What's new
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

NCAA Settlement - Salary Cap & Back Payment of NIL to Former Players

Football programs being spun off from direct/official University affiliation, while maintaining a licensing agreement for the name, logos, facility usage, etc is far more likely than your scenario. There is too much money in college football, and that money is only there if there is some affiliation with the Universities themselves. Minor league football has never worked because fans don't care about them, and that isn't going to change.
I think everyone knows that sane and creative thinking has to happen, but that the greedy and idiotic power brokers are driving this ship right off a cliff. Sankey is a clown, he gives zero ****s about anybody but the good ole boys in the SEC that can root for their boys on Saturday. The NCAA, Conferences, Commissioners, NIL Snakes, etc. are all sucking the life out of CFB, and the only way to stop it is for all the schools to individually take control of their sport assets and demand a completely new system without paying for all these middle men. I hate to be that guy, but European Sports Clubs have been doing business this way forever and they got a lot of it figured out in terms of how the communities own the club, and the players are treated fairly, but at the same time, with transfer fees and development academies, good results can happen.

This wild west approach is pathetic and I agree that so many schools are just gonna get rid of sports, and probably be happy to take back land where stadiums were to put up new academic buildings
 
Football programs being spun off from direct/official University affiliation, while maintaining a licensing agreement for the name, logos, facility usage, etc is far more likely than your scenario. There is too much money in college football, and that money is only there if there is some affiliation with the Universities themselves. Minor league football has never worked because fans don't care about them, and that isn't going to change.

I think that is also possible.

Very few schools realize a significant revenue stream from their AD in todays order. And sure there are indirect financial benefits like donations. In the end there is not going be enough *significant* TV money for 115 FBS programs to persist.

Down the road these teams that license will want stadium improvements and other investment. Who pays for that?
 
I hate to be that guy, but European Sports Clubs have been doing business this way forever and they got a lot of it figured out in terms of how the communities own the club, and the players are treated fairly, but at the same time, with transfer fees and development academies, good results can happen.

I already went there. 😂

There is nothing to stop the NFL from starting 64 minor league teams. I think college football continues to exist but it may have peaked in terms of amateur game.
 
I think that is also possible.

Very few schools realize a significant revenue stream from their AD in todays order. And sure there are indirect financial benefits like donations. In the end there is not going be enough *significant* TV money for 115 FBS programs to persist.

Down the road these teams that license will want stadium improvements and other investment. Who pays for that?
The Spin off is a partner with the school
There would still be revenue sharing and there can still be funding strategies within the new ORG, with the school or community or any hybrid in between
When Lambeau Field needed improvements, they had the Green Bay Packers community ownership group issue more shares/bonds to pay for it
 
I think that is also possible.

Very few schools realize a significant revenue stream from their AD in todays order. And sure there are indirect financial benefits like donations. In the end there is not going be enough *significant* TV money for 115 FBS programs to persist.

Down the road these teams that license will want stadium improvements and other investment. Who pays for that?
The G5 programs are ****ed. They make $4-$7m/year/school depending on the conference, so those conferences and programs obviously won't be able to pay players the way the P4 will. However, it's been like that for a while and I don't really see anything really changing. The idea that the G5 should be competing for the same bowl games and playoff as the P4 is beyond ridiculous and they just need to accept they are the new FCS and create their own thing.

As for the P4, obviously there's a pretty wide gap in TV money between B1G/SEC and Big 12/ACC, but as long as there is a $20m "cap" in place, all four conferences can pay the same from that school funded pool of money as the TV revenues for B12 and ACC are well above the $20m. Obviously the big programs will have their collectives that will pay above and beyond that $20m/year, but again, that is the same thing that goes on right now.
 
I really have to LOL at asking congress to sh*t on female taxpayer citizens rights to make a bunch of “football only” men happy 😆 right after The Dobbs ruling too.

Some of you have daughters as well.

