What do you think our overall budget is for NIL in football?
- Thread starter dawgstudent
- Start date
Treefiddy
But seriously, I think it is probably around $25-28 million.
But seriously, I think it is probably around $25-28 million.
Last edited:
Ask 77 he will have a breakdown I am sure.
Between $15-$20 million. I honestly think its on the lower end this year, for obvious reasons. Needs to be around $25 million+ in 2027 and beyond for us to be even remotely competitive.
I think you're about right. Fluctuates somewhat.
Whatever it is, it seems to be keeping us right where we have been for most of the last two decades - top 21-30 in recruiting. Factoring in lower-rated diamonds in the rough from Mississippi (who we used to collect routinely) - and the typical "Mississippi State automatic star-deduction factor", with a good coach, that level has been proven to be good enough to compete. With a bad/inexperienced coach, not as good.
I think we'll know this year whether we have merely had an inexperienced coach the last two years, or if he's just not going to be good enough.
Whatever it is, I am furious that it is not more even though I have never contributed. Absolutely unacceptable.
+/- $25 million
The Revenue Share portion should be $20.5 million total with 80% going to football, so $16 million is a baseline before any private NIL. I think MSU has another $10 millionish for football.
The Revenue Share portion should be $20.5 million total with 80% going to football, so $16 million is a baseline before any private NIL. I think MSU has another $10 millionish for football.
same. if "those people" would push a little more in we could be great
Revenue share is NOT NIL. It’s kind of surprising how many people confuse and combine the two.
If we only had $8-$10 million on top of the revenue share, we might as well start putting out feelers to join the Sun Belt.
We have $15 million from revenue share, then we have another $15-$20 million from NIL, for a total of $30-$35 million, which is, believe it or not, nowhere close to where we need to be.
It's semantics. It's all the same to me. In reality, rev share is in fact an NIL payment.
Last edited:
I keep seeing people see this and then I keep seeing it continue to get bigger. Can it continue to grow at the pace it has been? Probably not. But it’s here to stay. It’s not going anywhere.
Revenue Share is direct cash payments to athletes as is NIL. I think all the NIL numbers being quoted for schools are Revenue Share plus traditional NIL. There are different rules/guidelines about contracts/payments of NIL vs. Rev Share but the real question is how much money are the players getting regardless of source.
Came here looking for the threefiddy response
So happy to see it on the second post here in this thread
Who cares? It's still money we have to shell out for players, that we did not have to do 5 years ago. The name of it is a particularly dumb thing to argue about.
20 mil per year or just a total balance in the NIL bank? And are you talking just football?
I would say that it’s not semantics at all in regards to the question at hand. It’s the difference between us paying $20 million vs us paying $35 million to our football team. That’s a huge swing. The revenue share number just doesn’t matter, because it’s the same for everybody. The physical NIL number, what we pay on top of the revenue share, is the only thing worth assessing the value of compared to other schools. If your position is that our actual NIL number is only $5 million (as indicated by your $20 million total), then we would be in really, really bad shape.
Furthermore, there’s a huge difference in revenue share vs. NIL in the regulatory sense. Revenue share comes straight from the university, and is not subject to approval by the CSC clearinghouse. That’s why all these megadeals that these one and done basketball players are signing with Kansas and Kentucky are revenue share agreements…..they are so far in excess of typical NIL FMV that they’d never pass the smell test of the CSC. But because its from the revenue share, it doesn’t matter. The revenue share is therefore not NIL in any sense…..it is straight up, unapologetic pay for play that is now legal.
Is it Year 3 or Year 4 of that arguement?
Hard to say, but whatever it is, I'd wager that it's a solid 30-40% less than the upper half of the conference. Maybe even 50%
We're not even in the game for top MS talent anymore, and it's not all because of losses. Even at our worst over the last 3 decades, we were able to clean up in state, and those days appear to be over.
We're not even in the game for top MS talent anymore, and it's not all because of losses. Even at our worst over the last 3 decades, we were able to clean up in state, and those days appear to be over.
Does that $15 million that comes from the rev share still have to be money that is raised by SEF or State 1878? I know some comes from the SEC but regardless of which pot the NIL $$ is coming out of - it's supplied by the alumni. We don't have to commit to the $22 million rev share disbursement as a school but we choose and have to do it. So in theory to me - it's the same thing. It's coming from the alumni and the TV deal.
Again, I strongly disagree, considering that the numbers in the rankings always just say “NIL”. If the revenue share payments were considered NIL, they’d be subject to the CSC clearing process, and they absolutely are not.
Nothing adds up there, when you really dive into it. Ole Miss had a widely publicized NIL number of about $23 million last season. You mean to tell me their boosters only paid $8 million of that? Total BS. Indiana was $25 million, you telling me Mark Cuban led NIL contributions were only $10 million? It was pretty common for boosters to pay $4-$5 million per year under the table even when everything was illegal. You had Albert Means’ high school COACH getting paid over $200k just to try and influence him, nearly 30 years ago.
People simply have a hard time believing the amount of money being paid out these days, and that it gets higher every year. But it’s all true. We could be legitimately paying our football team a combined $30 million per year plus scholarships, and still be poor as hell. That’s where we’re at.
I don't disagree with you on that final paragraph. The ceiling keeps getting raised. If you would have told me 3 years ago we were going to pay our football roster in 3 years $20 million - I would have laughed in their face.
The revenue share money can come from anywhere, as long as it eventually comes into the university and is distributed by them directly to the players.
SEF, season ticket sales, TV deal, Bulldog Club donations, doesn’t matter.
Practically speaking, we get way, way more money than the SEC Network deal than we get from anywhere else, so for all intents and purposes, the TV deal pays for our revenue share.
But you are acting like the other expenses of running the athletic department just went away. We are essentially adding tens of millions of dollars to our budget to pay the players. That money has to come from somewhere and it is coming mostly from the alumni.
I could be completely misunderstanding how all this works but that's the way I have it in my mind.
Last edited:
They aren't going away, but they were grossly inflated before because everybody had money coming into their athletic department that couldn't be used to pay players directly. So everyone overspent on everything. I think you're going to see the ridiculous facilities come to an end. Certainly will still be nice, but when the question to the players is "do you want cash, or a prettier weightlifting facility", they're going to choose cash, and when you pose the question to donors of "do you want players and to be successful, or do you want your name on a pretty workout facility", most of them are going to prefer money go to players so they can enjoy being good.
But it's going to be a painful transition as everybody figures out what hte market will bear. This is one area where I think we're actually in decent shape. We didn't have the luxury of borrowing a hundred million dollars for facilities with the expectation that "the money will be there", so I dont' think we have nearly as much debt compared to our revenue as some schools do. Haven't seen definitive numbers for our, but supposedly UTenn and to a lesser extent Bama had a lot of debt service, even compared to their revenue.
The terminology is all confusing, and I think people use it differently which makes it even worse.
Everything the players earn is technically from licensing their NIL.
The Revenue Sharing money is set up as an NIL license, even though it really isn't.
Money from the collectives has to be tied to an NIL license that passes through the CSC review, but a lot of times they are just being paid by the Collective to help raise money for the Collective. Sometimes the Collectives are able to hook athletes up with legit advertising deals for third parties.
Players also sign legit 3rd Party deals outside of their collective, like Arch Mannings deal with Warby Parker. These are probably the cleanest NIL deals offered, because the licensee legitimately wants to promote their business, and they arent just trying to keep Arch playing for Texas.
Then you have the latest source which is University Partners, like Adidas, paying players to promote their stuff. Its legit, but also a little shady.
So, if Texas says their football roster cost $50 MM in NIL, where is all of that money coming from? The above sources, plus probably some I left out. Is Arch Manning's Warby Parker deal included in that total?
If someone talks about an NIL budget, do they mean just the Collective, the Collective plus revenue share, or something else?
I do agree with the sentiment here that thete is little difference in Collective money and Revenue sharing. It makes a difference to the players regarding the strings tied to the money, but it is essentially all booster donations.
The revenue sharing contracts are where the players sign a deal with the school, though. When Ole Miss sues the two players who left for LSU, they are suing over the revenue sharing agreement. The school is not a party to all the other deals.
Everything the players earn is technically from licensing their NIL.
The Revenue Sharing money is set up as an NIL license, even though it really isn't.
Money from the collectives has to be tied to an NIL license that passes through the CSC review, but a lot of times they are just being paid by the Collective to help raise money for the Collective. Sometimes the Collectives are able to hook athletes up with legit advertising deals for third parties.
Players also sign legit 3rd Party deals outside of their collective, like Arch Mannings deal with Warby Parker. These are probably the cleanest NIL deals offered, because the licensee legitimately wants to promote their business, and they arent just trying to keep Arch playing for Texas.
Then you have the latest source which is University Partners, like Adidas, paying players to promote their stuff. Its legit, but also a little shady.
So, if Texas says their football roster cost $50 MM in NIL, where is all of that money coming from? The above sources, plus probably some I left out. Is Arch Manning's Warby Parker deal included in that total?
If someone talks about an NIL budget, do they mean just the Collective, the Collective plus revenue share, or something else?
I do agree with the sentiment here that thete is little difference in Collective money and Revenue sharing. It makes a difference to the players regarding the strings tied to the money, but it is essentially all booster donations.
The revenue sharing contracts are where the players sign a deal with the school, though. When Ole Miss sues the two players who left for LSU, they are suing over the revenue sharing agreement. The school is not a party to all the other deals.
Latest
-
01
Maroon and White
FAU hiring Mississippi State Deputy AD Josh McCowan
-
02
Maroon and White
Scouting Ahead: Mizzou QB Austin Simmons
-
03
Maroon and White
Mississippi State MBK Finalizes 2026-27 Schedule
-
04
Maroon and White
Mississippi State 2026 Projected Depth Charts: Offensive Line
-
05
Maroon and White
Scouting Ahead: Mississippi State vs. Mizzou Q&A