College sports face a financial reckoning. Are non-revenue generating programs doomed in the wake of the House settlement?

Drake Toll and a panel of Big 12 experts tackle the controversial future of collegiate athletics. The discussion spans the viability of Olympic sports, donor influence on program decisions, and the cultural impact of diverse athletic offerings. Jake Hatch provides insights on BYU's potential scholarship adjustments, while Cody Silvall argues for the growing popularity of wrestling and softball. The group debates the long-term consequences of cutting sports programs on university admissions and campus culture.

Tune in for a thought-provoking analysis of the challenges and opportunities facing college athletics in this new era.

The House v. NCAA settlement creates a new system for direct university payments to athletes, but it does not solve the existing legal complexities for international student-athletes, meaning they cannot generally get paid through this revenue-sharing model without jeopardizing their visa status.

Here's why:

F-1 Visa Restrictions on Employment:

• Most international student-athletes in the U.S. are here on F-1 student visas. These visas are issued specifically for academic purposes and come with strict limitations on employment.
• Generally, F-1 visa holders are not allowed to engage in off-campus employment unless it's directly related to their degree and/or career development (e.g., Curricular Practical Training - CPT, or Optional Practical Training - OPT), and often requires specific authorization and time limits.
• The Problem: Direct payments from a university, even if framed as "NIL revenue sharing," are highly likely to be interpreted by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) as "active income" or a form of employment. This directly violates the terms of an F-1 visa.

Risk of Visa Violation and Deportation:

• If an international student-athlete accepts direct payments from their university under the House settlement, they risk violating their visa status.
• Consequences of such a violation can be severe, including the termination of their F-1 visa, forced departure from the U.S. within a short period, or even potential deportation and bans on future re-entry.

Lack of Federal Guidance:

• Despite the significant changes brought by NIL and now the House settlement, there has been no clear, explicit guidance from federal immigration authorities (USCIS or Department of Homeland Security) on how these new forms of athlete compensation apply to F-1 visa holders.
• Without such guidance, universities are in a difficult position. Many immigration attorneys and university international student offices strongly advise international student-athletes not to accept direct payments from their schools due to the immense risk to their immigration status.

Limited Workarounds (Pre-Settlement, Still Applicable):

• Prior to the House settlement, for NIL deals, the limited "workarounds" for international student-athletes involved:
  • Passive Income: Receiving compensation that doesn't involve "work" performed in the U.S. (e.g., a one-time royalty for a group licensing deal on apparel).
  • Services Performed Abroad: Structuring NIL deals so that any "work" (e.g., social media posts, appearances) is performed while the athlete is outside the U.S. (e.g., during summer break in their home country) and payments are made to an international bank account.
• These workarounds were already complex and limited. The direct university payments, however, are explicitly tied to their participation for the university within the U.S., making these workarounds largely inapplicable.

In essence, while the House settlement allows U.S. student-athletes to receive direct payments from their universities, international student-athletes are caught in a legal limbo due to federal immigration laws. Unless there is a specific legislative fix from Congress, or clear interpretive guidance from USCIS that carves out an exception for this type of compensation, international players cannot directly benefit from the revenue-sharing model without putting their visa status, and thus their ability to remain in the U.S. and compete, at extreme risk.

This creates a significant disparity and a competitive challenge, particularly for sports with a high percentage of international athletes (e.g., track and field, tennis, swimming, soccer, basketball).

Gametime
Today's episode is brought to you by Gametime. Download the Gametime app, create an account, and use code LOCKEDONCOLLEGEfor $20 off your first purchase. Terms and conditions apply. 

Monarch Money
Take control of your finances with Monarch Money. Use code LOCKEDONCOLLEGE at monarchmoney.com for 50% off your first year.

FanDuel
Right now, new customers can get TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS in BONUS BETS when your first FIVE DOLLAR BET WINS! Download the app or head to FANDUEL.COM to get started. Bet with FanDuel—Official Partner of the NBA.