Whats going to happen is probably 80% of schools opt out of paying because they dont have the TV revenue. Esp if courts rule all players are paid equally. The remaining 20% try to join some kind of super conference where pay is allowed. The TV money then concentrates there along with the best players at the sacrifice of the 80%’s TV money. Some of the 20% drop out later shrinking the top league size further because they cant make the money work. Roster sizes shrink quickly from 80 down to 60.

If the 80-85% of schools that opt out cant get TV money they then drop sports or just have club teams and MBB/WBB (title ix). College sports essentially implode. At least the 115 football teams worth ceases to exist. A substantial number of HS players are left unrecruited by the 20% and their career ends.

The NFL sees their pipeline implode and buys the XFL or USFL or whatever its called and starts a minor league and takes players directly similar to baseball.
Are you saying 80 percent of P4 opt out? Or are you counting G6 in this denominator?
 
Are you saying 80 percent of P4 opt out? Or are you counting G6 in this denominator?
I'm going to assume he's saying 80% of FBS, which would be 107 of the 134 FBS programs, leaving only 27 total football programs "opting in". If he meant 80% of P4, that would only leave 14 programs willing to participate.

Basically, Miami is talking out of his ass and making up numbers that don't make any sense.
 
Football programs being spun off from direct/official University affiliation, while maintaining a licensing agreement for the name, logos, facility usage, etc is far more likely than your scenario. There is too much money in college football, and that money is only there if there is some affiliation with the Universities themselves. Minor league football has never worked because fans don't care about them, and that isn't going to change.
Why would anyone care about what would be minor league football if it wasn't for a direct tie to the University. Nobody has articulated where any such licensing/logo arrangement would actually work or why the academics would allow it? Why would boosters care at that point and donate? I am not donating to watch semi-pro minor league football. Heck it is getting close to that now, as most football players seem less interested in making the school their home on only think about it as the next "gig". College football is popular because of the direct tie to the Universities, sever that tie and you have the XFL.
 
Why would anyone care about what would be minor league football if it wasn't for a direct tie to the University. Nobody has articulated where any such licensing/logo arrangement would actually work or why the academics would allow it? Why would boosters care at that point and donate? I am not donating to watch semi-pro minor league football. Heck it is getting close to that now, as most football players seem less interested in making the school their home on only think about it as the next "gig". College football is popular because of the direct tie to the Universities, sever that tie and you have the XFL.
As far as most fans are concerned right now, the only thing tying the program to the school is the name and logo anyways, and detaching from the University would mostly be procedural in order to get away from Title IX.
 
I'm going to assume he's saying 80% of FBS, which would be 107 of the 134 FBS programs, leaving only 27 total football programs "opting in". If he meant 80% of P4, that would only leave 14 programs willing to participate.

Basically, Miami is talking out of his ass and making up numbers that don't make any sense.
Yep. His assumption is wrong, I think.
 
Why would anyone care about what would be minor league football if it wasn't for a direct tie to the University. Nobody has articulated where any such licensing/logo arrangement would actually work or why the academics would allow it? Why would boosters care at that point and donate? I am not donating to watch semi-pro minor league football. Heck it is getting close to that now, as most football players seem less interested in making the school their home on only think about it as the next "gig". College football is popular because of the direct tie to the Universities, sever that tie and you have the XFL.
The University in my plan would be the Majority Owner/Partner of the Colorado Football Organization spinoff. They would have essentially everything the same way it is now, with the new Org leasing the facilities, and licensing the brand. My point is that the Athletic Departments are no longer in tune with the school and the sports relationship, and thus a more high performing private operation would be more beneficial. I used the Medical School concept, or Specialized Medical Research, Equipment, or Medical Care.
This Org would not be allowed to operate fully like an out of control Corporate Ogre, rather it would operate more like a Bayern Munich or Barcelona Sports Club.
Keep the college vibes, maintain educational requirements, allow former and current players to participate in the new entity more freely, and just be dynamic.
I would argue that this could be even more fun than the past college football operations.
The goal is to have the Football Org help pay significant resources back to the School and hopefully all the other Sports, which should all be Hybrid Orgs for their own support and success.
 
