June 18Jun 18 16 minutes ago, Etexhorn13 said: Corporate NIL isn’t capped That’s partly my point. But it would still have to pass the clearinghouse.
June 19Jun 19 46 minutes ago, Hornmatic said: That’s partly my point. But it would still have to pass the clearinghouse. I guess I’m failing to understand why anyone would opt out. They can get rev sharing as well as outside corporate NIL deals.
June 19Jun 19 3 minutes ago, Etexhorn13 said: I guess I’m failing to understand why anyone would opt out. They can get rev sharing as well as outside corporate NIL deals. Because the revenue sharing cap is less than where the big boy collectives have set the market.
June 19Jun 19 27 minutes ago, Etexhorn13 said: I guess I’m failing to understand why anyone would opt out. They can get rev sharing as well as outside corporate NIL deals. According to imamac they can’t so it’s a moot point. But my thought was if they opt out they wouldn’t go through the clearinghouse house and could continue to receive deals through boosters and collectives without the deloitte scrutiny. For rosters like Texas the $15 million in rev share and whatever we can drum up in corporate won’t be enough.
June 19Jun 19 So many of us old timers fear a return to the 1980’s, when SMU, OU and TAMU were setting the market, UH, TT and others were participating, the Texas coaches knew exactly what was needed and the word from the Tower to Bellmont was “thou shalt not”. I don’t think the UT administration will take the same attitude now. We have Eltife leading the regents, and we have a lot of supportive regents. I don’t think they will allow athletics to do anything to embarrass the university, but otherwise will be supportive of competing.
June 19Jun 19 On 6/10/2025 at 8:03 AM, Scholz said: "It's believed" "People are saying" "I've heard talk" "Experts Agree" "Four out of Five Doctors Recommend"
June 19Jun 19 44 minutes ago, Tex Long said: "Experts Agree" "Four out of Five Doctors Recommend" "It has been reported that" "Experiments show" "Major indicators suggest"
June 19Jun 19 13 hours ago, Hornmatic said: According to imamac they can’t so it’s a moot point. But my thought was if they opt out they wouldn’t go through the clearinghouse house and could continue to receive deals through boosters and collectives without the deloitte scrutiny. For rosters like Texas the $15 million in rev share and whatever we can drum up in corporate won’t be enough. Why would you think any NIL deals would be exempt from the clearinghouse?
June 19Jun 19 Just spitballing here... but, what about a nice art gallery where players athletes can display paintings, statues, photos and other various artistic works? Well, and members of the public can purchase said art... What does the pursuit of Art have to do with some "clearinghouse"?
June 19Jun 19 2 hours ago, statsman said: So many of us old timers fear a return to the 1980’s, when SMU, OU and TAMU were setting the market, UH, TT and others were participating, the Texas coaches knew exactly what was needed and the word from the Tower to Bellmont was “thou shalt not”. I don’t think the UT administration will take the same attitude now. We have Eltife leading the regents, and we have a lot of supportive regents. I don’t think they will allow athletics to do anything to embarrass the university, but otherwise will be supportive of competing. 1980s? How about roughly 2007 - 2022?
June 19Jun 19 1 hour ago, utee94 said: Why would you think any NIL deals would be exempt from the clearinghouse? I probably read something that was wrong or I misinterpreted it but it said players could opt out of the settlement and therefore wouldn’t be bound by its terms. In that case they couldn’t receive rev share and the clearinghouse wouldn’t apply. But as has been pointed out here that appears to be totally erroneous. Erroneous! 1 hour ago, Tex Long said: Just spitballing here... but, what about a nice art gallery where players athletes can display paintings, statues, photos and other various artistic works? Well, and members of the public can purchase said art... What does the pursuit of Art have to do with some "clearinghouse"? I like where your head is at. Are you pre-med?
June 19Jun 19 2 minutes ago, Hornmatic said: I probably read something that was wrong or I misinterpreted it but it said players could opt out of the settlement and therefore wouldn’t be bound by its terms. In that case they couldn’t receive rev share and the clearinghouse wouldn’t apply. But as has been pointed out here that appears to be totally erroneous. Erroneous! I like where your head is at. Are you pre-med? The settlement is only for past players, as part of it they also have to change the rules so things like this don't happen again. The new rules are not opt in or out, they are the new rules. Universities can opt out of the settlement, but they basically get banned from NCAA by doing so.
June 19Jun 19 6 minutes ago, Hornmatic said: I like where your head is at. Are you pre-med? Post-post-modern.
June 19Jun 19 Example Someone dies at the HOA pool. HOA gets sued and loses. Damages are 10M and only 4M in the fund, assessment to cover the rest for 6M to all residents. You are part of it, if you opt out (sell your house) you are out of the neighborhood and don't get to use the pool or anything else anymore. https://www.collegeathletecompensation.com/ Read this.