FANDUEL DISCLAIMER: 21+ in select states. First online real money wager only. Bonus issued as nonwithdrawable free bets that expires in 14 days. Restrictions apply. See terms at sportsbook.fanduel.com. Gambling Problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER or visit FanDuel.com/RG (CO, IA, MD, MI, NJ, PA, IL, VA, WV), 1-800-NEXT-STEP or text NEXTSTEP to 53342 (AZ), 1-888-789-7777 or visit ccpg.org/chat (CT), 1-800-9-WITH-IT (IN), 1-800-522-4700 (WY, KS) or visit ksgamblinghelp.com (KS), 1-877-770-STOP (LA), 1-877-8-HOPENY or text HOPENY (467369) (NY), TN REDLINE 1-800-889-9789 (TN)

talking about Texas Tech and Baylor potentially facing off in the Big 12 football championship in 2025! That's a much more plausible and interesting scenario given their current standing and trajectories within the revamped Big 12.

Here's a breakdown of why both teams have a legitimate shot and what their paths might look like:

Texas Tech Red Raiders: The Rising Contender

Texas Tech enters the 2025 season with a significant amount of buzz and high expectations, possibly higher than they've had in nearly two decades.

• Aggressive Roster Building: Head Coach Joey McGuire has been incredibly active and successful in the transfer portal. Texas Tech has reportedly brought in a top-ranked transfer class for 2025, adding significant talent, including players projected to be NFL Draft picks. This influx of talent is directly tied to their significant NIL efforts (as previously discussed, the $55M projected spend).
• Returning Quarterback: The return of their starting quarterback (likely Behren Morton, though the searches mention Jake Retzlaff for BYU, so assuming Morton for Tech based on other reports) is a huge factor for continuity and leadership. A stable, experienced QB is crucial for navigating a tough conference schedule.
• Coaching Staff Stability: Joey McGuire has established a clear culture and identity in Lubbock. While there have been coordinator changes, the overall vision and buy-in from the program seem strong. McGuire has publicly embraced the "championship or bust" mentality.
• Favorable Schedule (Relatively): Some analyses (like 247Sports) have noted that Texas Tech's 2025 schedule is relatively favorable within the Big 12, with a combined win percentage of opponents that's on the lower side. This could provide a clearer path to racking up wins.
• Preseason Projections: Several early 2025 power rankings and FPI projections are already putting Texas Tech near the top of the Big 12. For example, some have them as high as #1 or #2 contenders in the conference.

Baylor Bears: The Resurgent Dark Horse

The Big 12 is expected to be incredibly competitive and balanced in 2025, especially with the additions of former Pac-12 schools (Utah, Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado).

• Kansas State is often picked as the favorite due to consistency and returning QB Avery Johnson.
• Arizona State is another strong contender, having won the Big 12 in 2024 (according to one source, implying a quick rise to power).
• BYU, TCU, and Iowa State are also expected to be in the mix.

Conclusion:

A Texas Tech vs. Baylor Big 12 Championship game in 2025 is a very plausible and exciting scenario.

• Texas Tech has the roster talent, NIL investment, and coaching continuity to break through and compete for their first Big 12 title. Their aggressive approach suggests they are truly aiming for the top.
• Baylor, riding the momentum of their strong finish in 2024 and with key offensive pieces returning, is poised to be a legitimate dark horse or even a front-runner.

Both teams have the coaching, talent, and renewed optimism to make a deep run in the expanded and highly competitive Big 12. While they'll face stiff competition from other strong programs, a championship showdown between the Red Raiders and Bears in Arlington is certainly within the realm of possibility.

Gametime
Today's episode is brought to you by Gametime. Download the Gametime app, create an account, and use code LOCKEDONCOLLEGEfor $20 off your first purchase. Terms and conditions apply. 

Monarch Money
Take control of your finances with Monarch Money. Use code LOCKEDONCOLLEGE at monarchmoney.com for 50% off your first year.

FanDuel
Right now, new customers can get TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS in BONUS BETS when your first FIVE DOLLAR BET WINS! Download the app or head to FANDUEL.COM to get started. Bet with FanDuel—Official Partner of the NBA.

FANDUEL DISCLAIMER: 21+ in select states. First online real money wager only. Bonus issued as nonwithdrawable free bets that expires in 14 days. Restrictions apply. See terms at sportsbook.fanduel.com. Gambling Problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER or visit FanDuel.com/RG (CO, IA, MD, MI, NJ, PA, IL, VA, WV), 1-800-NEXT-STEP or text NEXTSTEP to 53342 (AZ), 1-888-789-7777 or visit ccpg.org/chat (CT), 1-800-9-WITH-IT (IN), 1-800-522-4700 (WY, KS) or visit ksgamblinghelp.com (KS), 1-877-770-STOP (LA), 1-877-8-HOPENY or text HOPENY (467369) (NY), TN REDLINE 1-800-889-9789 (TN)

The House v. NCAA settlement, with its mandate for direct university payments to athletes, is indeed creating an unprecedented financial crunch for many Power Four (P4) athletic departments, leading to widespread concerns that some will be forced to cut non-revenue sports. This is not just speculation; signals are already emerging from various institutions.

Here's why P4 schools may have to start cutting non-revenue sports:

1. The Massive New Expense: $20.5 Million Annually (and Growing)

• A Sudden Budget Line Item: Starting July 1, 2025, P4 schools can (and effectively must, to remain competitive) pay their athletes up to an estimated $20.5 million annually in direct compensation. This cap is also set to increase by at least 4% each year for a decade. This isn't "new money" being generated; it's a new, substantial expense that must be absorbed into existing athletic department budgets.
• Competing for Talent: The pressure to spend near this cap will be immense. If a school doesn't, it risks being at a significant disadvantage in recruiting and retaining top talent in revenue-generating sports like football and basketball, which are the primary drivers of conference media rights revenue.

2. Uneven Distribution of Funds:

• Football and Basketball Get the Lion's Share: While the $20.5 million cap applies to the entire athletic department, the widespread expectation (and the distribution formula for the $2.8 billion in back pay) is that the vast majority of this money will go to football (estimated 70-75%) and men's basketball (around 15%). This leaves a tiny sliver of the pie for women's basketball (around 5%) and all other Olympic and non-revenue sports (the remaining 5%).
• The "Cost of Doing Business" for Football: For schools looking to remain competitive in the football arms race, allocating $15-20 million or more just to football players for direct compensation, on top of coaching salaries, facilities, and other expenses, forces difficult choices.

3. Budgetary Strain and Deficits:

• Existing Financial Challenges: Even before the House settlement, many athletic departments, even in the Power Four, operate with thin margins or even deficits, often relying on university subsidies. The added $20.5 million expense exacerbates this significantly.
• Michigan's Example: The University of Michigan, a financially powerful athletic department, has already publicly announced plans for $10 million in budget cuts and a 10% staff reduction to help address a projected $27 million deficit for the 2025-26 academic year. This deficit is directly attributed to the $20.5 million for revenue sharing and an additional $6.2 million in new scholarships. If a powerhouse like Michigan is making cuts, it signals the severity of the situation for other P4 schools.

4. Roster Limits and Scholarship Implications:

• New Roster Caps: The settlement also introduces new roster limits for many sports (e.g., football is capped at 105 players). While schools can "grandfather in" current athletes for a period, the long-term effect is a reduction in roster sizes.
• Unlimited Scholarships: While scholarships can now be offered to every athlete on a roster (within the new limits), this flexibility comes at a cost. If a non-revenue sport historically relied on a large number of walk-ons (who might now be eligible for scholarships but add to the cost), or if scholarship dollars are diverted to pay revenue-sport athletes, it puts pressure on overall departmental budgets.

5. The Title IX Tightrope:

• Equitable Financial Assistance: Title IX mandates that financial assistance (which includes these new direct payments) must be provided equitably based on the participation rates of male and female athletes.
• The Dilemma: If a school allocates, say, 85-90% of its $20.5 million direct pay pool to male athletes in football and men's basketball, while male athletes constitute, for example, 60% of the overall athlete population, this creates a clear Title IX imbalance.
• Cutting Women's Sports as a "Solution": To try and balance the Title IX scales without diverting significant funds from football, some fear schools might be tempted to cut women's sports programs, or reduce their scope, to lower female participation numbers and thus reduce the required financial allocation. This would be a highly controversial and legally risky move, but the financial pressures are immense.

Conclusion:

The House settlement is a game-changer that professionalizes athlete compensation. However, the staggering new financial outlay for direct athlete payments, coupled with existing budget constraints and the disproportionate allocation of funds to revenue sports, puts immense pressure on non-revenue sports. While athletic directors like SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey express hope that sports won't be cut, the financial realities are forcing tough decisions. It is a very real and growing concern that many P4 schools will respond to this pressure by reducing funding, scaling back opportunities, or even eliminating some non-revenue sports to afford their new revenue-sharing obligations and remain competitive in the high-stakes world of college football and basketball.

Gametime
Today's episode is brought to you by Gametime. Download the Gametime app, create an account, and use code LOCKEDONCOLLEGEfor $20 off your first purchase. Terms and conditions apply. 

Monarch Money
Take control of your finances with Monarch Money. Use code LOCKEDONCOLLEGE at monarchmoney.com for 50% off your first year.

FanDuel
Right now, new customers can get TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS in BONUS BETS when your first FIVE DOLLAR BET WINS! Download the app or head to FANDUEL.COM to get started. Bet with FanDuel—Official Partner of the NBA.

FANDUEL DISCLAIMER: 21+ in select states. First online real money wager only. Bonus issued as nonwithdrawable free bets that expires in 14 days. Restrictions apply. See terms at sportsbook.fanduel.com. Gambling Problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER or visit FanDuel.com/RG (CO, IA, MD, MI, NJ, PA, IL, VA, WV), 1-800-NEXT-STEP or text NEXTSTEP to 53342 (AZ), 1-888-789-7777 or visit ccpg.org/chat (CT), 1-800-9-WITH-IT (IN), 1-800-522-4700 (WY, KS) or visit ksgamblinghelp.com (KS), 1-877-770-STOP (LA), 1-877-8-HOPENY or text HOPENY (467369) (NY), TN REDLINE 1-800-889-9789 (TN)

The House v. NCAA settlement fundamentally alters the landscape of college sports, and a key aspect of this change is how it reshapes the role of donors in compensating athletes. While it doesn't completely eliminate donor involvement, it dramatically shifts the direct payment mechanism, meaning donors generally cannot give directly to athletes in the same way they did through NIL collectives previously.

Here's a breakdown of why this is the case:

1. Direct University Payments Become Primary Compensation:

• Schools Pay Athletes: The core of the House settlement is that, starting July 1, 2025, universities themselves can directly pay athletes for their Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) rights, up to a set annual cap (initially around $20.5 million per school). This money comes from the university's athletic department revenue, primarily from media rights, ticket sales, and sponsorships.
• Donors' Role Shifts to the Athletic Department: Instead of donating to an external collective that then pays athletes, donors are now encouraged to direct their contributions to the university's general athletic fund, or specific "athletic impact funds" or "competitive excellence funds" established by the school. This money then becomes part of the school's overall athletic budget, from which the direct athlete payments are drawn. The University of Cincinnati, for instance, has explicitly stated their "Athletics Impact Fund" will play a key role in helping them fund this new model, and they are encouraging fans to contribute directly to it.

2. Increased Scrutiny on Third-Party Deals (Targeting "Pay-for-Play"):

• NIL Go Clearinghouse: The settlement introduces a centralized reporting and vetting system called "NIL Go," managed by Deloitte. Any NIL deals between athletes and third parties (including collectives and individual donors) valued at $600 or more must be reported through this clearinghouse.
• "Valid Business Purpose" and "Fair Market Value" Enforcement: The key here is the new scrutiny. These third-party deals will be evaluated to ensure they have a "valid business purpose" and that the compensation reflects "fair market value" for the actual NIL activity (e.g., endorsement, appearance, social media post).
• Targeting "Associated Entities/Individuals": The NCAA is permitted to prohibit NIL payments from "associated entities or individuals" (which includes donors contributing $50,000 or more, or affiliated collectives) if the payment lacks a valid business purpose or is not at fair market value. This is a direct attempt to curb what was perceived as "pay-for-play" where large sums from boosters were given simply to induce a player to commit or stay, rather than for a legitimate NIL activity. Reports indicate that over 70% of existing deals with booster collectives would have been denied under these new rules.

3. The End of the "Wild West" for Booster-Driven Payments:

• No More Unregulated Direct Payments: The era where a booster could write a large check directly to an athlete, largely without oversight, is over. The intent of the settlement is to bring these payments under the umbrella of institutional control and compliance.
• Collectives Must Adapt: NIL collectives, which previously functioned as direct payment conduits, will need to fundamentally redefine their purpose. They can still exist to facilitate legitimate NIL opportunities between athletes and businesses, provide educational resources, or support other athlete welfare initiatives. However, their role as the primary source of guaranteed, large sums for current athletes is significantly diminished. Many schools expect collectives to transition into roles that support "true NIL" deals for market rates.

In essence, post-House settlement:

• Donors are encouraged to give to the university directly to support the athletic department's new athlete compensation pool.
• Direct payments from individual donors or collectives to athletes for their NIL are still possible, but they are now heavily regulated, scrutinized for fair market value, and subject to enforcement. The intent is to crack down on payments that are seen as disguised recruiting inducements rather than legitimate NIL transactions.

This shift aims to bring more structure and compliance to athlete compensation, moving it from a largely unregulated, booster-driven system to one where the universities themselves are the primary direct payers, accountable for how funds are distributed.

Gametime
Today's episode is brought to you by Gametime. Download the Gametime app, create an account, and use code LOCKEDONCOLLEGEfor $20 off your first purchase. Terms and conditions apply. 

Monarch Money
Take control of your finances with Monarch Money. Use code LOCKEDONCOLLEGE at monarchmoney.com for 50% off your first year.

FanDuel
Right now, new customers can get TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS in BONUS BETS when your first FIVE DOLLAR BET WINS! Download the app or head to FANDUEL.COM to get started. Bet with FanDuel—Official Partner of the NBA.

FANDUEL DISCLAIMER: 21+ in select states. First online real money wager only. Bonus issued as nonwithdrawable free bets that expires in 14 days. Restrictions apply. See terms at sportsbook.fanduel.com. Gambling Problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER or visit FanDuel.com/RG (CO, IA, MD, MI, NJ, PA, IL, VA, WV), 1-800-NEXT-STEP or text NEXTSTEP to 53342 (AZ), 1-888-789-7777 or visit ccpg.org/chat (CT), 1-800-9-WITH-IT (IN), 1-800-522-4700 (WY, KS) or visit ksgamblinghelp.com (KS), 1-877-770-STOP (LA), 1-877-8-HOPENY or text HOPENY (467369) (NY), TN REDLINE 1-800-889-9789 (TN)

Big 12 football shakeup: Conference merger talks heat up as Brett Yormark takes on the SEC. Is a new Power 3 on the horizon?

Drake and the squad break down the potential Big 12-ACC merger, analyzing its impact on college football's landscape. The conversation shifts to Commissioner Yormark's bold stance against SEC dominance and the ongoing Jake Retzlaff situation at BYU. Jake Hatch from Locked on BYU Cougars provides insider perspective on the Cougars' quarterback options, including McKay Hillstead and Bear Bachmeier.

Tune in for expert analysis on conference realignment, power dynamics, and BYU's critical next 30 days as the Big 12 media day approaches.

The specter of future media rights negotiations looms large over the college athletics landscape, and it's a particularly precarious situation for the revitalized, but still fragile, Pac-12. With major conference TV deals set to expire around 2030 and 2031, the current "stability" of conference alignment could be severely tested, and the Pac-12, having just pieced itself back together, could indeed crumble again as its members are poached. Here's why: The Looming Media Rights Cliff: Big Ten: Their massive deals with FOX, CBS, and NBC expire after the 2029-2030 academic year. Big 12: Their current extensions with ESPN and FOX run through the 2030-2031 academic year. SEC: Their exclusive deal with ESPN extends further, through 2033-2034. ACC: While the ACC's grant of rights and ESPN deal currently run through 2036, lawsuits from Florida State and Clemson are actively challenging its enforceability, seeking to invalidate the GoR or enable exit by the early 2030s. This means that around 2030-2031, a significant portion of the most valuable college football inventory will hit the market simultaneously. The Pac-12's Vulnerability: The "new" Pac-12, set to formally begin in 2026, will comprise Oregon State, Washington State, and a collection of former Mountain West schools (Boise State, Colorado State, Fresno State, San Diego State, Utah State, potentially more). While they are actively negotiating a new media rights deal for 2026 and beyond, it's virtually guaranteed to be significantly less lucrative per school than the deals held by the Big Ten, SEC, Big 12, and even the ACC (despite its current issues). This creates an irresistible incentive for Pac-12 schools, even those that have just joined, to jump ship if offered a slice of a much larger financial pie. A jump from, say, $10-15 million (estimated new Pac-12 deal) to $50-70+ million (potential Big 12/Big Ten deal) is too significant to ignore. Weakened Grant of Rights: While the new Pac-12 will undoubtedly have a grant of rights to bind its members, the history of conference realignment shows that such agreements, while legally binding, can be overcome by: Mass Exodus: If enough schools decide to leave simultaneously, the remaining conference can collapse, making exit fees and GoRs less relevant in practice. Legal Challenges/Settlements: As seen with the ACC, schools are willing to pursue costly legal battles to escape unfavorable GoRs if the financial disparity is too great. The Pac-12's GoR will be tested. The "Third Superconference" Arms Race: Both the Big 12 and the ACC (should it survive its internal challenges) will be looking to strengthen their positions against the SEC and Big Ten. Big 12's Opportunity: Commissioner Brett Yormark has consistently stated the Big 12 is "open for business." When the 2030-2031 media rights window opens, the Big 12 will be in a prime position to look West again. Programs like Boise State or San Diego State, if they have built up their brand in the "new Pac-12," could become attractive targets to further solidify the Big 12's footprint and market share. ACC's Role (if stable): If the ACC manages to weather its current GoR challenges and keep its core intact, it too might eye strategic expansion. No Clear "Power" Identity for New Pac-12: While the Pac-12 is bringing in some strong Group of Five programs, it fundamentally lacks the historical "Power Conference" brand recognition and top-tier recruiting grounds of its former self. This makes it inherently less stable than conferences with established flagship universities. The Outlook: The Pac-12's immediate future (2026 onwards) relies on establishing a stable media deal and solidifying its new membership. However, the period between 2030 and 2031 presents a critical juncture. Unless the new Pac-12 can somehow negotiate a media deal that closes a significant portion of the revenue gap with the Big 12 and ACC, or unless the market for college football rights cools dramatically, it's highly probable that its members will once again become desirable targets for expansion by the more financially robust conferences. This would trigger another round of realignment, potentially leading to the Pac-12 crumbling for a second time, leaving Oregon State and Washington State in an even more isolated position. The lessons from the initial realignment are clear: money talks, and a conference's long-term stability is inextricably linked to its media rights valuation. Follow & Subscribe on all Podcast platforms… 🎧 https://link.chtbl.com/LOBig12?sid=YouTube Locked On College Conferences, HBCU, Basketball & More 🎧 https://linktr.ee/LockedOnCollege Follow on Twitter: https://twitter.com/drakectoll Follow the show on Twitter: https://twitter.com/LOBig12

The landmark House v. NCAA antitrust settlement, which has received final approval, is indeed poised to fundamentally reshape the NIL landscape. This transformation could create a scenario where schools that relied less on massive, external NIL collectives (like Utah) find themselves in a more level, or even advantageous, position compared to those that leveraged large collectives (like BYU is perceived to have).

Here's why this shift is likely:

The Core Change: Direct University Payments (and the $20.5M Cap)

The most significant aspect of the House settlement is that, starting July 1, 2025, universities themselves can directly pay athletes for their Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) rights, up to an initial annual cap of approximately $20.5 million per school. This money will come directly from the school's general athletic revenue, primarily media rights, ticket sales, and sponsorships.

How this "Hurts" Schools with Large, External NIL Collectives (Like BYU):

Diminished Role of Collectives: The initial NIL era (post-July 2021) saw a "Wild West" where external collectives, funded by boosters and donors, became the primary vehicles for compensating athletes, often blurring the lines into "pay-for-play" for recruiting and retention. These collectives operated largely outside university control.

• The "Hurt": With schools now directly paying athletes from their own revenue streams, the immediate need for external collectives to provide large sums to current athletes is expected to decrease significantly. Donors who previously contributed to collectives may now be encouraged to donate directly to the athletic department to fund the university's portion of the $20.5 million cap.
• BYU's Situation: BYU has reportedly had a robust and effective collective ecosystem, with significant donor support. While precise figures are hard to verify, BYU's collective efforts have been seen as quite aggressive and successful in attracting talent, especially in football and men's basketball. The "hurt" for BYU isn't a lack of funds, but rather a shift in the mechanism of payment. A large, well-funded collective operating independently now faces the reality that the university is taking over much of the direct compensation role. The challenge for BYU's collective will be to redefine its purpose – perhaps focusing on actual NIL deals with local businesses, post-eligibility benefits, or specific charitable initiatives, rather than simply being a direct player compensation fund.

Fair Market Value (FMV) Scrutiny: The settlement mandates that any third-party NIL deals (those still done outside the university's direct payment system) exceeding $600 must go through a clearinghouse (managed by Deloitte) and be reviewed for "fair market value."

• The "Hurt": This new scrutiny directly targets the "pay-for-play" deals that collectives often facilitated. If a collective was giving a player, for example, $500,000 for a social media post that would typically be worth $50,000, that deal could now be flagged and potentially disallowed. Schools with collectives that heavily relied on such inflated or non-transparent deals may find their previous strategies untenable.

Pressure to Fund the Cap from University Budgets: Even if a school had a thriving collective, it now faces a new, mandatory $20.5 million annual expense that must be funded from university revenue. This is a significant budget line item that wasn't there before. For schools that relied heavily on external collective funding to stay competitive, they now need to ensure their internal athletic department budget can handle this new, direct cost.

How this "Benefits" Schools with Smaller, External NIL Collectives (Like Utah):

Leveling the Playing Field (Financially):

• Utah's Situation: While Utah certainly has NIL collectives (e.g., Crimson Collective, Who Rocks the House Collective), it's generally perceived to have operated at a smaller or more targeted scale than some of the top-tier collectives nationally, or compared to the perceived aggressive efforts of BYU's system in certain instances.
• The "Benefit": The $20.5 million cap effectively puts a ceiling on what any university can directly pay its athletes. For schools like Utah, who might not have had a collective raising $20+ million annually, the settlement provides a new, consistent, and guaranteed revenue stream from the conference that they can now allocate directly to athletes. This allows them to immediately compete at the same maximum direct payment level as schools with historically larger collective budgets.
• Utah's AD Mark Harlan has already stated, "We are all-in on investing up to the maximum allowable in revenue share, which is approximately $20.5 million for 2025-26, though we are finalizing our plans for how the revenue will be shared." This demonstrates their immediate commitment to leveraging the new system, potentially closing any perceived gap in NIL spending that existed before.

Reduced Reliance on External Fundraising Pressures:

• For schools with smaller collectives, the constant pressure to fundraise massive sums from boosters for NIL might be alleviated somewhat. The primary responsibility for athlete compensation now falls squarely on the university's shoulders, relying on its existing (and growing, thanks to conference media deals like the Big 12's) revenue. This allows collectives to potentially refocus on more traditional NIL deals that align with FMV or community engagement.

Increased Predictability and Control:

• Smaller collectives often meant less consistent and predictable NIL opportunities. With the university now directly managing a large portion of athlete compensation, there's more stability and control over how funds are distributed, which can be attractive to recruits who seek clear, guaranteed compensation.

In essence, the House settlement is designed to bring order, transparency, and a degree of financial equalization by centralizing athlete compensation within the universities. This potentially helps schools like Utah that may not have had the largest independent collective operations, as they can now directly access significant funds to compensate athletes at the same level as any other Power Four school. For schools like BYU, with historically robust collectives, the challenge becomes adapting to this new landscape, potentially shifting donor priorities, and ensuring their overall compensation strategy aligns with the new rules and the university's internal budget.

Gametime
Today's episode is brought to you by Gametime. Download the Gametime app, create an account, and use code LOCKEDONCOLLEGEfor $20 off your first purchase. Terms and conditions apply. 

Monarch Money
Take control of your finances with Monarch Money. Use code LOCKEDONCOLLEGE at monarchmoney.com for 50% off your first year.

FanDuel
Right now, new customers can get TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS in BONUS BETS when your first FIVE DOLLAR BET WINS! Download the app or head to FANDUEL.COM to get started. Bet with FanDuel—Official Partner of the NBA.