The University in my plan would be the Majority Owner/Partner of the Colorado Football Organization spinoff. They would have essentially everything the same way it is now, with the new Org leasing the facilities, and licensing the brand. My point is that the Athletic Departments are no longer in tune with the school and the sports relationship, and thus a more high performing private operation would be more beneficial. I used the Medical School concept, or Specialized Medical Research, Equipment, or Medical Care.
This Org would not be allowed to operate fully like an out of control Corporate Ogre, rather it would operate more like a Bayern Munich or Barcelona Sports Club.
Keep the college vibes, maintain educational requirements, allow former and current players to participate in the new entity more freely, and just be dynamic.
I would argue that this could be even more fun than the past college football operations.
The goal is to have the Football Org help pay significant resources back to the School and hopefully all the other Sports, which should all be Hybrid Orgs for their own support and success.
How would this comply with Title IX? Would the players still be required to be students? As the AD already operates somewhat independently, I don't see how this would be a benefit to the University. Any VC (if there were any that would actually invest) would just be siphoning off dollars that otherwise would have go to the University.
 
Are you saying 80 percent of P4 opt out? Or are you counting G6 in this denominator?

I'm going to assume he's saying 80% of FBS, which would be 107 of the 134 FBS programs, leaving only 27 total football programs "opting in". If he meant 80% of P4, that would only leave 14 programs willing to participate.

Basically, Miami is talking out of his ass and making up numbers that don't make any sense.

I was talking all of FBS. Smart ass.
 
And the point is that 80% of FBS opting out leaves 27 programs. That’s nowhere close to the number of FBS programs that will opt out.
I recall reading in these very pages that the number of universities A.D.‘s that return money to the general fund is extremely small. Now these University presidents are seeing the settlement that adds a liability to those balance sheets where they are not getting any money from the A.D.? That doesn’t sound to me like a formula for 64 schools to stick their neck out and pay their players.

This strikes me as a lot of upheaval and a lot of slippery slope at the moment.
 
Last edited:
How would this comply with Title IX? Would the players still be required to be students? As the AD already operates somewhat independently, I don't see how this would be a benefit to the University. Any VC (if there were any that would actually invest) would just be siphoning off dollars that otherwise would have go to the University.
It would passionately and intentionally follow Title iX because it is the right thing to do, so the main intent is to maintain ALL the current programs, with the core focus on improving each one to be its best.
The Athletes/Players would be students, but they may actually take a majority of their classes within an Athletics Curriculum and then also be encouraged or able to take whatever degree they want. The Athletics educational program, especially for Football and Basketball would suggestively include Fitness, Health, Dietary, Public Speaking, Marketing, Finance, etc...
There can still be an Athletic Department, but they just function as the connective department to the Partner Sports Orgs and they would handle compliance, facilities and university relations to the programs
I do not want pure Venture Capital or Private Equity in this game, rather I want three sources of funding
  • Small Fan Participation in Shares that can only be sold privately or kept in the family forever, like the Green Bay Packers
  • Professional Operating Company Buy-In (SMAC + Robert Smith) to own and operate the program like a franchise
That Athletic Department will receive a windfall of say $500M upon formation of the entity, but will retain 51% Ownership and ultimate control, however, operations will be completely up to the new operating entity. The new Entity will be able to be as creative as possible within boundaries, and will be incentivized by Ticket Sales, Sponsors, and other revenue generation. They will pay the AD a base Licensing Fee + the school will participate in upside revenue generation, but the OE gets to make money as well.

This is a Community and Legacy Betterment Investment, not just a raw cash grab
 
I recall reading in these very pages that the number of universities A.D.‘s that return money to the general fund is extremely small. Now these University presidents are seeing the settlement that adds a liability to those balance sheets where they are not getting any money from the A.D.? That doesn’t sound to me like a formula for 64 schools to stick their neck out and pay their players.

This strikes me as a lot of upheaval and a lot of slippery slope at the moment.
Sponsorships, donations, licensing fees, operational efficiencies, new TV monies, cutting sports if needed, CFP monies, PE participation, ticket prices.