June 20Jun 20 Wisconsin files suit against Miami for poaching Xavier Lucas while he was under contract with school - Yahoo Sports
June 20Jun 20 If it makes it to discovery, there might be some popcorn-munching moments, but one struggles to see how UW really wins here. Waaah the bully convinced my girlfriend to dump me!
June 25Jun 25 https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/west-texas-boom-inside-texas-techs-bold-all-in-bet-on-nil-and-the-billionaire-landman-responsible/ West Texas boom: Inside Texas Tech's bold all-in bet on NIL and the billionaire landman responsible Edited June 25Jun 25 by Cairn Horn88
June 26Jun 26 https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/thats-not-normal-florida-states-rev-share-contracts-are-raising-eyebrows-agents-and-industry-experts-say/
June 26Jun 26 7 minutes ago, BornAndRaised said: https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/thats-not-normal-florida-states-rev-share-contracts-are-raising-eyebrows-agents-and-industry-experts-say/ lol. This will be sure to catapult them back to the top. As if playing for Mike Norvell didn’t have them beating away blue chips with a cane to begin with…save some pussy for the rest of us, FSU. such a classic insecure little man proviso that I’m shocked aTm didn’t do it first…except now that I type that I vaguely remember them trying to use similar language in early contracts and getting g laughed at by everyone.. Edited June 26Jun 26 by SydneyCarton
June 26Jun 26 4 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said: lol. This will be sure to catapult them back to the top. As if playing for Mike Norvell didn’t have them beating away blue chips with a cane to begin with…save some pussy for the rest of us, FSU. such a classic insecure little man proviso that I’m shocked aTm didn’t do it first…except now that I type that I vaguely remember them trying to use similar language in early contracts and getting g laughed at by everyone.. It does feel like they're operating in an alternate universe where professional sports contracts, unions, free agency, etc. hasn't existed for 50 years.
June 26Jun 26 No shit, what a way to sink your own ship. Someone at FSU is a huge Hotel California fan.
June 27Jun 27 Actually and surprisingly a good question by Stewart Edited June 27Jun 27 by BurntOrange&White
June 28Jun 28 17 hours ago, BurntOrange&White said: Actually and surprisingly a good question by Stewart Wow. That's amazingly stupid. So not only are they going to try and lock kids up indefinitely, they're also going to refuse to take care of them if they get hurt? Incredible. FSU seems absolutely bound and determine to repeatedly shoot themself in the dick. Edited June 28Jun 28 by campcrunk
July 1Jul 1 7 hours ago, irishtexan said: I'm sure UF and Miami won't use that to negatively recruit against FSU. Shit, if there is a 5* FSU recruit and Texas is interested, I'd bet heavy loot Surly Legal Mafia would show up pro bono to a meeting, FSU legal terms in hand offering to clarify specifics to said recruit. Pretty sure there are a few Surly Gator fans floating around that would probably do the same. Its idiotic on the part of FSU, truly. You're locked in and if you get hurt you're fucked, BUT we have a great car and insurance sales job sourcing team to secure your future. Tallahassee is great! Sign here! Edited July 1Jul 1 by BurntEyes
July 3Jul 3 OK trying to catch up on this. so now there is a cap on revenue from university to athletes there is a "clearinghouse" for NIL contracts I know this is better than the 80's but it seems we are back to where we were before, where under the table stuff is going to go crazy again. Ain't nobody got time for clearing houses and caps. how long before the lawsuits start to expose shenanigans "University of Texas v Ohio State University"?
July 3Jul 3 4 hours ago, dcar00 said: OK trying to catch up on this. so now there is a cap on revenue from university to athletes there is a "clearinghouse" for NIL contracts I know this is better than the 80's but it seems we are back to where we were before, where under the table stuff is going to go crazy again. Ain't nobody got time for clearing houses and caps. how long before the lawsuits start to expose shenanigans "University of Texas v Ohio State University"? Define "crazy" I said this earlier, Cam Newton reportedly got paid $180,000 as a senior to go play 1 year at Auburn. That's a drop in the bucket now. Will bagmen be able to pay 10x that now under the table? And I feel like most of the under the table stuff back then was on a player by player basis, not across an entire roster. I think there is a close to zero chance that any school that utilizes under the table bagmen will be able to compete with what Texas/Oregon/Ohio State will pay, legally, across an entire roster. Also, to your last question: Wisconsin vs Miami https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/45552578/wisconsin-sues-miami-tampering-football-transfer
July 3Jul 3 2 hours ago, TheBryMan81 said: Define "crazy" I said this earlier, Cam Newton reportedly got paid $180,000 as a senior to go play 1 year at Auburn. That's a drop in the bucket now. Will bagmen be able to pay 10x that now under the table? And I feel like most of the under the table stuff back then was on a player by player basis, not across an entire roster. I think there is a close to zero chance that any school that utilizes under the table bagmen will be able to compete with what Texas/Oregon/Ohio State will pay, legally, across an entire roster. Also, to your last question: Wisconsin vs Miami https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/45552578/wisconsin-sues-miami-tampering-football-transfer I suppose that makes sense. and to the Wisconsin Miami deal, very interesting. I more thinking suing because they believe they spent beyond the cap or didn't disclose it. also, suing due to believing that an NIL contract through the clearinghouse wasn't legal and holding up an NIL contract that would affect the school(and player). It will be interesting. I think taking this from non contractual stuff(except for the Letter of Intent) to legal binding contractual stuff with a university will be ripe for the litigious society we live in.
