The analysis explores how college football players would have financially benefited from Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) deals had they been available since 2000. Writers ranked players like Johnny Manziel, Reggie Bush, and Tim Tebow based on their hypothetical NIL earnings, reflecting on the lucrative potential of their marketability. Manziel leads with an estimated $35 million, followed by notable players such as Bush and Tebow, showcasing how the rise of NIL could have dramatically changed athletes’ financial landscapes. This retrospective illustrates the growing tensions between athlete compensation and traditional NCAA policies.

By the Numbers

• Johnny Manziel: $35 million
• Reggie Bush: $25 million
• Tim Tebow: $22 million
• Cam Newton: $20 million
• Vince Young: $15 million

Yes, But

There are contrasting views on whether NIL benefits would have truly leveled the playing field or just enhanced disparities among programs with existing resources. Some argue that while top-tier schools benefit more from these arrangements, lower-tier programs might struggle to compete for top talent.

State of Play

• NIL policies are now a game-changer in college athletics, allowing players to monetize their brand.
• The debate surrounding compensation in college sports continues to evolve as more athletes seek financial opportunities.

What’s Next

Future developments may involve more stringent regulations around NIL deals to address concerns regarding equity among athletes. Additionally, the impact of NIL on recruiting strategies and team dynamics is likely to reshape how colleges approach athletic programs.

Bottom Line

The exploration into past athletes’ potential NIL earnings underscores significant shifts in college athletics, highlighting how financial opportunities could redefine the landscape, empower athletes, and create lasting impacts on the NCAA’s structure.

So, the South Dakota Coyotes will now get to pay athletes directly starting July 1, thanks to USD athletic director Jon Schemmel’s June 17 decision to “opt in” to the NCAA-House Settlement, allowing revenue sharing to athletes for the first time.

How does it all work? How much money will there be to share with athletes this year? Which athletes get the money? How much do they get? What does this mean for the major boosters and those who want to contribute more mildly, either to the athletic department or the athletes directly?

Schemmel has the answers in a 73-minute conversation with Happy Hour host John Gaskins. He also addresses the well-publicized shot he took at Sacramento State’s president on social media last week, which leads to a conversation about USD’s desire to stay in the FCS versus the appeal, if any, of trying to move to the FBS like Sac State is attempting (and failing.)

Another major USD issue — attendance. Why does it lag so far behind rival SDSU in football and basketball, and what will it take from Schemmel and others at USD to narrow the gap?

Here is more detail about what you’ll find:

PART 1 – HOW WILL REVENUE SHARING WITH ATHLETES WORK?

Now that the school will be able to share revenue, how will NIL now work for USD athletes who want to make that? What does this mean for USD’s third-party NIL “collective” that was the source to (mostly) keep top athletes or lure in transfers?

How much will it help USD competitively — in recruiting and on the field? Will this stop or limit the transfer portal absurdity the Coyote football team fell victim to in the spring?

And, really, why wouldn’t a school like USD not “opt-in” to sharing revenue with athletes now that they know they won’t to have to make any roster cuts to current athletes? Why was this such a quicker (easier) decision for USD to make than it may be for SDSU and NDSU?

PART 2 – FCS vs FBS, FOOTBALL & BASKETBALL ATTENDANCE, JOHANSEN’S FIRST SIX MONTHS

It was the X (Twitter) shot heard ’round the FCS world last week.

Schemmel fired back at Sacramento State president Kevin Wood, who had publicly called FCS football — where the Hornets reside — “JV” football. When the FBS oversight committee recommended the NCAA to deny SCSU’s entry into the FBS (“varsity”) Schemmel posted something that became hot fodder for FCS enthusiasts:

“All of us JV programs are excited to compete against a varsity program!”

(Since then, the NCAA Div. I council officially denied SCSU’s attempt to enter the FBS on the basis it needed a conference affiliation, which it hasn’t found.)

Schemmel, who has led USD athletics for about 18 months, had no idea the kind of wildfire one public social media sentence would trigger. But he never took down the post and stood his ground in talking about the post in this interview.

This led to a discussion about USD’s desires, or lack thereof, to move from FCS — where the Yotes finished a national semifinalist in 2024 — up to FBS to have a (likely very long) shot of playing in the College Football Playoff and receiving the mother load of money that’d come with it.

Schemmel does not shy away from acknowledging where USD stands in FCS achievement, attendance, interest, and financial strength compared to the Coyotes’ two biggest rivals, and perennial powerhouses, SDSU and NDSU.

Why is there such a gap, and how does USD narrow it, particularly in drawing more fans (and revenue) to the major sports of football and basketball (men’s and women’s)?

Finally, Schemmel gives his assessment of first-year head football coach Travis Johansen’s navigation through spring practice and a transfer portal that plucked away several top players for far more NIL money at FBS schools— also an update on the retired Bob Nielson, who Johansen replaced.