No wonder we lost to Indiana and Iowa
- Thread starter GBRforLife1
- Start date
Well, guessing Indiana is receiving help in some measure from Mark Cuban to explain why they are so high on the list.
This has been posted before in another thread and I’m not buying into the source of any of this.
Don’t know the validity of this list, but if accurate and your team isn’t on the list your program’s claims of NIL superiority are complete bull shit. I’m growing tired of UNL claiming their NIL commitments/collective are among the best nationally despite all the hard tangible numbers saying otherwise. We claim we’re leading the way with regards to NIL, but we’re never amongst the top 10-20 in money spent.
Once again if you believe this lost then ypu believe Indiana has more resources than Oregon for NIL. They don't. There is no way to quantify NIL spending. They arent public information. Nebraska has the resources and money to get superior players to Indiana.
We lost to IU because they were a buzz saw and our coaches and players weren't ready for it.
We lost to Iowa because we crumble under pressure, not because we can't get or don't have superior talent, we do.
30k a year for college education (Scholarship) would be 105 man roster would be 3,150,000. We had 170ish on the team. Doesn't seem too outlandish to me
its very believable. Indiana is serious about improving their status as a football team.
Curt Cignetti not only one getting a raise. Assistant salary pool now among highest in FBS.
IU football's $11 million assistant coaches salary pool would rank among highest in FBS. For example, Ohio State assistants make $11.43 million.
www.indystar.com
I don't know how it's counting the $ but I'd bet things like the 1891 fund aren't included. Could be wrong though.
I don’t know how they’re counting the beans either. I just know I’ve seen at a half dozen publications on who is spending the most on NIL, and we’re never on the list. At some point it doesn’t matter how they’re getting their numbers if they all agree you’re not in the top 25. If 10 different tax attorneys say you’re broke and you owe the IRS $200,000 in back taxes… I think it’s safe to say you’re broke and you owe the gov’t $200,000.
This list is just the collectives, it doesn’t include the big sugar daddy private donors. Oregon doesn’t need a collective l, they simply have Phil Knights checkbook. Same goes for Michigan and other schools that have the billionaire donors just cutting checks that aren’t included in their actual collectives. For the schools that have those guys, this list means nothing. For the schools without the big billionaire donors that actually depend on their collective, yes this actually means something
Chat GPT
As of December 2024, the landscape of college football has been significantly influenced by Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) agreements, with several programs leading in NIL funding. These funds are primarily channeled through NIL collectives, which are donor-driven organizations supporting athletes. Below is an overview of the top college football programs based on their NIL collective funding:
Note: These figures are estimates based on available data and may vary.
The substantial NIL funding at these institutions has played a pivotal role in attracting and retaining top talent, thereby enhancing their competitiveness in college football. For instance, Texas has utilized its NIL resources to bolster its roster, contributing to its strong performance in recent seasons. Similarly, Ohio State's significant investment in NIL has been instrumental in maintaining its status as a powerhouse in college football.
It's important to note that while NIL funding is a critical factor, other elements such as coaching expertise, facilities, and historical performance also contribute to a program's success. The integration of NIL agreements into college athletics has introduced new dynamics, influencing recruitment strategies and team development.
For more detailed information on NIL collective funding and its impact on college football, resources like NIL-NCAA.com provide comprehensive insights.
As of December 2024, the landscape of college football has been significantly influenced by Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) agreements, with several programs leading in NIL funding. These funds are primarily channeled through NIL collectives, which are donor-driven organizations supporting athletes. Below is an overview of the top college football programs based on their NIL collective funding:
| Rank | School | Conference | Estimated NIL Collective Funding (2024) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Texas | SEC | $22.3 million |
| 2 | Ohio State | Big Ten | $20.3 million |
| 3 | Georgia | SEC | $18.3 million |
| 4 | Clemson | ACC | $15.3 million |
| 5 | Tennessee | SEC | $11.6 million |
| 6 | Arizona State | Pac-12 | $10.6 million |
| 7 | Oregon | Pac-12 | $10.6 million |
| 8 | Penn State | Big Ten | $13.8 million |
| 9 | Indiana | Big Ten | $13.6 million |
| 10 | Kentucky | SEC | $11 million |
The substantial NIL funding at these institutions has played a pivotal role in attracting and retaining top talent, thereby enhancing their competitiveness in college football. For instance, Texas has utilized its NIL resources to bolster its roster, contributing to its strong performance in recent seasons. Similarly, Ohio State's significant investment in NIL has been instrumental in maintaining its status as a powerhouse in college football.
It's important to note that while NIL funding is a critical factor, other elements such as coaching expertise, facilities, and historical performance also contribute to a program's success. The integration of NIL agreements into college athletics has introduced new dynamics, influencing recruitment strategies and team development.
For more detailed information on NIL collective funding and its impact on college football, resources like NIL-NCAA.com provide comprehensive insights.
