Obviously college athletics changed quite a bit in the past day or two. We at least got warning this was coming earlier this month, but as we know all the primary parties are agreeing to this model.
Now we have an idea of what this will all look like, but even in the reports, there are some questions left unanswered. Here are some of my thoughts on this seismic shift in college athletics.
Scholarship limits for football
I think it seems we are heading towards a 90 to 95-man roster in college football with no walk-ons. I think that shifts the dynamic somewhat, but not terribly much. We’re talking about an 85-man roster as it is now, so a few extra spots will be added.
Recruiting is still going to be recruiting. We’re still going to cover Pitt’s recruiting efforts pretty religiously here, and with possibly a deemphasis on player movement (I’ll get to that), then the HS recruiting we all knew and loved could make a comeback of sorts. I see a lot of people becoming disinterested in this whole process lately with the portal madness, but I could see that swinging back around and true, normal HS recruiting becomes relevant again…with at least kind of a level playing field yet again.
No walk-ons
This is a bummer, but nothing major in the grand scheme of things. I mean, everyone loves an underdog story. We love to see a guy like George Aston becoming a cult hero, but we’re going to see less of those things in the future and that kind of stinks. I’ve seen the notion of a walk-on/practice squad type thing being tossed out there, but we’ll have to wait and see. So IDK what Texas A&M is going to do…
Could this help strengthen D2 or FCS levels with a few of those players slipping down a level and making an impact there? The way I see it….yes. I mean it's small ramification to all of this, but those levels of football probably stand to benefit to a degree, I'd imagine.
The 22 million distribution
The 22 million number seems a bit random, but that is what they came up with and that is what schools can revenue share with their athletes. It becomes tricky with how that number will be distributed within each athletic department. Obviously, the star quarterback should be getting more of a revenue share than the backup midfielder on the soccer team. I’m interested to see how this all looks, because we’re being told….OK here is 22 million, schools can distribute it how they wish, but it’s not that simple when you factor in Title IX. So there seems like a lot more work here until this gets finalized, but it’s at least a bridge to somewhere…finally.
True NIL
We’re seeing the words ‘True NIL’ thrown around in these articles, so what’s that mean? Well, effectively it means Kenny Pickett getting to take his offensive linemen for a free dinner once a week, not Dayon Hayes taking money to go play as a mercenary for Colorado.
But yea, I think they want NIL to be exactly that and not, ‘pay for play’ so with that being said, that SHOULD help the wild west feeling we have in terms of player movement because…
Multi years deals…
Can colleges start signing their athletes to multi-year binding deals? I think that may end up being part of this eventually, which again, would probably be a good thing for a school like Pitt, because they wouldn’t necessarily lose a Biletnikoff Award winner for no real reason other than financial promises made by other schools.
I think this part can get messy, and this will eventually lead to schools finally admitting these athletes are employees (probably down the line). But we know the NCAA and its members have long been reluctant to call athletes 'employees' and that is why we are in the mess that we are in currently. This whole landmark deal is about sharing revenue with the athletes, but still holding out that they aren’t employees for whatever reason. Clinging to something, I guess...
The portal?
People are still going to transfer, but this current culture that has developed in the past four years may be greatly reduced, probably to the relief of everyone. If players are going to be able to be paid by the school itself, and not relying on collectives, then like I said earlier we may start to see guys signing for multiple years.
But yea, guys buried on the depth chart are still going to be able to transfer, but losing you’re star quarterback is going to be less common, which is good for everyone.
And less portal means more opportunities (again) for high school recruits. Some pretty good HS athletes are getting forgotten about because of this portal era that we are in. So if the portal isn't as crazy, then there's reason to believe some of the younger athletes out there aren't going to get screwed over as much.
Oh yea, the collectives?
Some may exist still, some may be brought under the umbrella of the university. We’ve see both ideas tossed around in the articles by Dellenger and everyone, but if they’re going back to ‘true NIL’ then there’s less of a need for them. They still have a purpose, but they don’t have to act like something they aren’t anymore at the very least.
The question that has been raised over the past two years: Should I donate to Alliance 412 or Pitt was a good one, and I’d probably would have told you A412, but now the answer is obviously Pitt for a variety of reasons.
Frankly, it was always bullshit that you (Pitt fans) had to pay for the team to be good. You’re already on the hook for tickets and merchandise, and probably donating to the school, it should not have been up to you to make sure Jaland Lowe stuck around on top of that. The Steelers don't ask you for extra money to pay the players, the revenue they make off of you does that already, which of course is what is going to happen now.
Other sports?
I don’t think basketball and football will look too different from an on-the-field/court standpoint moving forward. The roster sizes and funding aren’t really changing there. They are just getting some facelifts for the better.
It’s the other sports that are a concern. Will all of them make it? And will they all make it at Pitt? This all feels open ended still. Is Pitt going to have a fully-funded 32 man baseball roster moving forward? Is it even smart thing for Pitt to do? A lot of these things are going to be on a school by school basis. Some schools are going to eliminate multiple varsity sports, it’s just how it is. Not everything was going to run status quo when more resources are going towards paying, er revenue sharing with the players.
Other topics I haven’t seen mentioned as much…
I think the current 68-team NCAA Tournament is safe for the next 10 years as I understand everything, so that’s cool.
The power five schools are agreeing to this. Where does this leave the other leagues like the MAC or AAC? I actually haven’t seen that as broadly defined just yet. And what about the Big East? They’re a unique set of circumstances of course, but still a powerful basketball league.
The other wheels won’t stop moving….
This whole topic is dominating everything, but just remembered Clemson and Florida State still want to leave the ACC, and ultimately will at some point. That leaves the ACC and Big 12 still wondering where they stand after the B1G and SEC. This is a nice emphasis and distraction on getting things at least somewhat fair for more schools than just 10 or so, but there’s still a big revenue drop-off from the Big 10 to the ACC. So it’ll be easier for Ohio State to foot a 22-million addition to its budget than it will be for Boston College. There’s still disparity in many respects, but less of it after all of this got announced.
Now we have an idea of what this will all look like, but even in the reports, there are some questions left unanswered. Here are some of my thoughts on this seismic shift in college athletics.
Scholarship limits for football
I think it seems we are heading towards a 90 to 95-man roster in college football with no walk-ons. I think that shifts the dynamic somewhat, but not terribly much. We’re talking about an 85-man roster as it is now, so a few extra spots will be added.
Recruiting is still going to be recruiting. We’re still going to cover Pitt’s recruiting efforts pretty religiously here, and with possibly a deemphasis on player movement (I’ll get to that), then the HS recruiting we all knew and loved could make a comeback of sorts. I see a lot of people becoming disinterested in this whole process lately with the portal madness, but I could see that swinging back around and true, normal HS recruiting becomes relevant again…with at least kind of a level playing field yet again.
No walk-ons
This is a bummer, but nothing major in the grand scheme of things. I mean, everyone loves an underdog story. We love to see a guy like George Aston becoming a cult hero, but we’re going to see less of those things in the future and that kind of stinks. I’ve seen the notion of a walk-on/practice squad type thing being tossed out there, but we’ll have to wait and see. So IDK what Texas A&M is going to do…
Could this help strengthen D2 or FCS levels with a few of those players slipping down a level and making an impact there? The way I see it….yes. I mean it's small ramification to all of this, but those levels of football probably stand to benefit to a degree, I'd imagine.
The 22 million distribution
The 22 million number seems a bit random, but that is what they came up with and that is what schools can revenue share with their athletes. It becomes tricky with how that number will be distributed within each athletic department. Obviously, the star quarterback should be getting more of a revenue share than the backup midfielder on the soccer team. I’m interested to see how this all looks, because we’re being told….OK here is 22 million, schools can distribute it how they wish, but it’s not that simple when you factor in Title IX. So there seems like a lot more work here until this gets finalized, but it’s at least a bridge to somewhere…finally.