As Trev Albert’s said @we don’t have a revenues, we have an expense problem”.

It will be more than 27.
 
Sponsorships, donations, licensing fees, operational efficiencies, new TV monies, cutting sports if needed, CFP monies, PE participation, ticket prices.

As Trev Albert’s said @we don’t have a revenues, we have an expense problem”.

It will be more than 27.
The P2 programs have more than enough to maintain business as usual going forward. The B12 and ACC are a little tighter and probably need a little more help in certain areas, but I see this as a all 68 programs paying to maintain relevancy
 
The P2 programs have more than enough to maintain business as usual going forward. The B12 and ACC are a little tighter and probably need a little more help in certain areas, but I see this as a all 68 programs paying to maintain relevancy
I want to pivot to just the simple situation that CU finds itself in right now.
We are Big12 Members, and thus not in the P2
If the B1G and the SEC choose to expand to 20 each or 22 each or 24 each, then CU MUST be included in that, or we are done as a football program, and it may make more sense to get rid of Football. In my opinion, we would be in with some type of Prime Guarantee, but without him, who the hell knows

SEC (16) B1G (18)
1 Alabama - Illinois
2 Arkansas - Indiana
3 Auburn - Iowa
4 Florida - Maryland
5 Georgia - Michigan
6 Kentucky - Michigan State
7 LSU - Minnesota
8 Mississippi State - Nebraska
9 Missouri - Northwestern
10 Oklahoma - Oregon
11 Ole Miss - Ohio State
12 South Carolina - Penn State
13 Tennessee - Purdue
14 Texas - Rutgers
15 Texas A&M - UCLA
16 Vanderbilt - USC
17 North Carolina - Washington
18 Virginia - Wisconsin
19 Clemson
20 Florida State
21 Notre Dame

Strong Candidates 1-9
Kansas
Miami
Louisville
Colorado (With Prime, not on list without him?)
Utah
Arizona
Oklahoma State
Syracuse
Stanford
UCF?


The difference in potential Program Value in the P2 vs out of the P2 and in the Big 12 would be as follows:

P2 = $1Billion +
Outside P2 = $250M or less

Prime and some creative way to be a solid and marketable program vs No Prime = $750 Million LOSS
 
I don't see CU getting rid of football assuming the Big 12 survives. And even if it doesn't survive that would mean both the B1G and SEC would both get to the 24+ number in which case we'd end up in one of them, most likely the B1G.
 
I don't see CU getting rid of football assuming the Big 12 survives. And even if it doesn't survive that would mean both the B1G and SEC would both get to the 24+ number in which case we'd end up in one of them, most likely the B1G.
Without Prime, is CU in a group of 48?
 
Without Prime, is CU in a group of 48?
No not if Prime never came to CU. If this happens in 2030 and Prime has retired or left but has CU back to 8-10 wins/year, yes.

CU has a following and will always pull ratings if they’re good. A move to the B1G to pair with Nebraska is a no brainer as that game is a top 15 ratings game.
 
On3 update.

LAS VEGAS – In hallways throughout Mandalay Bay last week, the impact and unknown of the impending Housesettlement dominated conversations at the National Association of Collegiate Directors of Athleticsconvention.

Panels and hallway conversations were filled with questions and not many answers. The top leaders in college sports don't know the exact date revenue sharing and the new world order will begin – speculation is the 2025-26 academic year. Meanwhile, others are trying to figure out how much revenue they can share while keeping an athletic department up and running.

Another major question remains: How will revenue actually be split up?

The NCAA and Power 5 conferences voted to sign off on the settlement agreement in May, agreeing to pay $2.77 billion in back damages to athletes over 10 years. The second piece of the agreement is revenue sharing, allowing institutions to pay $20-22 million annually to athletes.

