Toggle sidebar

Most believe raising the revenue-share cap is a must, but agreement on a figure remains difficult

D

dehere23

All-Conference
Feb 28, 2015
1,607
1,862
113
Halldan said:
Being told well over $20M
Click to expand...
If that’s true, it means you have about 30 others in that ballpark or above. Because there is no way that school can outspend UConn, Nova, Gonzaga and most of the power schools with football.
 
S

STLPirate12

Junior
Mar 16, 2017
267
295
63
IMO, the entire model needs to change. The first "solution" was to add a salary cap because that's what pro sports leagues here do. The problem is that college sports are structured much differently than pro sports - the schools are all individual entities rather than franchises of one league the way pro teams are in the US. That's part of why we're seeing every dispute regarding eligibility, NIL contracts and what not end up in a lawsuit rather than the "league rule" or "company policy" just being the end of it. There's too many different groups trying to be in charge (NCAA, Big 10/SEC, congress, etc) and the same set of rules can't possibly work for everyone.

A better answer is to look away from the American sports model and towards global sports, with European soccer being the most visible example. In that case you have:
  • The Governing Body, UEFA: which would effectively be the role of the NCAA
  • The associated leagues, which here are the conferences
  • The individual teams, no different here
They do have a sort of salary cap rule, enforced by the Governing Body, but it's based on a % of team revenue rather than a hard number so that it remains consistent and sensible across leagues that are operating in wildly different financial environments. I think it would work well here, especially if trying to hold multiple sports under one umbrella. Football schools bring in more revenue, which means they can spend more money because they need to in order to field a football team. The transfer format of buying and selling a player's contract rights would work well here too (though multi-year contracts need to become the standard first) as it provides teams opportunities to be compensated for losing players they developed and adequately protects players because they to agree to terms with a new team for a transfer to be completed - meaning they can't just be send somewhere they don't want to go. The only lacking protection is really that a player's current block the player from going to a certain team or from leaving entirely simply by refusing to negotiate, though that tends to just be considered bad for business. If Hines was on a multi-year contract here, Dan Hurley would have to agree to transfer terms with Sha before he could negotiate personal terms with Hines, and once everything's signed, the money we get from the deal does count towards the revenue bucket that determines how much we're allowed to spend. Plenty of smaller teams have found good sustained success through the model of developing young players, selling them on for huge fees, and then using that money to replenish a still very competitive roster.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JD Walker
J

JD Walker

Senior
Staff member
Jul 8, 2025
348
701
93
STLPirate12 said:
IMO, the entire model needs to change. The first "solution" was to add a salary cap because that's what pro sports leagues here do. The problem is that college sports are structured much differently than pro sports - the schools are all individual entities rather than franchises of one league the way pro teams are in the US. That's part of why we're seeing every dispute regarding eligibility, NIL contracts and what not end up in a lawsuit rather than the "league rule" or "company policy" just being the end of it. There's too many different groups trying to be in charge (NCAA, Big 10/SEC, congress, etc) and the same set of rules can't possibly work for everyone.

A better answer is to look away from the American sports model and towards global sports, with European soccer being the most visible example. In that case you have:
  • The Governing Body, UEFA: which would effectively be the role of the NCAA
  • The associated leagues, which here are the conferences
  • The individual teams, no different here
They do have a sort of salary cap rule, enforced by the Governing Body, but it's based on a % of team revenue rather than a hard number so that it remains consistent and sensible across leagues that are operating in wildly different financial environments. I think it would work well here, especially if trying to hold multiple sports under one umbrella. Football schools bring in more revenue, which means they can spend more money because they need to in order to field a football team. The transfer format of buying and selling a player's contract rights would work well here too (though multi-year contracts need to become the standard first) as it provides teams opportunities to be compensated for losing players they developed and adequately protects players because they to agree to terms with a new team for a transfer to be completed - meaning they can't just be send somewhere they don't want to go. The only lacking protection is really that a player's current block the player from going to a certain team or from leaving entirely simply by refusing to negotiate, though that tends to just be considered bad for business. If Hines was on a multi-year contract here, Dan Hurley would have to agree to transfer terms with Sha before he could negotiate personal terms with Hines, and once everything's signed, the money we get from the deal does count towards the revenue bucket that determines how much we're allowed to spend. Plenty of smaller teams have found good sustained success through the model of developing young players, selling them on for huge fees, and then using that money to replenish a still very competitive roster.
Click to expand...
As a soccer fan I’m a big believer in the transfer fee idea that would replenish the small schools getting poached. I doubt it would ever happen though
 
S

STLPirate12

Junior
Mar 16, 2017
267
295
63
JD Walker said:
As a soccer fan I’m a big believer in the transfer fee idea that would replenish the small schools getting poached. I doubt it would ever happen though
Click to expand...
I actually think it would be a very natural next step to multi-year revenue sharing contracts. Players are still going to want to transfer while they're under contract and teams are going to want to poach players who are under contract with another team, and the legal way for that to happen is to buy out the contract. Realistically, the receiving team rather than the player will be the one paying the buyout, and that's your transfer fee.

American style trades is the method of transferring players that I don't think we'll ever happen in college sports.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom