2026 Rev Share Realities?

[Joseph English]

What I am seeing is we are back to playing by the rules (hearing similar about Ohio State) and trying to follow a rev share cap (17M at the most) while other schools like Oregon and Texas Tech are continuing to pay players through the loosely defined NIL rules to pay players above the “cap”. 

My legal understanding of house v NCAA is that it’s only a cap on rev share dollars. I expected us to spend above the cap because the NIL deal review is BS and illegal market intervention. But it seems we are taking the moral high road and only using rev share and letting NIL be true NIL deals for the players (comes from outside the program which therefore does not help recruiting). 

There goes our advantage of being the most financially valuable CFB program. 

The way that the market is playing out, your 2nd string at Texas can go play rn at Baylor or Wake Forest or Pitt for around $100k-200k more than what UT would pay because they all have around the same rev share cash. 

If you stay within the cap, even the Bluest of blue bloods can only pay their starters because their starters have a higher market value than other schools. 

The ROI for the risk on HS recruits sucks. It’s extra risky to pay a 5 star. Almost like the Indiana model better of going for 24 YOs with proven production than risky and inexperienced freak athletes.

The age of parady is upon us. As a UT fan I think it’s BS that the most valuable program has to compete on the same cap rules with a UNLV, Maryland, or USF. They can, in theory, offer Cam Coleman as much rev share dollars as UT. A good NIL program, development, relationships, and facilities are the differentiator now. 
 

@CJ Vogel @Bobby Burton @Gerry Hamilton am I understanding this new world right? 

[Nate C]

as far as I understand, RevShare has no effect on NIL

[Tommy]

This is what makes no sense to me. Theoretically yes, NIL at Texas should eclipse the $17 mill allegedly allotted to the school by revshare. But from comments made by insiders and circumstantial evidence, Texas is contracting in its spending. Refusing to pay Tre/Livingston more, ask for pay cuts of Arch/Barnes/Baxter?. Who knows what went on/is going on with Moore/Washington/Lefau and Clark/Black, but you have to imagine not enough money is a part of it.

Everything at this time points to saving money with these "layoffs" to poach big names that we've whiffed on 0-6. But this shouldn't even be the game to begin with if Texas is utilizing its NIL to the fullest. 

 

 

[Steamboat Willie]

You’re not wrong on the mechanics, but the conclusion is off. Rev share is capped; NIL isn’t — Texas knows that. What’s changed isn’t confusion or “playing nice,” it’s risk tolerance and ROI. Texas got burned paying big money to unproven HS kids, then paying again to retain them when they didn’t play. The portal exposed that model as inefficient. They’re choosing predictability over vibes: spend on proven production, don’t overpay RB5/WR8 just to keep depth, and let desperate programs bid stupid money for backups. Parity isn’t coming because Texas is shrinking — it’s coming because everyone is now rich enough to make bad decisions. The edge going forward isn’t raw spend, it’s evaluation, development, and knowing when not to pay.

[817 Boxing B]

Will we see Texas sign one of these mega deals that other universities are jumping on soon? This seems to be an Infinity stone schools are running to for more 💸.  LSU just did one with Nike, I heard... 

[Tommy]

1 hour ago, Steamboat Willie said:

You’re not wrong on the mechanics, but the conclusion is off. Rev share is capped; NIL isn’t — Texas knows that. What’s changed isn’t confusion or “playing nice,” it’s risk tolerance and ROI. Texas got burned paying big money to unproven HS kids, then paying again to retain them when they didn’t play. The portal exposed that model as inefficient. They’re choosing predictability over vibes: spend on proven production, don’t overpay RB5/WR8 just to keep depth, and let desperate programs bid stupid money for backups. Parity isn’t coming because Texas is shrinking — it’s coming because everyone is now rich enough to make bad decisions. The edge going forward isn’t raw spend, it’s evaluation, development, and knowing when not to pay.

This reads like an AI trying to make sense of the facts. But the conclusions here are wrong. You need to pay HS "dead money" to recruit, retain, and develop- so that they can become the Colin Simmons and Arch Mannings that the portal will never see. Gerry has said this. We just let one of those cats go in Bo Barnes. Depth is absolutely necessary to pay for and keep in any CFB season. 

Texas is following a cap that many other schools are straight up ignoring. So they risked everything by letting go of half the offense and defensive depth in order to pay for the biggest portal prospects, which have all used Texas for home raises, 0-6 for hits so far. So like Gerry said, Texas is now left holding the bag.

[Steamboat Willie]

17 minutes ago, Tommy said:

This reads like an AI trying to make sense of the facts. But the conclusions here are wrong. You need to pay HS "dead money" to recruit, retain, and develop- so that they can become the Colin Simmons and Arch Mannings that the portal will never see. Gerry has said this. We just let one of those cats go in Bo Barnes. Depth is absolutely necessary to pay for and keep in any CFB season. 

Texas is following a cap that many other schools are straight up ignoring. So they risked everything by letting go of half the offense and defensive depth in order to pay for the biggest portal prospects, which have all used Texas for home raises, 0-6 for hits so far. So like Gerry said, Texas is now left holding the bag.

You’re mixing two different truths and treating them like they cancel each other out — they don’t.

Yes, you have to pay HS “dead money.” That’s the ante to sit at the table. No argument there. You don’t get Colin Simmons or Arch without taking swings (and some misses) on high-end prep talent. Development still matters, and depth still matters.

Where the conclusion goes sideways is assuming Texas abandoned that model wholesale or that losing a Barnes-type equals strategic failure. What Texas backed away from isn’t HS recruiting — it’s double-paying: overpaying unproven kids and then matching portal-level money to keep them when they aren’t cracking the rotation. That’s not development; that’s sunk-cost panic.

[Tommy]

20 minutes ago, Steamboat Willie said:

You’re mixing two different truths and treating them like they cancel each other out — they don’t.

Yes, you have to pay HS “dead money.” That’s the ante to sit at the table. No argument there. You don’t get Colin Simmons or Arch without taking swings (and some misses) on high-end prep talent. Development still matters, and depth still matters.

Where the conclusion goes sideways is assuming Texas abandoned that model wholesale or that losing a Barnes-type equals strategic failure. What Texas backed away from isn’t HS recruiting — it’s double-paying: overpaying unproven kids and then matching portal-level money to keep them when they aren’t cracking the rotation. That’s not development; that’s sunk-cost panic.

I mean this is definitely AI, the em-dashes, the matter-of-fact language, the "sideways" conclusions. Barnes is a top percentile athlete and speedster that was set to crack the rotation barring a Muschamp reversal, But no point in conversing with AI. 

[Steamboat Willie]

10 minutes ago, Tommy said:

I mean this is definitely AI, the em-dashes, the matter-of-fact language, the "sideways" conclusions. Barnes is a top percentile athlete and speedster that was set to crack the rotation barring a Muschamp reversal, But no point in conversing with AI. 

Edited 22 hours ago by Steamboat Willie