Connect with us
https://yoursportsnation.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/call-to-1.png

NIL

Bret Bielema ignites fiery NIL showdown, challenges SEC's $40M agenda with bold Ole Miss jab

Bret Bielema’s Bold Stance on NIL and the SEC In the ever-evolving landscape of college athletics, where the Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) debate rages on, Illinois head coach Bret Bielema has emerged as a formidable voice. With a candid approach that cuts through the noise, Bielema challenges the status quo, particularly taking aim at […]

Published

on

Bret Bielema ignites fiery NIL showdown, challenges SEC's $40M agenda with bold Ole Miss jab

Bret Bielema’s Bold Stance on NIL and the SEC

In the ever-evolving landscape of college athletics, where the Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) debate rages on, Illinois head coach Bret Bielema has emerged as a formidable voice. With a candid approach that cuts through the noise, Bielema challenges the status quo, particularly taking aim at the SEC’s financial ambitions and Ole Miss’s role within this dynamic.

A New Voice in the NIL Arena

Bielema’s entry into the NIL conversation is not just another voice in the crowd; it is a clarion call for transparency and fairness. His assertion of a $40 million figure underscores the magnitude of financial considerations currently shaping college sports. By spotlighting this number, Bielema raises critical questions about equity and the distribution of resources across different conferences.

Confronting the SEC’s Financial Muscle

The SEC, known for its powerhouse programs and deep pockets, often sets the pace in collegiate athletics. Bielema’s remarks serve as a direct challenge to this dominance, questioning whether the financial muscle of the SEC aligns with the broader values of collegiate sports. His critique is not merely about dollars but about the principles that should guide the development of young athletes.

Ole Miss in the Crosshairs

By specifically mentioning Ole Miss, Bielema adds a layer of specificity to his critique. This isn’t just a broadside against a conference but a focused examination of how individual programs navigate the NIL landscape. His comments suggest a need for introspection within programs that might prioritize financial gain over the holistic development of their athletes.

The Broader Implications

Bielema’s bold stance invites a broader reflection on the future of college sports. As NIL continues to reshape the athletic landscape, his challenge to the SEC and Ole Miss prompts a necessary dialogue about the values that should underpin collegiate athletics. It is a call to ensure that the pursuit of excellence remains balanced with integrity and fairness.

A Thoughtful Conclusion

In an era where financial considerations increasingly influence collegiate sports, Bret Bielema’s candid critique serves as a reminder of the core values that should guide the industry. His challenge to the SEC’s $40 million agenda and Ole Miss’s role within it underscores the need for a balanced approach that prioritizes the welfare and development of student-athletes above all. As the NIL debate continues, Bielema’s voice adds depth and urgency to the ongoing conversation, urging stakeholders to reflect on the true essence of college athletics.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

NIL

Carolina Football Sells Out All Tickets Ahead Of 2025 Season

Filter by BaseballField HockeyFootballGeneralMen’s BasketballMen’s GolfMen’s LacrosseMen’s SoccerMen’s TennisSoftballWomen’s BasketballWomen’s GolfWomen’s GymnasticsWomen’s LacrosseWomen’s RowingWomen’s SoccerWomen’s TennisVolleyballWrestlingCross CountryTrack & FieldFencingSwimming & DivingLeadership AcademyAcademicsLee PaceExtra PointsStudent-Athlete DevelopmentAdam LucasTurner WalstonCarolina OutreachJV Men’s BasketballFeaturedCompliance Link 1

Published

on




Link

Continue Reading

NIL

NIL promises made to recruits, now coaches wait for key decision to learn whether they can keep them – WFTV

LAS VEGAS — (AP) — Next week, college football coaches can put the recruiting promises they have made to high school seniors on paper. Then the question becomes whether they can keep them. Uncertainty over a key element of the $2.8 billion NCAA antitrust settlement that is reshaping college sports has placed recruiters on a […]

Published

on


LAS VEGAS — (AP) — Next week, college football coaches can put the recruiting promises they have made to high school seniors on paper.

Then the question becomes whether they can keep them.

Uncertainty over a key element of the $2.8 billion NCAA antitrust settlement that is reshaping college sports has placed recruiters on a tightrope.