July 4Jul 4 10 hours ago, BurntOrange&White said: “Genuine nil” lmaooo yep. Bama, Georgia, Auburn, LSU, SMU, Oklahoma,Aggy love this. there are now rules that can be broken to gain an advantage and there is a "clearinghouse" that can be abused, manipulated just like the famous NCAA Clearinghouse on grades/eligibility back in the day that only affected schools playing by the rules. I'm glad players are getting paid but "welcome back my friends, to the show that never ends. come inside, come inside"
July 4Jul 4 13 hours ago, Danimal said: Cool cool so we're essentially back in the bag game world. I wonder what these "loopholes" are or if it's really all just hidden payments.
July 4Jul 4 Sorry if it's been discussed, but what does TOF going for-profit mean, if anything? Who does the profit go to?
July 4Jul 4 17 minutes ago, tokamak said: Sorry if it's been discussed, but what does TOF going for-profit mean, if anything? Who does the profit go to? It means there won’t be a tax write off
July 4Jul 4 8 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said: It means there won’t be a tax write off This is correct. TOF is not attempting to make a profit. Just no longer working as a 501(c)3 since House excluded that as a legitimate vehicle going forward.
July 5Jul 5 7 hours ago, tokamak said: Sorry if it's been discussed, but what does TOF going for-profit mean, if anything? Who does the profit go to? The profit goes to the players NIL deals
July 7Jul 7 On 7/4/2025 at 12:59 PM, closetojumping said: This is correct. TOF is not attempting to make a profit. Just no longer working as a 501(c)3 since House excluded that as a legitimate vehicle going forward. But how does it work going forward? As I understand the original model, players would be paid to essentially do marketing and/or make public appearances (sign autographs, etc.) for non-profits. So players would be paid for showing up and doing the work, charity benefitted via promotions from athletes, and Texas One Fund donations supported the player contracts for these services. So now that contracts are supposed to be "true" 3rd party/corporate NIL - what do the individual donations support? Is it effectively subsidizing a for profit NIL contract? Or are donations effectively paying salaries for marketing agent's who's job it is to go find NIL deals?
July 7Jul 7 Maybe a dumb question - how much does Texas have tied up retaining the current roster? How much "salary cap" do they have for this incoming class? Do we have any idea? I guess I'm wondering how all these programs are reconciling the new "cap" with what has already been committed to the current roster. I had assumed we were already well over $20m with just the current guys on the team.
July 7Jul 7 2 hours ago, irishtexan said: Maybe a dumb question - how much does Texas have tied up retaining the current roster? How much "salary cap" do they have for this incoming class? Do we have any idea? I guess I'm wondering how all these programs are reconciling the new "cap" with what has already been committed to the current roster. I had assumed we were already well over $20m with just the current guys on the team. I've been told that we are between the 1st and 2nd apron and we have some extra flexibility to do sign and trades. This all depends on our draft haul, of course. May need to move a couple players to the taxi squad to make it all work.
July 9Jul 9 https://www.teamworkonline.com/college-jobs/learfield-ticketing/learfield-sports-properties-jobs/director-nil-revenue-activation-university-of-texas-2127098?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
July 9Jul 9 59 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said: https://www.teamworkonline.com/college-jobs/learfield-ticketing/learfield-sports-properties-jobs/director-nil-revenue-activation-university-of-texas-2127098?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter I think I'm even more curious now between interplay between Texas One Fund and athletic dept and actual role of Texas One Fund and our donations going forward. I'm sure it's all being figured out in real time in some respect, but to the extent Texas One Fund still needs our money, I don't think they have done a very good job of communicating exactly what our funds will be used for post 7/1. Does anyone on this board that initially help set it all up understand how it's going to work going forward? I have a text chain on this exact topic with people wondering why they shouldn't cancel monthly donation in new world.
