Having an in-department employee whose job is "coordinating external NIL endorsements" is the equivalent of keeping their booster collectives operative like last year and making any double dipping from the revenue share and collectives possible. That's how schools come up with a greater number than the $20.5M that the court settlement decided. At ISU, we need athletics donations just to get us to the $20.5M, so there isn't much point in having an employee hired fo that purpose.
So it seems like this House deal is going to end up hurting schools like ISU and others that do not have a lot of cash, because it forces us to come with at least $20 million each season, out of reserves right now to pay it. Then also come up with other moneys for NIL. What some were stated during the summer was a hard cap, now is nothing but a floor to get your school into the game, but does little to nothing to reign in spending of the schools that have money and want to spend it.
Your last point is a very important one. And seems to be exactly the one Pollard is making (for better or for worse). Essentially "let's get to 20.5M before we start worrying about that".
I think everyone was being counseled this was coming and it is what was really behind the push by SEC/B1G to grab teams and maximize football television revenue last cycle. They wanted as much cash as possible when this hit, even if it meant the ACC, PAC, and Big 12 had to take the hit. Life isn't easy enough, even at the top of the athletics food chain.
Now you're getting it. It's a feature, not a bug.
To your point, I beleive even Ohio State - with over 1/4 of a billion in AD revenue - operated at a $37M loss last year.
"More money, more problems" as they used to say...
I really doubt ISU is going to be one of the schools in a super league when it does occur unless the number is around 60 or so teams, this legislation does nothing but bleed out schools like ISU to slow death, before they break away.
Yeah probably not. ISU is solidly in the Top 40, but if a smaller "blue bloods only" type Super League happens (say 24 or 32 teams), its highly unlikely they get in. What's galling is that Iowa would probably get in.
If they don't go to 64 teams I'm not sure how a Super League would survive long-term. You need as many people watching as possible and even the biggest regular season college football don't hold a candle to the worst NFL TV numbers...even the London games get better ratings.
They make their money off Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State. If it were up to the networks, the Big 10 and SEC would drop the dead weight.
It's in the way they price BTN, the difference between a state that has a conference team and those that do not. Look at Iowa, they have deals set up that allows them to charge the consumer more if you have a team than if your state does not. So everyone that has cable or is streaming the service pays money to the B10 whether they are a fan or not, everyone pays. Its the genius of the system, if you do not have a team in your state, like Kansas, it costs very little to add BTN to your bill, something like a dime, but in Iowa its a dollar or two per home. That is where the real money is at, Rutgers brings nothing to the table sports wise, but they bring in a lot of TV money because they can charge everyone the state the conference price not the non conference price to see the games. Does not matter if they watch, they all pay.
If it’s 32 it may be best to be the second level. Iowa may get in but they would be the whipping post for 90% of the teams.