They need clarity about whether the third-party collectives that were closely affiliated with their schools and that ruled name, image, likeness payments over the first four years of the NIL era can be used to exceed the $20.5 million annual cap on what each school can now pay players directly. Or, whether those collectives will simply become a cog in the new system.

Only until that issue is resolved will many coaches know if the offers they’ve made, and that can become official on Aug. 1, will conform to the new rules governing college sports.

“You don’t want to put agreements on the table about things that we might have to claw back,” Ohio State coach Ryan Day explained at this week’s Big Ten media days. “Because that’s not a great look.”

No coach, of course, is going to fess up to making an offer he can’t back up.

“All we can do is be open and honest about what we do know, and be great communicators from that standpoint,” Oregon’s Dan Lanning said.

Aug. 1 is key because it marks the day football programs can start sending written offers for scholarships to high school prospects starting their senior year.

This process essentially replaces what used to be the signing of a national letter of intent. It symbolizes the changes taking hold in a new era in which players aren’t just signing for a scholarship, but for a paycheck, too.

Paying them is not a straightforward business. Among the gray areas comes from guidance issued earlier this month by the newly formed College Sports Commission in charge of enforcing rules involved with paying players, both through the $20.5 million revenue share with schools and through third-party collectives.

The CSC is in charge of clearing all third-party deals worth $600 or more.

It created uncertainty earlier this month when it announced, in essence, that the collectives did not have a “valid business purpose.” if their only reason to exist was ultimately to pay players. Lawyers for the players barked back and said that is what a collective was always met to be, and if it sells a product for a profit, it qualifies as legit.

The parties are working on a compromise, but if they don’t reach one they will take this in front of a judge to decide.

With Aug. 1 coming up fast, oaches are eager to lock in commitments they’ve spent months, sometimes years, locking down from high school recruits.

“Recruiting never shuts off, so we do need clarity as soon as we can,” Buckeyes athletic director Ross Bjork said. “The sooner we can have clarity, the better. I think the term ‘collective’ has obviously taken on a life of its own. But it’s really not what it’s called, it’s what they do.”

In anticipating the future, some schools have disbanded their collectives while others, such as Ohio State, have brought them in-house. It is all a bit of a gamble. If the agreement that comes out of these negotiations doesn’t restrict collectives, they could be viewed as an easy way to get around the salary cap. Either way, schools eyeing ways for players to earn money outside the cap amid reports that big programs have football rosters worth more than $30 million in terms of overall player payments.

“It’s a lot to catch up, and there’s a lot for coaches and administrators to deal with,” Big Ten Commissioner Tony Petitti said, noting the terms only went into play on July 1. “But I don’t think it’s unusual when you have something this different that there’s going to be some bumps in the road to get to the right place. I think everybody is committed to get there.”

Indiana coach Curt Cignetti, whose program tapped into the transfer portal and NIL to make the most remarkable turnaround in college football last season, acknowledged “the landscape is still changing, changing as we speak today.”

“You’ve got to be light on your feet and nimble,” he said. “At some point, hopefully down the road, this thing will settle down and we’ll have clear rules and regulations on how we operate.”

At stake at Oregon is what is widely regarded as a top-10 recruiting class for a team that finished first in the Big Ten and made the College Football Playoff last year along with three other teams from the league.

“It’s an interpretation that has to be figured out, and anytime there’s a new rule, it’s how does that rule adjust, how does it adapt, how does it change what we have to do here,” Lanning said. “But one thing we’ve been able to do here is — what we say we’ll do, we do.”

___

AP college sports: https://apnews.com/hub/college-sports





Link

Continue Reading

NIL

Georgia Bulldogs News

Georgia football finally had a good day on the recruiting trail on Wednesday after Rivals updated their recruiting rankings. On top of that, a former Bulldog fan favorite had a lot of positive things to say about his time at Georgia even after transferring away from the program. But the biggest story to drop on […]

Published

on

Georgia Bulldogs News

Georgia football finally had a good day on the recruiting trail on Wednesday after Rivals updated their recruiting rankings. On top of that, a former Bulldog fan favorite had a lot of positive things to say about his time at Georgia even after transferring away from the program.

But the biggest story to drop on Wednesday came in the form Georgia’s future quarterback having his future NIL deal leaked.

Jared Curtis is coming to Georgia on a cheap NIL deal

Most would assume that five-star QB Jared Curtis would be receiving a pretty hefty NIL deal to come to Georgia. While that is the case, it is nowhere near as large as some other top QBs are receiving.

According to On3, Curtis will make $750,000 during his first season at Georgia in 2026. Now compare that to the roughly $2.6 million Bryce Underwood, who was the No. 1 QB in the 2025 recruiting class, will make on average per year at Michigan and it’s easy to see how great of a deal this is for Georgia.

Curtis will likely make more money as his career at Georgia takes off, but either way the Bulldogs are getting Curtis in Athens on a very team friendly deal.

Georgia still sits atop SEC team recruiting rankings

Alabama and Texas have been the hottest teams in the SEC on the recruiting trail over the last couple weeks. Meanwhile Georgia has only been able to earn a couple commitments. Even though that is the case, UGA still has the No. 1 recruiting class in the SEC after an update to Rivals 2026 recruiting rankings.

The Bulldogs still trail USC for the No. 1 class in the country, but Georgia needs just one more commitment to surpass the Trojans.

Carson Beck finally speaks fondly of Georgia

The relationship between Georgia and Carson Beck has been iffy at best since Beck decided to transfer from Georgia to Miami. However, it appears that Beck has no negative feelings about his time at UGA based on the below statement he made at ACC Media Days this week.

”I wouldn’t be the person or player I am today without Georgia, and I’ll always be a Bulldog, I am very appreciative of my time there.”

Sure Georgia fans may still have some negative feelings towards Beck for the way he left the program, but if he is ready to move on then it is probably best for Georgia fans to as well. Beck did a lot of good things at Georgia, so he should be celebrated for those moments even though his time in Athens didn’t end how anyone expected.

Continue Reading

NIL

What we’re hearing about college basketball budgets in revenue-sharing era: ‘Money-dump year’

NORTH AUGUSTA, S.C. — Have we maybe, finally, reached the peak of college basketball spending? It depends who you ask … but it’s certainly possible. Why? Because this offseason, college sports’ old and new funding models — established name, image, and likeness (NIL) norms, plus the introduction of revenue-sharing — overlapped, giving programs a one-year […]

Published

on


NORTH AUGUSTA, S.C. — Have we maybe, finally, reached the peak of college basketball spending?

It depends who you ask … but it’s certainly possible. Why? Because this offseason, college sports’ old and new funding models — established name, image, and likeness (NIL) norms, plus the introduction of revenue-sharing — overlapped, giving programs a one-year window to blow the bank.

“This year is the money-dump year because of everything that’s happening,” said one assistant coach at a mid-major-plus school. “We will never see these numbers again. Now, what does that mean moving forward? We don’t know.”

That uncertainty was a near-consensus sentiment among the 35 coaches The Athletic polled at Peach Jam last weekend. Much of that stems from the unknown ramifications of the long-anticipated House vs. NCAA settlement, which took effect July 1 and allows schools — for the first time — to pay athletes directly through revenue sharing, with a $20.5 million cap per school for all sports combined.

Athletes are still allowed to reach third-party NIL deals that don’t count against the cap, but those agreements could come under more scrutiny in a post-House world, with a new clearinghouse — NIL Go — set to review them. Will NIL Go approve the sorts of million-dollar deals that have become the industry standard over the last four seasons? This early into the revenue-sharing era, coaches don’t know.

But if one thing is clear, it’s that budgets for this season are eye-popping. To understand just how swollen budgets have become this offseason, we asked all 35 coaches: On average, what would you estimate teams in your conference spent on their rosters for the upcoming 2025-26 season?

Average estimated roster costs

League 2025-26 season (estimated)

ACC

$8.2 million

Big East

$8 million

Big Ten

$8.5 million

Big 12

$8.6 million

SEC

$9.7 million

Mid-major plus

$2.3 million

Low- to mid-major

$525,000

Coaches were granted anonymity in exchange for their candor. The answers are telling — even considering the wide range of budgets within each league. (In the 18-team ACC, for example, the difference between the highest- and lowest-spending schools is eight figures.) But for as sexy as those numbers are, it’s crucial to remember why basketball budgets have grown, especially for next season.

Prior to the House settlement, most college players were paid by school collectives, who funneled money directly from donors to athletes under the guise of NIL. Now, in a revenue-sharing world, schools can distribute up to $20.5 million annually to players. Men’s basketball isn’t getting that entire pie — Opendorse, an NIL marketplace company, estimates most high-major programs will receive 20.3 percent of that on average — but still: that’s a few extra million teams can dole out.

So, when you combine old collective money — most of which schools intentionally spent before July 1 — with new revenue-sharing funds?

Voila: You get a basketball bubble, and budgets reaching never-before-seen heights.

“There is a realization for most,” said one Big Ten assistant, “that the money will not be the same.”

Revenue sharing vs. the ‘free market’

In many ways, one byproduct of the House settlement led to this offseason’s spending boon.

That would be the College Sports Commission (CSC), the new enforcement agency responsible for regulating revenue-sharing and cutting down on the pay-for-play deals that have become the industry standard. To regulate “fair” market deals, the CSC created a clearinghouse, NIL Go, which is run by Deloitte and which vets any third-party NIL deals worth over $600.

Considering schools have regularly been paying top talents hundreds of thousands — if not millions — of dollars annually, coaches were understandably apprehensive about the clearinghouse review process. Most who The Athletic spoke to admitted that they “front-loaded” contracts this offseason, spending as much collective money as possible in case NIL Go made it effectively unusable.

“With the collectives being in question, and all the details that are coming out about the settlement,” said one SEC head coach, “I don’t know what it’s gonna look like.”

And that uncertainty is still palpable. The CSC announced earlier this month that it wouldn’t clear any collective deals, seemingly validating coaches’ front-loading … only to reverse course on Tuesday after substantial backlash; the enforcement body now says it will consider collectives “valid businesses,” but will still hold them to the fair “range of compensation” rules that traditional third parties are subject to.

What does that mean for future spending?

Simply, if high-major programs are to sustain their current roster budgets, then supplemental collective money is a necessity. Consider: The average expected revenue sharing allotment for high-major teams — about 20.3 percent of $20.5 million — comes out to about $4.2 million … or half of what programs are estimated to be spending this upcoming year.

Is the college basketball economy really going to nosedive to that extent?

“You can’t put the toothpaste back in the tube,” an ACC head coach said. “The free market has (borne) what these numbers are, so now you can’t come back and correct the free market, and say, ‘Well, actually, this isn’t the free market. What we determine is the free market is the free market.’ If you were able to do that, we wouldn’t be running to Congress asking for help, because that would be legal. What we’re doing now isn’t legal.”

‘It’s just going to bring back cheating’

It’s easy to talk about college basketball spending in a macro sense. But what does that look like at the one-on-one level with players?

“You’re going to have a kid making 400 (thousand), and you’re gonna go, ‘Well, next year I only have 200 for you,’” an ACC assistant said. “That doesn’t usually sit real well.”

As a Big 12 assistant put it: “That’s going to be a hard conversation to kids you’re already loyal to.”

The ramifications could be landscape-shifting. With players having more freedom of movement than ever, coaches worry that a stark drop in spending — especially in the span of one offseason — will lead to the most frantic offseason of the NIL era yet.

Another roster construction concern: How much should coaches allocate for freshmen, especially those who rarely impact winning their first college season?

“A lot of these ‘26 kids have friends who were in the ‘25 class and got a lot of money — and now you’re offering them a quarter of that?” said an SEC assistant. “We’re gonna struggle initially, trying to explain the difference.”

Which is why only three top-25 recruits in the 2026 class have committed so far.

Other uncertainties abound, too. For all the talk about “average” allotments to high-major programs, for instance, what about the blue bloods set to receive an outsized percentage of their school’s revenue-sharing funds? What Duke and Kentucky receive, for instance, will be drastically different from what teams residing alongside powerhouse football programs — like Alabama, Ohio State, and Clemson — will ultimately get.

“If you’re talking true rev share,” one blue blood assistant admitted, “then we’ve been given an opportunity to be competitive.”