July 9Jul 9 1 hour ago, Skipper said: I think I'm even more curious now between interplay between Texas One Fund and athletic dept and actual role of Texas One Fund and our donations going forward. I'm sure it's all being figured out in real time in some respect, but to the extent Texas One Fund still needs our money, I don't think they have done a very good job of communicating exactly what our funds will be used for post 7/1. Does anyone on this board that initially help set it all up understand how it's going to work going forward? I have a text chain on this exact topic with people wondering why they shouldn't cancel monthly donation in new world. My understanding is the money given to TOF rolls into AD revenue and will be allocated to the $20.5M allotted for rev share. Happy to be corrected, but that's my understanding.
July 9Jul 9 I had ChatGPT whip up a summary of everything published about how the Fair Market Value test will be applied. Spot checked the sources and feel good about the accuracy, but take with a grain of salt. What we actually know so far about Deloitte’s fair-market-value (FMV) test Level What gets checked How it works Key references Trigger Any third-party NIL agreement worth $600+ and involving an “associated” payor (booster, collective or other donor-linked entity) Athletes must upload each qualifying contract to NIL Go no later than three business days after signing. Non-associated or sub-$600 deals skip the FMV screen. (nilrevolution.com, swimswam.com, cbssports.com) Step 1 – Payor Association Verification Is the company/individual primarily supporting the school? Have they donated ≥ $50 k? Do they employ a trustee, coach or collective officer? If “yes,” the payor is deemed associated and the deal moves to Step 2. (nilrevolution.com, burr.com) Step 2 – Valid Business-Purpose Verification Does the payor have a genuine commercial reason to use the athlete’s NIL (ads, appearances, content, etc.)? Schools must examine payor identity, invoices, deliverables and timing; blatant recruiting inducements are flagged. (burr.com) Step 3 – Range-of-Compensation Analysis Deloitte applies a 12-factor matrix (see next section) to see whether the payment falls inside a data-driven “reasonable range.” Past college and pro-athlete deals supply the comps; roster value and recruiting bounties are explicitly excluded. (nilrevolution.com, laborandemploymentlawcounsel.com, burr.com) Outcome labels Cleared · Information needed · In review Anything short of “cleared” lets the athlete ① renegotiate, ② cancel, ③ proceed at their own eligibility risk, or ④ appeal to a neutral arbitrator (target 45-day turnaround). (nilrevolution.com, essentiallysports.com) The 12 factors Deloitte says it weighs Athlete’s individual marketability & social-media reach Athletic performance and overall public profile Type, scope and frequency of deliverables (posts, appearances, etc.) Geographic market size and local demand Deal duration Any exclusivity terms Possibility of renewals or extensions Comparable market benchmarks for similar athletes and activations Degree of donor/booster involvement Timing relative to recruiting, transfer windows or eligibility decisions Quality and completeness of supporting documentation Red-flag indicators of inducement or sham purpose (laborandemploymentlawcounsel.com) A handful of practitioner memos bundle those into three broader buckets—athlete metrics, deal mechanics, and market context—but the raw dozen above comes straight from the settlement guidance Deloitte circulated in May. (elawfirm.org) What hasn’t been published Weightings & formulae. Deloitte calls its scoring model “proprietary” and has not disclosed how the 12 inputs are weighted or what percentile constitutes an “outlier.” Exact comparables database. We know it blends Opendorse, INFLCR and pro-athlete licensing data sets, but not the relative proportions. Arbitration precedent. No FMV decision has reached arbitration yet, so there is no public case law to show how often NIL Go can be overturned. Bottom line Everything public to date points to a three-step gateway focused mainly on associated (i.e., booster-funded) money rather than mainstream brand endorsements. The 12-factor grid is meant to mimic how talent-valuation firms price professional sponsorships, but until the first round of deals (post-July 1) cycles through NIL Go and the new arbitration track, the real-world thresholds remain an educated guess.
July 9Jul 9 12 minutes ago, Ricky's one-hitter said: My understanding is the money given to TOF rolls into AD revenue and will be allocated to the $20.5M allotted for rev share. Happy to be corrected, but that's my understanding. If that were to be the case then my next question would be what is the role of the Longhorn Foundation going forward.
July 9Jul 9 16 minutes ago, Ricky's one-hitter said: My understanding is the money given to TOF rolls into AD revenue and will be allocated to the $20.5M allotted for rev share. Happy to be corrected, but that's my understanding. I don’t think that’s right and if it is right then it’s wrong.
July 9Jul 9 1 hour ago, Ricky's one-hitter said: My understanding is the money given to TOF rolls into AD revenue and will be allocated to the $20.5M allotted for rev share. Happy to be corrected, but that's my understanding. The president of the one fund said they are remaining independent from the athletic deparment.
July 9Jul 9 I’m traveling but can try to help. If someone wants to post a concise list of questions, we can get them answered. Don’t be a fucking idiot and ask anyone to predict the future. If there’s a basic couple of things that need clarity, they can get answered and we can post them. Maybe @RGBIII can help out if he’s not as out of pocket as me for the next week.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.