How plaintiff attorneys divide back damages is expected to be how schools approach Title IX and shape a framework for revenue sharing. Steve Berman, the co-lead counsel for plaintiffs in the House case, confirmed to On3 on Monday the settlement is on track to disperse 75% of TV revenue in back damages to football. From there, 15% would be funneled to men's basketball, 5% to women's basketball and the final 5% divided by the remaining athletes.

As administrators try to figure out how to split up revenue-sharing dollars, if Judge Claudia Wilken ratifies this portion of back damages it's expected to be looked at as a framework for the future, antitrust attorney Jay M. Ezellebelieves. The Birmingham, Alabama, based litigator with Starnes Law has advised NIL collectives and institutions in the NIL Era and previously worked on NCAA investigations.

If Wilken ratifies a settlement that follows a similar breakdown of TV revenue, Ezelle believes it could help institutions navigate Title IX.

"Title IX pervades everything you do and an athletic department has to be in compliance with Title IX," he said. "So, it is thoughtful and the right thing to do to be considerate. This is an issue that has not been litigated. And so, that presents uncertainty. You have to address that uncertainty. That being said, the people who just say, 'Let's just distribute this 50-50 in order to comply with Title IX' are not looking at the flip side of that. Because if you do it that way, you may actually be in violation of antitrust laws. Because you're doing something that's against the market.

"You're taking something from a market that is generating more revenue and giving it to another market. And so those two things could be in conflict."

The top-funded NIL collectives are spending between $13 to $20 million annually on football rosters at the moment. In basketball, the highest spending programs are pushing $5 million.

Despite the NCAA trying to minimize the role of collectives in college sports, multiple sources and stakeholders have continued to tell On3 that the revenue-sharing cap will only necessitate organizations to strike side NIL deals to provide a competitive advantage.

Ezelle believes splitting revenue evenly will only necessitate the need for collectives to step up. And it would also open up the possibility for football players to challenge they're not receiving enough revenue they're producing.

The Big Ten announced a seven-year, $8 billion media deal with CBS, NBC and Fox in 2022. The SECstarts its new deal with ESPN this season, expected to be worth around $811 million annually.

Schools will follow Judge Wilken's lead on dispersing revenue.

"You have to analyze it in the context it's arising," Ezelle said. "The smart people who have analyzed and are being thoughtful – and we'll hear from them – they'll say, 'Let's wait and see what Judge Wilken come down and use that as a guide.' Because at that point you have a federal judge saying, 'This is a fair way to distribute your money.' In hindsight, it would then be smart for universities and conferences to say, 'We're going to follow the advice that the federal judge has just given in this case that's created the revenue sharing, and we're going to model what we're doing after what she has just approved.'

"I think it would be a little foolhardy to simply say, 'I'm going to ignore what a federal judge just did with over $2 billion and said is a fair way to do it.' And likely is going to be in response to an objection on Title IX, she'll probably have that pending in front of her. So, I think the smart money would be let's follow what the federal judge said for us to do." – Pete Nakos
 
On3 update.

LAS VEGAS – In hallways throughout Mandalay Bay last week, the impact and unknown of the impending Housesettlement dominated conversations at the National Association of Collegiate Directors of Athleticsconvention.

Panels and hallway conversations were filled with questions and not many answers. The top leaders in college sports don't know the exact date revenue sharing and the new world order will begin – speculation is the 2025-26 academic year. Meanwhile, others are trying to figure out how much revenue they can share while keeping an athletic department up and running.

Another major question remains: How will revenue actually be split up?

The NCAA and Power 5 conferences voted to sign off on the settlement agreement in May, agreeing to pay $2.77 billion in back damages to athletes over 10 years. The second piece of the agreement is revenue sharing, allowing institutions to pay $20-22 million annually to athletes.

How plaintiff attorneys divide back damages is expected to be how schools approach Title IX and shape a framework for revenue sharing. Steve Berman, the co-lead counsel for plaintiffs in the House case, confirmed to On3 on Monday the settlement is on track to disperse 75% of TV revenue in back damages to football. From there, 15% would be funneled to men's basketball, 5% to women's basketball and the final 5% divided by the remaining athletes.