There’s also the looming threat of non-football leagues, namely the Big East and Atlantic 10. On one hand, not having football means most Big East schools won’t come close to paying out the overall $20.5 million cap permitted by the House settlement. But on the other hand? Those same schools can give their men’s basketball programs the largest cut of the revenue sharing pie, rather than the 20 percent that most of their high-major colleagues should receive.

“The Big East would be able to likely — with the commitment and the resources — double and triple some of these SEC and Big Ten schools,” said one Atlantic 10 head coach. “I don’t know what the next set of rules are going to be, but I guarantee you it’s not going to be that.”

Added the SEC head coach: “We talk as a staff that we might be competing against Atlantic 10 schools for kids, if it’s based on just money.”

We won’t know for a while whether or not the CSC truly has the teeth to stem the flood of collective money into college sports. But if it does, and revenue-sharing funds are something of a legitimate cap?

Expect teams to get, uh, creative when it comes to navigating the clearinghouse’s restrictions.

“There’s probably some guys out there,” one Big 12 head coach said, “that are going to figure out a way to do some things that are within the letter of the law — (but) maybe not the spirit of the law.”

Or, more succinctly, in the words of one WCC head coach: “It’s just going to bring back cheating. I don’t want to be naive about that.”

After surveying coaches at just under 10 percent of Division I schools, the only thing that’s become clear is how divided the college basketball universe is on what to make of revenue sharing.

Will it curtail massive donor influence in college basketball? Will it curb overall spending and level the financial playing field? Or is it just a slight impediment to the free market and the hefty prices that have emerged in the NIL era? Is it enforceable? Destined to get sued into oblivion? A precursor to collective bargaining?

There’s no clear answer to any of it.

“We continually ask for help and guardrails — and then when we get them, we complain about them, find ways around them, and then we sue the NCAA,” another ACC head coach said. “Sooner or later, coaches are going to have to decide what they want this ultimately to look like. And if we’re going to continue to find ways around stuff, or sue, then it’s just going to be chaos.”

(Photo: Kevin C. Cox / Getty Images)



Link

Continue Reading

NIL

Lack of talent in 2026 class creates unique recruiting and roster-building strategy for college programs

The summer recruiting period has come to an end, and one of the biggest subjects of conversation around grassroots basketball over the last few months has been the collective strength, or lack thereof, in the rising senior class of 2026. To be clear, the 2026 class is not viewed as a collectively strong class. In many […]

Published

on


The summer recruiting period has come to an end, and one of the biggest subjects of conversation around grassroots basketball over the last few months has been the collective strength, or lack thereof, in the rising senior class of 2026.

To be clear, the 2026 class is not viewed as a collectively strong class. In many ways, it is reminiscent of the national class of 2023, which was headlined by the likes of Ron Holland and Isaiah Collier. The lack of star power atop that class led to a relatively weak 2024 NBA Draft. After observing the 2026 recruiting class for the last few years, its clear that the lack of overwhelming talent could have similar implications on the 2027 draft. 

Forward-thinking NBA front offices know the 2027 draft will be weak at the top and have been planning accordingly, even while recognizing that prospects can emerge at various stages, including long after high school. The valuation of draft assets in 2027 are notably lower than say the upcoming 2026 draft, which is viewed as a strong one, or even later ones in 2028 and beyond. 

But what about the implications on college basketball?

The worlds of recruiting and roster construction are vastly different now than they were even just three years ago. It’s still true that the very top prospects often arrive on college campuses with one-and-done expectations. That will again be true with the 2026 group of freshmen. The complicating factor now is that the top-ranked prospects are also expecting premium NIL packages. The big question with this class is just how much money college programs can afford to allocate to these potential freshmen who don’t match the level of talent from the last two classes (2024 and 2025).  Based on our scouting and evaluation of the 2026 class, the return on the top-ranked freshman just won’t be the same in terms of production and impact on winning. 

From my standpoint, this class has some highly talented long-term prospects and some prospects who are very impactful players right now. They don’t have many who check both boxes consistently and reliably right now. 

Prospects like Christian CollinsTahj ArizaCameron Williams, and even Tyran Stokes – have tools to intrigue NBA decision makers even if they’re not prepared to drive winning right away as college freshmen. Collins is the glaring example. He’s the No. 4 player in the 2026 class, but there was a game at the Peach Jam where he only scored two points. His ranking is less a reflection of where his game is right now, and more where we believe it can be in the future. 

Others like Jason Crowe Jr.Jordan Smith, and Caleb Holt probably can impact winning right away, but still have major questions about how they could ultimately translate to the highest levels in a couple of years. Crowe is a prolific scorer but lacks ideal size, length, and athleticism. Smith and Holt have all those physical tools, along with ideal intangibles, but need to expand their skill sets. 

No. 1-ranked Stokes is the only prospect in the 2026 class whose talent matches the top end of the last two classes and who can produce at a similar elite level when he gets going. But Stokes is still inconsistent and isn’t nearly as reliable when it comes to driving winning. Paired with another five-star in Crowe Jr., Stokes and the Oakland Soldiers went 3-2 at the Peach Jam and didn’t even make it out of pool play.

So as the college bluebloods recruit the 2026 class and make financial decisions that impact the entire roster, they have some tough calls to make. College staffs have to weigh the risk and the reward of taking the type of talent who could very possibly underperform relative to their ranking and still get drafted, versus the type who could make an instant impact in college but not have the draft outcome that their ranking normally correlates to.

Ultimately, I’m just not sure you can make a Final Four relying primarily on so-called one-and-done talent in this class. Those players will be costly, eat up too much of the budget, and may not be able to generate the desired immediate return on that investment at the college level. That begs the question – could taking a player ranked outside the top 10 or top 15 who stays two or three years in college be more cost-efficient, productive, and drive winning for more years, be more valuable than spending the money for a one-and-done freshman in the top 10 of the 2026 class?

My expectation is that it just might. So, as counter-intuitive as it may sound, I will not be surprised to see players ranked in the 20s and 30s get more recruitment than players in the top ten. They’ll come at a cheaper price point, still be able to at least contribute right away, and yet be more open-minded to staying for multiple years and growing into bigger roles in time. 

By extension, I think we’ll see programs double down on international markets, the transfer portal, and player retention next spring. Remember, the 2026 NBA Draft looks like a very strong one, so getting players to return for another year could be mutually beneficial for both the individual and collective program.

The college recruitment of high school players has changed drastically over the last few seasons, none more so than what we are seeing for the 2026 cycle. Revenue share, NIL, and the transfer portal play an increasingly large role in how teams construct rosters, creating a direct impact on high school recruiting as well. The lack of high-end talent within the top 10, the strategy and approach that colleges use for this cycle, will be more interesting to track.





Link

Continue Reading

NIL

USC top recruit Alijjah Arenas needs surgery for knee injury and will be out 6 to 8 months

Associated Press LOS ANGELES (AP) — Alijah Arenas ‘ college basketball career is on hold before the highly touted freshman has played his first game. He was diagnosed with a knee injury that will require surgery and rehab is expected to take at least six to eight months, the school said Wednesday. “Alijah is a […]

Published

on


Associated Press

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Alijah Arenas ‘ college basketball career is on hold before the highly touted freshman has played his first game.

He was diagnosed with a knee injury that will require surgery and rehab is expected to take at least six to eight months, the school said Wednesday.

“Alijah is a tremendous worker, teammate, competitor, and person,” USC coach Eric Musselman. “He is understandably disappointed that he will not be able to take the court to start the season, but his health is our No. 1 priority. We have no doubt that he will come back even stronger. We look forward to supporting him during this process.”

Arenas, whose father Gilbert played in the NBA, was involved in a car crash that left him in an induced coma in April.

He crashed his Tesla Cybertruck into a tree, smoke filled the front cabin and the doors wouldn’t open. He spent nearly 10 minutes in the burning vehicle before bystanders helped pull him to safety.

Arenas was in the hospital for six days but did not suffer major injuries.

He is a five-star recruit and 2025 McDonald’s All-American. The 2024 John R. Wooden High School Player of the Year is also the top scorer in CIF LA City Section history, accumulating 3,002 points in three years of high school.

___

AP college basketball: https://apnews.com/hub/ap-top-25-college-basketball-poll and https://apnews.com/hub/college-basketball





Link

Continue Reading

Most Viewed Posts

Trending