Will the new stadium at least help recruiting?

[DocCat2]

I know people have mixed feelings about getting a new stadium.

Right now our program just doesn't seem to have any talent. I assume we will continue to suffer serious talent deficit the next few seasons and have losing records. Will a new stadium draw better players?

 

[CoralSpringsCat]

I know people have mixed feelings about getting a new stadium.

Right now our program just doesn't seem to have any talent. I assume we will continue to suffer serious talent deficit the next few seasons and have losing records. Will a new stadium draw better players?

Yes.

 

[zeek55]

Obviously yes, but the reality is also that next year we (and the rest of the Power programs) are going to start being able to pay players directly and that + NIL will likely be the biggest contributors to obtaining talent.

Next year, schools will start disbursing $20+ million in NIL directly to athletes.

That's where the top talent recruiting battles will be won/lost.

 

[FanatiCat]

Obviously yes, but the reality is also that next year we (and the rest of the Power programs) are going to start being able to pay players directly and that + NIL will likely be the biggest contributors to obtaining talent.

Next year, schools will start disbursing $20+ million in NIL directly to athletes.

That's where the top talent recruiting battles will be won/lost.

I’m not quite understanding, where does that $ come from? Is there just a rule now that says schools can do this directly? I don’t know how that’s going to go for NU - I’m skeptical that it will mean magically millions of dollars for FB players. We get Lot of conference revenue sharing $ but (I assume) it’s already 100% being used for other things, so what’s going to give?

 

[zeek55]

I’m not quite understanding, where does that $ come from? Is there just a rule now that says schools can do this directly? I don’t know how that’s going to go for NU - I’m skeptical that it will mean magically millions of dollars for FB players. We get Lot of conference revenue sharing $ but (I assume) it’s already 100% being used for other things, so what’s going to give?

The current rule is that schools can't pay players. The House settlement mandates that programs be allowed to over up to $20+ million per year from revenue to athletes by 2025-26 FB season.

It's going to be paid by the AD out of revenue, and the fortunate thing for Big Ten programs is that the way the TV contract and 12 team playoff payouts are designed, we're going to see a distribution bump over the next 2 seasons that's something close to $20+ million per year from conference distributions.

So for Big Ten teams, this will actually be relatively seamless. We won't have to dig around for extra money:

We're going to go from getting a Big Ten distribution around $60-65 million per year in 2023 to somewhere around $80-85 million per year by 2026. So it's more about managing how we pay the players that extra revenue coming into the program than finding the revenue. The TV deal + CFP payout increase to the Big Ten will cover the players for the most part.

SEC teams are in a somewhat similar situation as well with their new TV deal kicking in this year and the higher per team payout that we and them get from the 12 team playoff boosting their conference distributions.

For everyone else, they'll probably have to try to portion off some of their budget and might have to make cuts somewhere else. For Big Ten/SEC programs, it will be much easier to absorb.

 

[techtim72]

The current rule is that schools can't pay players. The House settlement mandates that programs be allowed to over up to $20+ million per year from revenue to athletes by 2025-26 FB season.

It's going to be paid by the AD out of revenue, and the fortunate thing for Big Ten programs is that the way the TV contract and 12 team playoff payouts are designed, we're going to see a distribution bump over the next 2 seasons that's something close to $20+ million per year from conference distributions.

So for Big Ten teams, this will actually be relatively seamless. We won't have to dig around for extra money:

We're going to go from getting a Big Ten distribution around $60-65 million per year in 2023 to somewhere around $80-85 million per year by 2026. So it's more about managing how we pay the players that extra revenue coming into the program than finding the revenue. The TV deal + CFP payout increase to the Big Ten will cover the players for the most part.

SEC teams are in a somewhat similar situation as well with their new TV deal kicking in this year and the higher per team payout that we and them get from the 12 team playoff boosting their conference distributions.