True NIL
We’re seeing the words ‘True NIL’ thrown around in these articles, so what’s that mean? Well, effectively it means Kenny Pickett getting to take his offensive linemen for a free dinner once a week, not Dayon Hayes taking money to go play as a mercenary for Colorado.
But yea, I think they want NIL to be exactly that and not, ‘pay for play’ so with that being said, that SHOULD help the wild west feeling we have in terms of player movement because…
Multi years deals…
Can colleges start signing their athletes to multi-year binding deals? I think that may end up being part of this eventually, which again, would probably be a good thing for a school like Pitt, because they wouldn’t necessarily lose a Biletnikoff Award winner for no real reason other than financial promises made by other schools.
I think this part can get messy, and this will eventually lead to schools finally admitting these athletes are employees (probably down the line). But we know the NCAA and its members have long been reluctant to call athletes 'employees' and that is why we are in the mess that we are in currently. This whole landmark deal is about sharing revenue with the athletes, but still holding out that they aren’t employees for whatever reason. Clinging to something, I guess...
The portal?
People are still going to transfer, but this current culture that has developed in the past four years may be greatly reduced, probably to the relief of everyone. If players are going to be able to be paid by the school itself, and not relying on collectives, then like I said earlier we may start to see guys signing for multiple years.
But yea, guys buried on the depth chart are still going to be able to transfer, but losing you’re star quarterback is going to be less common, which is good for everyone.
And less portal means more opportunities (again) for high school recruits. Some pretty good HS athletes are getting forgotten about because of this portal era that we are in. So if the portal isn't as crazy, then there's reason to believe some of the younger athletes out there aren't going to get screwed over as much.
Oh yea, the collectives?
Some may exist still, some may be brought under the umbrella of the university. We’ve see both ideas tossed around in the articles by Dellenger and everyone, but if they’re going back to ‘true NIL’ then there’s less of a need for them. They still have a purpose, but they don’t have to act like something they aren’t anymore at the very least.
The question that has been raised over the past two years: Should I donate to Alliance 412 or Pitt was a good one, and I’d probably would have told you A412, but now the answer is obviously Pitt for a variety of reasons.
Frankly, it was always bullshit that you (Pitt fans) had to pay for the team to be good. You’re already on the hook for tickets and merchandise, and probably donating to the school, it should not have been up to you to make sure Jaland Lowe stuck around on top of that. The Steelers don't ask you for extra money to pay the players, the revenue they make off of you does that already, which of course is what is going to happen now.
Other sports?
I don’t think basketball and football will look too different from an on-the-field/court standpoint moving forward. The roster sizes and funding aren’t really changing there. They are just getting some facelifts for the better.
It’s the other sports that are a concern. Will all of them make it? And will they all make it at Pitt? This all feels open ended still. Is Pitt going to have a fully-funded 32 man baseball roster moving forward? Is it even smart thing for Pitt to do? A lot of these things are going to be on a school by school basis. Some schools are going to eliminate multiple varsity sports, it’s just how it is. Not everything was going to run status quo when more resources are going towards paying, er revenue sharing with the players.
Other topics I haven’t seen mentioned as much…
I think the current 68-team NCAA Tournament is safe for the next 10 years as I understand everything, so that’s cool.
The power five schools are agreeing to this. Where does this leave the other leagues like the MAC or AAC? I actually haven’t seen that as broadly defined just yet. And what about the Big East? They’re a unique set of circumstances of course, but still a powerful basketball league.
The other wheels won’t stop moving….
This whole topic is dominating everything, but just remembered Clemson and Florida State still want to leave the ACC, and ultimately will at some point. That leaves the ACC and Big 12 still wondering where they stand after the B1G and SEC. This is a nice emphasis and distraction on getting things at least somewhat fair for more schools than just 10 or so, but there’s still a big revenue drop-off from the Big 10 to the ACC. So it’ll be easier for Ohio State to foot a 22-million addition to its budget than it will be for Boston College. There’s still disparity in many respects, but less of it after all of this got announced.
Last edited:
