether the cap will limit how much the biggest programs (Big Ten & SEC) can outspend everyone else, or if those schools will still dominate by maxing out both revenue sharing and NIL deals.
Starting in July, the NCAA will enforce stricter oversight on NIL deals, banning pay-for-play promises and requiring contracts to be reviewed for fair market value. A third-party clearinghouse will monitor large NIL deals (above a certain threshold) to prevent blatant inducements for recruiting and retention. While this sounds like an effort to clean up the NIL marketplace, don't expect it to eliminate bidding wars. Schools and collectives will find loopholes, and the NCAA's track record of enforcement has been weak. Wealthy programs will get creative with how they structure deals, using businesses, boosters, and legal workarounds to ensure they can still outbid competitors.
Even though the transfer portal doesn't officially open until March 24, coaching staffs across the country are already deep in preparation mode.
Film Study & Scouting – Staffs are reviewing potential transfer targets, including players who haven't entered the portal but are rumored to be available.
Roster Evaluation – Coaches are analyzing who they want to retain from their current team, who they think they can keep, and which positions will need upgrades.
Retention Battles – Schools are quietly re-recruiting their own rosters, offering NIL incentives or early revenue-sharing promises to prevent key players from leaving.
Even though contacting players before they enter the portal is technically against NCAA rules, backchannel discussions are happening. Coaches, agents, and collectives are gauging player interest, setting up potential NIL deals, and putting together financial packages so that top targets will commit immediately once they officially enter the portal. Some players may already have handshake agreements before March 24.
At the same time, schools are also trying to lock in their own players before the portal opens. If a player knows they can get a better NIL or revenue-sharing deal elsewhere, schools want to get ahead of it by securing their own roster with preemptive deals. The first few days of the transfer window will move fast—many of the best players will already have commitments lined up before their names officially hit the database.
Some collectives are emptying their clip before revenue sharing begins on July 1, knowing that NIL deals may face tighter NCAA regulations once the new system takes effect. This could lead to increased bidding wars over the next few months as collectives throw out big, frontloaded contracts to secure players before revenue-sharing money becomes available.
This "one-time NIL spending spree" could be a game-changer, especially for programs willing to use short-term deals to land elite transfers. Some schools are structuring contracts so that players receive the bulk of their NIL money upfront, with less reliance on long-term revenue-sharing payouts. The next few months could see some of the biggest individual NIL deals yet, as collectives try to make their last big plays before the landscape shifts in July.
Part 2 cut and paste.....
With both NIL and revenue-sharing money now on the table, players have more leverage than ever. Some will wait until after the April legal settlement approval to commit, ensuring they can cash in on both NIL and guaranteed revenue-sharing payouts. Others might commit early to lock in massive NIL contracts before the new rules take effect.
This means some schools will push for early commitments, while others will wait to see how the financial landscape shakes out. Expect players to weigh offers carefully and negotiate harder than ever before making a decision. The smartest teams will have NIL and revenue-sharing strategies aligned to appeal to different types of recruits.
With both NIL and revenue-sharing money now on the table, players have more leverage than ever. Some will wait until after the April legal settlement approval to commit, ensuring they can cash in on both NIL and guaranteed revenue-sharing payouts. Others might commit early to lock in massive NIL contracts before the new rules take effect.
This means some schools will push for early commitments, while others will wait to see how the financial landscape shakes out. Expect players to weigh offers carefully and negotiate harder than ever before making a decision. The smartest teams will have NIL and revenue-sharing strategies aligned to appeal to different types of recruits.
you'd hope that if you ran a good program and treated your players firm but fair you might be able to get a hometown discount with some. have to sell kids that multiple years at RU would help them later in life and that they know what they have with you but it's a lot of unknown with someone else.
Houston is not a great comparison imo. Houston has a rich history in basketball in particular. Yes they had a stretch in cusa but this is a school that’s proud of their athletics and has very rich alumni that are willing to spend and the school is not shackled by an interminable New Jersey bureaucracy as opposed to a Texas school. Nothing like rutgers whatsoever.