For everyone else, they'll probably have to try to portion off some of their budget and might have to make cuts somewhere else. For Big Ten/SEC programs, it will be much easier to absorb.

I don't know what the $20 mil funding is being called but it is separate from NIL. It is also to be used for all sports as the school prefers and likely as dictated by Title IX and equity concerns. Since, for example, Ohio State football players are reportedly being paid $20 mil in NIL, any funds available from the new $20 mil fund will be in addition.

This $20 mil is intended to address various legal concerns but it isn't an end all to the money wars. You have to feel for the University of Kansas' of the world that want to compete with the Big Ten and SEC teams for talent but don't have $20 mil coming in from a TV contract.

 

[zeek55]

I don't know what the $20 mil funding is being called but it is separate from NIL. It is also to be used for all sports as the school prefers and likely as dictated by Title IX and equity concerns. Since, for example, Ohio State football players are reported being paid $20 mil in NIL, any funds available from the new $20 mil fund will be in addition.

This $20 mil is intended to address various legal concerns but it isn't an end all to the money wars. You have to feel for the University of Kansas' of the world that want to compete with the Big Ten and SEC teams for talent but don't have $20 mil coming in from a TV contract.

Correct, it's just going to be a lot harder for everybody else because the Big Ten/SEC already have revenue bumps (from new TV deals + CFP increased payouts - Big Ten/SEC are taking near 60% of the CFP revenue for just themselves which is jumping a lot from 4 team to 12 team) coming along that roughly match what they'll pay out directly while everyone else will have to make actual cuts elsewhere to find the revenue.

 

[gocatsgo2003]

I know people have mixed feelings about getting a new stadium.

Right now our program just doesn't seem to have any talent. I assume we will continue to suffer serious talent deficit the next few seasons and have losing records. Will a new stadium draw better players?

Yes.

 

[Jaguar 88]

Yes.

When players ask what helped bring them into a certain program, facilities are at the bottom of the list. The new stadium might help out a bit, but not much. We are talking about 17 year old boys. Getting laid at recruiting functions actually scored higher when ESPN did an article about it, asking young NFL players what factors helped them decide where to go. They quoted some guys from the B1G. The responses were to be anticipated since they were teens at the time.

 

[hdhntr1]

I don't know what the $20 mil funding is being called but it is separate from NIL. It is also to be used for all sports as the school prefers and likely as dictated by Title IX and equity concerns. Since, for example, Ohio State football players are reportedly being paid $20 mil in NIL, any funds available from the new $20 mil fund will be in addition.

This $20 mil is intended to address various legal concerns but it isn't an end all to the money wars. You have to feel for the University of Kansas' of the world that want to compete with the Big Ten and SEC teams for talent but don't have $20 mil coming in from a TV contract.

The dOSU MICH Oregons of the world will still be able to pay more. But at least we should have something to offer

 

[phatcat]

. Will a new stadium draw better players?

Sure, just like the practice facility /s.

NU is living in the recent past, when a facility arms race made a difference. What we need is a fully funded NIL and a way to get transfers through normal admissions, e

 

[zeek55]

The dOSU MICH Oregons of the world will still be able to pay more. But at least we should have something to offer

It's mainly about being able to outbid the Stanford's and Duke's and other schools that we compete with directly for talent.

I think given we'll have Big Ten payouts, we should be able to outpay a lot of those types of schools esp those in the ACC or Big 12 that might struggle more to put together the $20+ million in AD directed player payments.

A lot easier for us given we're getting roughly $20 million extra from the conference distribution in 2026 compared to 2023 (just divert that extra money towards players and treat the rest of the budget the same). For ACC/Big 12 schools, they might be seeing something closer to a $6 million to $7 million increase in 2026 compared to 2023, so they'll have to come up with most of the rest of the money by taking from the rest of the budget.

And for Stanford who basically is giving back a big chunk of their media payment to the ACC for the first bunch of years that they're in the ACC, they're likely to see way tighter budgets.

It's not going to be easy given we're in a far more difficult league with a ton of big spenders than the ACC or Big 12 schools, but our advantage is getting $80+ million per year directly from the conference compared to those ACC/Big 12 schools getting closer to 50% of that level of distribution, we have to take advantage of that huge financial differential as it enables us to pay full payments to players much more easily.

And of course, the new stadium will generate far more revenue than old Ryan Field was generating..., so that should be another consideration.

 

[Purple Pile Driver]

It's mainly about being able to outbid the Stanford's and Duke's and other schools that we compete with directly for talent.

I think given we'll have Big Ten payouts, we should be able to outpay a lot of those types of schools esp those in the ACC or Big 12 that might struggle more to put together the $20+ million in AD directed player payments.

A lot easier for us given we're getting roughly $20 million extra from the conference distribution in 2026 compared to 2023 (just divert that extra money towards players and treat the rest of the budget the same). For ACC/Big 12 schools, they might be seeing something closer to a $6 million to $7 million increase in 2026 compared to 2023, so they'll have to come up with most of the rest of the money by taking from the rest of the budget.

And for Stanford who basically is giving back a big chunk of their media payment to the ACC for the first bunch of years that they're in the ACC, they're likely to see way tighter budgets.

It's not going to be easy given we're in a far more difficult league with a ton of big spenders than the ACC or Big 12 schools, but our advantage is getting $80+ million per year directly from the conference compared to those ACC/Big 12 schools getting closer to 50% of that level of distribution, we have to take advantage of that huge financial differential as it enables us to pay full payments to players much more easily.

And of course, the new stadium will generate far more revenue than old Ryan Field was generating..., so that should be another consideration.

Exactly what I have been harping on for months. We have no excuses to get worse. There is enough money to “buy” a competitive team. We aren’t sitting at the table in the high stakes games for players like Bryce Underwood. Never have been. Stay in your lane. This is an institutional decision to make adjustments to get better or punt the program back to the dark ages. If we don’t see some fairly quick changes under the Jackson regime we are in big trouble.

 

[julescat]

It's mainly about being able to outbid the Stanford's and Duke's and other schools that we compete with directly for talent.

I think given we'll have Big Ten payouts, we should be able to outpay a lot of those types of schools esp those in the ACC or Big 12 that might struggle more to put together the $20+ million in AD directed player payments.

A lot easier for us given we're getting roughly $20 million extra from the conference distribution in 2026 compared to 2023 (just divert that extra money towards players and treat the rest of the budget the same). For ACC/Big 12 schools, they might be seeing something closer to a $6 million to $7 million increase in 2026 compared to 2023, so they'll have to come up with most of the rest of the money by taking from the rest of the budget.

And for Stanford who basically is giving back a big chunk of their media payment to the ACC for the first bunch of years that they're in the ACC, they're likely to see way tighter budgets.

It's not going to be easy given we're in a far more difficult league with a ton of big spenders than the ACC or Big 12 schools, but our advantage is getting $80+ million per year directly from the conference compared to those ACC/Big 12 schools getting closer to 50% of that level of distribution, we have to take advantage of that huge financial differential as it enables us to pay full payments to players much more easily.

And of course, the new stadium will generate far more revenue than old Ryan Field was generating..., so that should be another consideration.

That expected increase in revenue from new stadium will not be going to NU...

 

[zeek55]

Exactly what I have been harping on for months. We have no excuses to get worse. There is enough money to “buy” a competitive team. We aren’t sitting at the table in the high stakes games for players like Bryce Underwood. Never have been. Stay in your lane. This is an institutional decision to make adjustments to get better or punt the program back to the dark ages. If we don’t see some fairly quick changes under the Jackson regime we are in big trouble.

Absolutely; there's no excuses when we have a seat at the Big Ten table and will be getting $80 million per year (on its way to $100 million per year by 2030).

And as you point out, we don't need to try to compete for 5 stars asking for $2-3 million per year. None of the recruits we're going for have ever been in that tier. We don't need to bid at that tier.

Staying in our lane means aiming for the highest academic recruits that are around 4 star or high 3 star quality. The types of recruits that Stanford has regularly been winning since Harbaugh got there. That's really the type of recruit that we should be dominating for in the upcoming era being in the Big Ten and likely able to outbid similar programs to ours.

We can't afford to enter the new stadium and then have a bunch of 3-9/4-8 years. We need to at least be getting to bowl games regularly and finding ways to beat the bottom half teams in the Big Ten.

Jackson should understand all of that. I also think Pat Ryan Jr. and our other donors will come to understand that if they don't already. It's why I'm reasonably hopeful about our ability to compete in the future now that the stadium project is finally nearing the finish line and we won't have any more major financial commitments after that beyond just NIL and paying players directly from the AD budget.

 

[AdamOnFirst]

Minimally. It'll be cool but I question if the visit experience will still compete with other stadiums packed out with home fans, and at any rate money talks these days. Guys may like the idea of playing there, but I doubt many will value it $30,000 per year compared to just playing in Kinnick or East Lansing.

IMO this forum is drastically under-discussing the upcoming revenue sharing payments. How NU decides to handle that is going to be highly determinative of our program's success. If they decide to take a more Title IX conservative or pompous academic/amateurism approach to those payments, we're going to have no chance to compete with the rest of the conference. If they invest as normal, we'll be able to get plenty of kids. The revenue sharing pool is several times larger than the NIL situation outside blue bloods, so it levels tha playing field for us quite a bit against our traditional competitors.

That consideration blows stuff like this out of the water.

 

[zeek55]

Minimally. It'll be cool but I question if the visit experience will still compete with other stadiums packed out with home fans, and at any rate money talks these days. Guys may like the idea of playing there, but I doubt many will value it $30,000 per year compared to just playing in Kinnick or East Lansing.

IMO this forum is drastically under-discussing the upcoming revenue sharing payments. How NU decides to handle that is going to be highly determinative of our program's success. If they decide to take a more Title IX conservative or pompous academic/amateurism approach to those payments, we're going to have no chance to compete with the rest of the conference. If they invest as normal, we'll be able to get plenty of kids. The revenue sharing pool is several times larger than the NIL situation outside blue bloods, so it levels tha playing field for us quite a bit against our traditional competitors.

That consideration blows stuff like this out of the water.

I think most schools will try to treat it similar to the settlement parameters:

80-85% football, 10-15% men's basketball, 2-3% women's basketball, rest to other sports if anything is left over.

I just don't see how you divide it any other way given that's the %s that represent how the money is generated so that should be how the money is spread around.

I know there's Title IX considerations, but the House settlement focuses on economic considerations over those and I have to assume schools will as well.

There's just a reality here that football is generating 80-85% of our school's AD revenues, and paying those players an 80-85% share of distributed revenue makes sense as a result.

Any school that does otherwise will probably hurt themselves because the schools that pay like that will get the best football/basketball recruits/transfers.

For a school like ours, maybe we give a small portion to lacrosse and field hockey since those are national championship sports (or maybe just give full scholarships to every player in those sports to try to stockpile talent).

 

[gocatsgo2003]

When players ask what helped bring them into a certain program, facilities are at the bottom of the list. The new stadium might help out a bit, but not much. We are talking about 17 year old boys. Getting laid at recruiting functions actually scored higher when ESPN did an article about it, asking young NFL players what factors helped them decide where to go. They quoted some guys from the B1G. The responses were to be anticipated since they were teens at the time.

It’s an arms race. Nobody notices if you are in the game, everybody notices if you aren’t. Great facilities are no longer as meaningful as they were pre-NIL, but they’re still basically “table stakes” if you want to be a competitive P5 program.