As administrators try to figure out how to split up revenue-sharing dollars, if Judge Claudia Wilken ratifies this portion of back damages it's expected to be looked at as a framework for the future, antitrust attorney Jay M. Ezellebelieves. The Birmingham, Alabama, based litigator with Starnes Law has advised NIL collectives and institutions in the NIL Era and previously worked on NCAA investigations.

If Wilken ratifies a settlement that follows a similar breakdown of TV revenue, Ezelle believes it could help institutions navigate Title IX.

"Title IX pervades everything you do and an athletic department has to be in compliance with Title IX," he said. "So, it is thoughtful and the right thing to do to be considerate. This is an issue that has not been litigated. And so, that presents uncertainty. You have to address that uncertainty. That being said, the people who just say, 'Let's just distribute this 50-50 in order to comply with Title IX' are not looking at the flip side of that. Because if you do it that way, you may actually be in violation of antitrust laws. Because you're doing something that's against the market.

"You're taking something from a market that is generating more revenue and giving it to another market. And so those two things could be in conflict."

The top-funded NIL collectives are spending between $13 to $20 million annually on football rosters at the moment. In basketball, the highest spending programs are pushing $5 million.

Despite the NCAA trying to minimize the role of collectives in college sports, multiple sources and stakeholders have continued to tell On3 that the revenue-sharing cap will only necessitate organizations to strike side NIL deals to provide a competitive advantage.

Ezelle believes splitting revenue evenly will only necessitate the need for collectives to step up. And it would also open up the possibility for football players to challenge they're not receiving enough revenue they're producing.

The Big Ten announced a seven-year, $8 billion media deal with CBS, NBC and Fox in 2022. The SECstarts its new deal with ESPN this season, expected to be worth around $811 million annually.

Schools will follow Judge Wilken's lead on dispersing revenue.

"You have to analyze it in the context it's arising," Ezelle said. "The smart people who have analyzed and are being thoughtful – and we'll hear from them – they'll say, 'Let's wait and see what Judge Wilken come down and use that as a guide.' Because at that point you have a federal judge saying, 'This is a fair way to distribute your money.' In hindsight, it would then be smart for universities and conferences to say, 'We're going to follow the advice that the federal judge has just given in this case that's created the revenue sharing, and we're going to model what we're doing after what she has just approved.'

"I think it would be a little foolhardy to simply say, 'I'm going to ignore what a federal judge just did with over $2 billion and said is a fair way to do it.' And likely is going to be in response to an objection on Title IX, she'll probably have that pending in front of her. So, I think the smart money would be let's follow what the federal judge said for us to do." – Pete Nakos

75% of TV revenue in back damages to football.
15% would be funneled to men's basketball
5% to women's basketball
the final 5% divided by the remaining athletes

That sounds like additional lawsuits from non football athletes just waiting to happen.
 
75% of TV revenue in back damages to football.
15% would be funneled to men's basketball
5% to women's basketball
the final 5% divided by the remaining athletes

That sounds like additional lawsuits from non football athletes just waiting to happen.
1718987186112.png
 
75% of TV revenue in back damages to football.
15% would be funneled to men's basketball
5% to women's basketball
the final 5% divided by the remaining athletes

That sounds like additional lawsuits from non football athletes just waiting to happen.
It will be challenged. I’m not surprised at the numbers which seem defendable.

Separately, a group of sports economists are working on the distribution of the 2.8.
 

Writer obviously isn't aware that D1 already split back in the 1970's but another split is coming for sure. I think CU will remain a power school but in the case that doesn't happen, I'm still going to say SKO BUFFS!

I'm almost certain that csu won't make the cut.
 
Writer obviously isn't aware that D1 already split back in the 1970's but another split is coming for sure. I think CU will remain a power school but in the case that doesn't happen, I'm still going to say SKO BUFFS!

I'm almost certain that csu won't make the cut.
If for some reason it goes to 48, CU is in with Prime. If no Prime, they are likely in a bubble discussion. IMO. I don’t care about CSU’s plight.
 
Back
Top