forums

Dylan Raiola Enters Portal

Advertisement
If I read that interpretative guidance correctly, I “think” if you are proactive, Miami could partner with Adidas to offer Raiola more NIL money to offset a lower rev share.

So for example, for giggles, say the amount is 3 million for Raiola. That’s the magic number.
If Miami presents Raiola with 2.75 million from rev share and Adidas pay him $250k in NIL. That’s what would happen if everyone works independently.
However, if Miami and Adidas work out a deal ahead of time, they could go to Raiola with a deal where Miami pays him 1 million from rev share and Adidas pays him $2 million in NIL.
Raiola still gets his magic number but Miami saves money against the cap (rev share allotment).

That’s an extreme example and one I don’t think is realistic, but if I understood it correctly, that’s how you could proactively make it happen.

In the first scenario, the moment Miami commits 2.75 million from rev share, they are bound by that number, EVEN if there is offset language that says Miami can reduce its commitment IF they help find offsetting NIL later on. Miami wouldn’t have to pay the full 2.75 million, but for calculations of how much room they spend, the 2.75 million stays regardless.

I’m probably wrong with my interpretation, but if I’m right and we stick with Adidas (we are in the open negotiation window), than this is how Adidas could HELP Miami.
 
rascon said:
If I read that interpretative guidance correctly, I “think” if you are proactive, Miami could partner with Adidas to offer Raiola more NIL money to offset a lower rev share.

So for example, for giggles, say the amount is 3 million for Raiola. That’s the magic number.
If Miami presents Raiola with 2.75 million from rev share and Adidas pay him $250k in NIL. That’s what would happen if everyone works independently.
However, if Miami and Adidas work out a deal ahead of time, they could go to Raiola with a deal where Miami pays him 1 million from rev share and Adidas pays him $2 million in NIL.
Raiola still gets his magic number but Miami saves money against the cap (rev share allotment).

That’s an extreme example and one I don’t think is realistic, but if I understood it correctly, that’s how you could proactively make it happen.

In the first scenario, the moment Miami commits 2.75 million from rev share, they are bound by that number, EVEN if there is offset language that says Miami can reduce its commitment IF they help find offsetting NIL later on. Miami wouldn’t have to pay the full 2.75 million, but for calculations of how much room they spend, the 2.75 million stays regardless.

I’m probably wrong with my interpretation, but if I’m right and we stick with Adidas (we are in the open negotiation window), than this is how Adidas could HELP Miami.
Click to expand...
Question:

is the revenue sharing ($20.5m) independent from the NIL collective. For instance, each school has a $20.5m revenue sharing, but can the school also have their own separate collective? or are they the same and it's $20.5m total?
 
20.5M revenue-sharing cap is independent from NIL collectives.

1. What the​


  • This comes from the NCAA/Power Conference revenue-sharing model (often tied to the House settlement framework).
  • Each school is allowed to directly share up to ~$20.5M per year with athletes.
  • This money:
    • Comes from the school/athletic department
    • Is paid directly to athletes
    • Is capped at ~$20.5M per school
    • Is typically distributed across sports (football, basketball, etc.)

Think of this as salary-cap–style money paid by the school itself.



2. What​


  • NIL collectives are:
    • Separate legal entities (usually nonprofits or LLCs)
    • Funded by boosters, donors, and sponsors
    • Not school funds
  • They pay athletes for:
    • Name, Image, and Likeness activities
    • Marketing, appearances, endorsements, etc.

There is no national dollar cap on NIL collective money.



3. Can a school have​


✅ Yes — absolutely.


A school can:


  • Pay athletes up to $20.5M in revenue sharing AND
  • Have a separate NIL collective paying athletes additional money

These are not combined into one pot.



4. What they are​


  • ❌ The $20.5M does not replace NIL
  • ❌ NIL money does not count toward the $20.5M cap
  • ❌ The collective is not the school (even if closely aligned)


5. Real-world implication (important)​


This is why you’re seeing:


  • Schools planning a salary-cap-like model with the $20.5M
  • Collectives still being critical for recruiting
  • Big programs having a huge advantage because they can stack:
    • $20.5M school money
      • millions more in NIL deals

In practice, elite programs will use both streams together to attract talent.



Bottom line​


$20.5M = school-paid revenue sharing (capped)
NIL collective = separate, booster-funded, uncapped


If you want, I can also:


  • Break down how schools are likely to split the $20.5M
  • Explain why some collectives may shrink but not disappear
  • Apply this specifically to a school or conference (ACC, SEC, Big Ten, etc.)
 
