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?
