UW dropping from 9.9 to 5 ?

[npope]

Sorry for the long read - hoping that there is a simple explanation.

Thanks for the explanation, Doc. Should I assume that is a contribution to helping me understand what hornbuckleb was talking about above? And I am sincere in my confusion as to what exactly is being explained in these contributions. Historically, my basic understanding has been that schools could allocate a specific number of scholarships (full and partial) and perhaps some lesser perks to athletes in each sport, but the whole idea was to enforce some comparability in terms of forcing the system to spread the talent out over the many schools competing for athletic talent.

Then NIL was introduced, i.e., the concept of pay-for-play, which blows the doors off the limited athletic scholarship concept that endeavored to force the spread of talent across the many schools' athletic programs. And to be honest, I have never understood the respective roles of athletes, sponsors, schools, and the NCAA in the NIL system. If a local car dealership wanted to put $1 million in a local athlete's pocket, I thought the NIL said that is fine and is nobody's business except the athlete and the dealer (please correct me if I am wrong). I also thought that the NIL made it possible for another local car dealer (or international sportswear company) to dump $10 million into a given school's athletic program and the school would be able to allocate it among its athletes in a manner agreed upon with the sportswear company, all team members collect an equal share (or not) of the funding available through that "gift." Granted, something in my understanding might be off, but that's the impression I had.

And now this House Settlement deal surfaces that places a cap on how much a school's athletes can collect (in total) of around $20 million? And, too, do the schools have control over NIL money? What if I were a local car dealer and wanted to give $20 million to the local star QB? I have to go through the school? I thought the whole NIL deal was recognizing the athlete's right to negotiate freely/directly with private parties in collecting funds for their athletic prowess.

Now, the conversation turns back to the limits on the number of scholarship allocations available by the school, and I am confused again. When literally millions of dollars in NIL money are being thrown at student athletes, why would scholarships even be part of the conversation anymore? This is especially true if the school has any say as to how NIL might be allocated (as opposed to strictly being a deal between the athlete and the external entity throwing $$ at the kid of their choice?). Scholarships would seem to be "chicken feed" in this environment and be the vestigial organ that serves no purpose and eventually withers and (quickly) goes away.

Again, through my seemingly limited understanding, it would seem that the principle being embraced is that amateur athletes are a thing of the past - the law recognizes that the NCAA system cannot inhibit an athlete's right to collect funds based on their sports performance. What we are seeing is a half-baked effort at the collegiate athletic system (i.e., NCAA) to preserve its role in the system of money allocation from private businesses to these amateur athletes. NIL let the genie out of the bottle, and the NCAA is trying to put the cap back on through a fragile and ever-changing system that is simply destined to collapse in the near term.

How far off am I?

[hornbuckleb]

With the House settlement last week the landscape changes again.  Universities can directly pay atheletes.  The money at UW will go to Football, Mens Basketball, Mens and Womens Hockey and Volleyball.  NIL will be regulated under the new ruling and all deals are suppose to be reviewed for merit.  Congress will more than likely step in to create framework to stop the influx of lawsuits.  How will this beneifit wrestling...it won't.

The core element of the House v. NCAA settlement is that the NCAA will pay out $2.576 billion to the settlement damages classes and also begin a 10-year term in which Division I schools will be able to directly pay student-athletes with a pool (read: salary cap) of up to 22 percent of the Power Five conference schools' average athletic revenues each year. That 22 percent figure is estimated to be approximately $20.5 million in 2025-26.

Any payments from that pool would be on top of existing benefits. So, student-athletes will still be able to receive full-tuition scholarships, free room and board, grants, academic support, nutrition, medical resources, etc. They'll also still be able to get paid via NIL deals

Under the settlement, the NCAA is partnering with auditing giant Deloitte on enforcement of a new NIL policy that would track and evaluate all deals valued over $600. According to an NCAA statement, "The new enforcement entity will use the system to help it evaluate whether these deals are within a reasonable range of compensation and made with the purpose of using a student-athlete's NIL to advance a valid business purpose, as outlined in the proposed settlement."

I am sorry hornbuckleb, could I please get a translation of that?

Nat,

Here is a link to a good article that covers a majority of the latest ruling : https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2025/06/07/ncaa-revenue-sharing-settlement-questions/83221673007/

If you are in a power 5 conference and particpate in a revenue sport you might like the ruling.  Wrestling along with other olympic sports will suffer a slow death within DI.

[hornbuckleb]

In response to today's approval of the House v. NCAA settlement agreement by the Honorable Judge Claudia Wilken, four national collegiate coaching associations-the American Volleyball Coaches Association (AVCA), National Wrestling Coaches Association (NWCA), College Swimming and Diving Coaches Association of America (CSCAA), and U.S. Track & Field and Cross Country Coaches Association (USTFCCCA)-have issued a joint statement recognizing the progress made while expressing serious concerns about the implications for broad-based collegiate athletics.

While the settlement represents a significant step toward resolving antitrust claims related to athlete compensation, the associations caution that it may have devastating consequences for non-revenue sports.

"We are concerned that the new financial obligations placed on schools will force administrators to divert attention and resources away from non-football and non-basketball sports-the very programs in which the majority of NCAA student-athletes participate," the statement reads. "This is no hypothetical. Budget cuts and program eliminations have already occurred in anticipation of today's decision, and more are likely to follow."

The associations also emphasized the settlement's failure to resolve key issues related to student-athlete employment classification and Title IX compliance-factors that compound the uncertainty for Olympic and broad-based sports.

Calling on Congress to intervene, the organizations stressed the need for a balanced and equitable path forward that protects opportunities for all student-athletes-not just those in revenue-generating sports.

The four associations reaffirm their commitment to advocating for legislative solutions and will continue working collaboratively to protect the future of Olympic and broad-based sports within collegiate athletics. Their current legislative priorities, in addition to ensuring athletes are not classified as employees and advocating for uniform NIL regulation, include:

Protect: Establish proportional spending targets by classification to safeguard meaningful investment in Olympic sports.

Maintain: Codify the current NCAA sport sponsorship requirements outlined in NCAA Bylaw 20-16 sports for FBS programs, and 14 for FCS and non-football Division I institutions.

"The future of college sports must not disproportionately benefit a small fraction of the NCAA student-athlete population while jeopardizing opportunities for others," the statement continues. "Congress must intervene to ensure schools can maintain robust sport sponsorship and continue allocating meaningful resources to non-football and non-basketball programs."

For more information about the NWCA, visit www.nwcaonline.org.

[npope]

Here is a link to a good article that covers a majority of the latest ruling : https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2025/06/07/ncaa-revenue-sharing-settlement-questions/83221673007/

If you are in a power 5 conference and particpate in a revenue sport you might like the ruling.  Wrestling along with other olympic sports will suffer a slow death within DI.

Thank you!!

[DocWrestling]

A $20.5 million dollar cap seems like a lot but it will end up in only a few athletes hands.  The best basketball and football players are getting deals above $1 million per year.  So it could be said that the $20.5 million might only subsidize the best 20 basketball and football players.

The next best will get NIL money from the boosters or at UW it is called the "Varsity Collective" or has been rebranded as "Badger Connect".

After that the rest of the rosters will be on normal scholarships as they always have been although everyone else with extra money also is on scholarship.  Can this save the "olympic" sports?  There is a new limit on number of scholarships each sport can offer but in general it is much more than it used to be but almost all schools will not be using the max allowed

Basketball and football are now just minor league teams with future stars having completely different deals than the roster fillers.  Similar to minor league baseball.  A couple guys on the minor league team make a milion+ a year and others make $3,000 a month.

Likely that academics will matter very little in basketball and football.