Estimated NCAA Revenue Sharing 2025-26: Big Ten Schools
| NCAA Revenue Sharing estimates 2025-26 * | Annual Revenue | 22% of Revenue | Est Revenue Sharing 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Average per School | $ 116,190,176 | $ 25,561,839 | $ 19,967,336 |
| Illinois | 94,445,170 | 20,777,937 | 20,500,000 |
| Indiana | 102,392,473 | 22,526,344 | 20,500,000 |
| Iowa | 118,237,834 | 26,012,323 | 20,500,000 |
| Maryland | 82,283,284 | 18,102,322 | 18,102,322 |
| Michigan | 166,204,848 | 36,565,067 | 20,500,000 |
| Michigan State | 117,004,694 | 25,741,033 | 20,500,000 |
| Minnesota | 102,829,428 | 22,622,474 | 20,500,000 |
| Nebraska | 142,131,011 | 31,268,822 | 20,500,000 |
| Northwestern ** | ** | ** | ** |
| Ohio State | 187,930,323 | 41,344,671 | 20,500,000 |
| Oregon | 112,696,955 | 24,793,330 | 20,500,000 |
| Penn State | 141,979,389 | 31,235,466 | 20,500,000 |
| Purdue | 98,227,839 | 21,610,125 | 20,500,000 |
| Rutgers | 76,561,314 | 16,843,489 | 16,843,489 |
| Southern Cal ** | ** | ** | ** |
| UCLA | 81,961,661 | 18,031,565 | 18,031,565 |
| Washington | 102,064,858 | 22,454,269 | 20,500,000 |
| Wisconsin | 132,091,734 | 29,060,181 | 20,500,000 |
| Est Revenue Sharing 2025 | Revenue Sharing % | Revenue $ Share | Eligible Athletes | Average $ per Athlete |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Big Ten Average | 100.0% | 19,967,336 | 458 | |
| Football | 78.3% | 15,630,434 | 105 | 148,861 |
| Mens Basketball | 15.0% | 3,006,642 | 14 | 208,795 |
| All Other Sports | 6.7% | 1,330,260 | 471 | 2,825 |
These are averages per athlete. In actuality, a few players per team will receive substantially higher than the average, while many will get much less. For players who see little if any playing time, their revenue share will also likely be little or none.
** Data is currently available only for public colleges & universities, detailed data is not currently available for private colleges & universities. See our Methodology page for a summary of our data sources and procedures.
Computed revenue includes event tickets and admission fees, TV, media and royalty rights, bowl game and event compensation and all related revenues. Revenue does not include funds from school support, student fees or unrecompensed (i.e. charitable) contributions to the athletic department from alumni and boosters.
Estimated NIL Collective Funding 2024-25: Big Ten Schools
| Big Ten Conference 2023-24 | ||
|---|---|---|
| Member Schools - 2023 | 14 | |
| Member Schools - 2024 | 18 | |
| Average Collective Funding per School 2023-24 * | $ 10,687,228 | |
| Average Collective Funding per School 2024-25 * | $ 9,725,407 |
Big Ten Conference Schools 2023-24:
| School | 2023 Conf | 2024 Conf | Collective Funding * | Total Support | Ticket Sales | Contributions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Illinois | Big Ten | Big Ten | $ 9,311,667 | 56,656,994 | 15,693,517 | 40,963,477 |
| Indiana | Big Ten | Big Ten | $ 13,631,160 | 82,939,020 | 21,278,997 | 61,660,023 |
| Iowa | Big Ten | Big Ten | $ 9,698,730 | 59,012,087 | 26,416,829 | 32,595,258 |
| Maryland | Big Ten | Big Ten | $ 3,735,112 | 22,726,352 | 12,735,792 | 9,990,560 |
| Michigan | Big Ten | Big Ten | $ 16,357,054 | 99,524,766 | 55,266,135 | 44,258,631 |
| Michigan State | Big Ten | Big Ten | $ 13,035,471 | 79,314,544 | 25,178,673 | 54,135,871 |
| Minnesota | Big Ten | Big Ten | $ 7,171,424 | 43,634,648 | 19,252,536 | 24,382,112 |
| Nebraska | Big Ten | Big Ten | $ 7,973,918 | 48,517,435 | 38,946,701 | 9,570,734 |
| Northwestern | Big Ten | Big Ten | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Ohio State | Big Ten | Big Ten | $ 20,253,400 | 123,232,149 | 59,649,921 | 63,582,228 |
| Oregon ** | Pac-12 | Big Ten | $ 10,623,807 | 64,640,729 | 24,357,945 | 40,282,784 |
| Penn State | Big Ten | Big Ten | $ 13,793,489 | 83,926,716 | 44,678,657 | 39,248,059 |
| Purdue | Big Ten | Big Ten | $ 5,510,579 | 33,529,207 | 16,617,614 | 16,911,593 |
| Rutgers | Big Ten | Big Ten | $ 3,624,816 | 22,055,252 | 13,049,333 | 9,005,919 |
| Southern Cal ** | Pac-12 | Big Ten | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| UCLA ** | Pac-12 | Big Ten | $ 5,919,423 | 36,016,831 | 17,494,361 | 18,522,470 |
| Washington ** | Pac-12 | Big Ten | $ 9,406,794 | 57,235,798 | 29,198,790 | 28,037,008 |
| Wisconsin | Big Ten | Big Ten | $ 8,982,406 | 54,653,602 | 38,117,093 | 16,536,509 |