FANDUEL DISCLAIMER: 21+ in select states. First online real money wager only. Bonus issued as nonwithdrawable free bets that expires in 14 days. Restrictions apply. See terms at sportsbook.fanduel.com. Gambling Problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER or visit FanDuel.com/RG (CO, IA, MD, MI, NJ, PA, IL, VA, WV), 1-800-NEXT-STEP or text NEXTSTEP to 53342 (AZ), 1-888-789-7777 or visit ccpg.org/chat (CT), 1-800-9-WITH-IT (IN), 1-800-522-4700 (WY, KS) or visit ksgamblinghelp.com (KS), 1-877-770-STOP (LA), 1-877-8-HOPENY or text HOPENY (467369) (NY), TN REDLINE 1-800-889-9789 (TN)

The recent House v. NCAA settlement, which paves the way for direct athlete compensation, is indeed raising significant concerns about its impact on Title IX. Many advocates for gender equity in sports believe that the settlement, in its current form, delivers a "brutal hit" to Title IX's core principles, primarily because of how the new financial model is likely to be implemented. Here's a breakdown of why this concern is so prevalent: 1. The Discrepancy in Revenue Allocation: The $20.5 Million Cap: The settlement allows schools to share up to an estimated $20.5 million annually with athletes (this cap will increase over time). However, there are few explicit guidelines within the settlement on how this money must be distributed across sports to comply with Title IX. Expected Skew Towards Revenue Sports: The widespread expectation, and indeed the stated intention of many athletic departments, is that the vast majority of this $20.5 million will be allocated to football (estimated 70-75% or around $15 million) and men's basketball (around 15% or $3 million). This leaves a significantly smaller percentage (perhaps 5% or $1 million for women's basketball and another 5% or $1 million for all other sports, including women's Olympic sports) to be distributed among female athletes. Historical Precedent: The back-pay portion of the settlement (approximately $2.8 billion) further illustrates this expected disparity, with 90% of those damages going to male athletes (75% to football, 15% to men's basketball) and only 5% to women's basketball and 5% to all other sports. This historical split, if replicated in future revenue sharing, directly contradicts the spirit, if not the letter, of Title IX. 2. Title IX's "Financial Assistance" Interpretation: Department of Education's Stance: The U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR), which enforces Title IX, has clarified that any payments from a school to an athlete for NIL are classified as "financial assistance." Under Title IX, financial assistance must be provided proportionally to male and female athletes based on their participation rates. 3. The "No New Money" Problem and Cuts to Other Sports: Reallocation of Existing Funds: Many athletic departments are emphasizing that this $20.5 million is not new money but must be covered through existing revenue streams (media rights, ticket sales, fundraising) or through cuts. Threat to Non-Revenue Sports (Including Women's Sports): Faced with a massive new mandatory expense, the fear is that institutions will look to cut or de-emphasize non-revenue generating sports, including many women's sports programs, to free up funds for the direct athlete payments in football and men's basketball. While the settlement included a compromise to grandfather in some roster limits, the financial pressure is immense. The Collegiate Coaching Associations have already voiced concerns about this potential "devastating consequence for non-revenue sports." 4. Increased Legal Vulnerability for Universities: Private Litigation: While the Biden administration had issued guidance emphasizing Title IX's application to NIL, a subsequent administration could withdraw it. However, Title IX can also be enforced through private litigation. This means that female athletes or advocacy groups could sue universities that fail to equitably distribute revenue-sharing funds. Unclear Guidance: The lack of clear, explicit federal guidance within the settlement itself on how Title IX applies to this new revenue-sharing model leaves schools in a precarious position. They must navigate how to balance competitive pressures (needing to pay top football/men's basketball players) with Title IX compliance, risking lawsuits if they get it wrong. In essence, the "brutal hit" to Title IX stems from the fact that while the settlement allows for athlete compensation, it doesn't adequately mandate equitable distribution, and the existing economic model of college sports strongly incentivizes disproportionate spending on male revenue-generating sports. This creates a massive new financial hurdle for schools to clear while trying to remain compliant with a federal law designed to ensure gender equity in educational programs, including athletics. Many believe that without further legislative or judicial intervention, the new era of college sports could inadvertently exacerbate existing gender disparities. Follow & Subscribe on all Podcast platforms… 🎧 https://link.chtbl.com/LOBig12?sid=YouTube Locked On College Conferences, HBCU, Basketball & More 🎧 https://linktr.ee/LockedOnCollege Follow on Twitter: https://twitter.com/drakectoll Follow the show on Twitter: https://twitter.com/LOBig12