P-Tizzle said:
Question:

is the revenue sharing ($20.5m) independent from the NIL collective. For instance, each school has a $20.5m revenue sharing, but can the school also have their own separate collective? or are they the same and it's $20.5m total?
Click to expand...
Revenue sharing and NIL collectives are different.

Revenue sharing is funded directly by the university and is capped at $20.5 million. Coaching staffs generally prefer recruiting with revenue-sharing money because they have full control over how it’s allocated and spent.

NIL collectives, by contrast, are technically separate from the university and cannot be directed by it, though in practice there is often significant coordination. Collective funding is not capped.

My understanding is that many schools are shifting the bulk of player retention to NIL collectives. As you might expect, private donors are often more willing to pony up money to keep a proven player (e.g. Malachi Toney) than to fund an unfamiliar one (such as a high school recruit or even a solid transfer portal addition). That said, collective money still matters for high school and transfer recruiting; it’s just especially important for retention.
 
CanesNation26 said:
Revenue sharing and NIL collectives are different.

Revenue sharing is paid directly by the university and is capped at $20.5 million. Coaching staffs generally prefer recruiting with revenue-sharing money because they have full control over how it’s allocated and spent.

NIL collectives, by contrast, are technically separate from the university and cannot be directed by it, though in practice there is often significant coordination. Collective funding is not capped.

My understanding is that many schools are shifting the bulk of player retention to NIL collectives. As you might expect, private donors are often more willing to support keeping a proven player than to fund an unfamiliar one (such as a high school recruit or even a solid transfer portal addition). That said, collective money still matters for high school and transfer recruiting; it’s just especially important for retention.
Click to expand...
so, schools will have the $20.5m revenue sharing PLUS what their collectives can spend? Is that correct?
 
Advertisement
1CN said:
20.5M revenue-sharing cap is independent from NIL collectives.

1. What the​


  • This comes from the NCAA/Power Conference revenue-sharing model (often tied to the House settlement framework).
  • Each school is allowed to directly share up to ~$20.5M per year with athletes.
  • This money:
    • Comes from the school/athletic department
    • Is paid directly to athletes
    • Is capped at ~$20.5M per school
    • Is typically distributed across sports (football, basketball, etc.)

Think of this as salary-cap–style money paid by the school itself.



2. What​


  • NIL collectives are:
    • Separate legal entities (usually nonprofits or LLCs)
    • Funded by boosters, donors, and sponsors
    • Not school funds
  • They pay athletes for:
    • Name, Image, and Likeness activities
    • Marketing, appearances, endorsements, etc.

There is no national dollar cap on NIL collective money.



3. Can a school have​


✅ Yes — absolutely.


A school can:


  • Pay athletes up to $20.5M in revenue sharing AND
  • Have a separate NIL collective paying athletes additional money

These are not combined into one pot.



4. What they are​


  • ❌ The $20.5M does not replace NIL
  • ❌ NIL money does not count toward the $20.5M cap
  • ❌ The collective is not the school (even if closely aligned)


5. Real-world implication (important)​


This is why you’re seeing:


  • Schools planning a salary-cap-like model with the $20.5M
  • Collectives still being critical for recruiting
  • Big programs having a huge advantage because they can stack:
    • $20.5M school money
      • millions more in NIL deals

In practice, elite programs will use both streams together to attract talent.



Bottom line​


$20.5M = school-paid revenue sharing (capped)
NIL collective = separate, booster-funded, uncapped


If you want, I can also:


  • Break down how schools are likely to split the $20.5M
  • Explain why some collectives may shrink but not disappear
  • Apply this specifically to a school or conference (ACC, SEC, Big Ten, etc.)
Click to expand...
thanks for posting

Beck has a rumored 4 million NIL deal, Miami is rumored to have paid between 2.3 and 2.8 not 4

Jermiah Smith has 6-7 deals rumored to total 4.2, he isnt getting that number from OSU
 
CanesNation26 said:
Revenue sharing and NIL collectives are different.

Revenue sharing is funded directly by the university and is capped at $20.5 million. Coaching staffs generally prefer recruiting with revenue-sharing money because they have full control over how it’s allocated and spent.

NIL collectives, by contrast, are technically separate from the university and cannot be directed by it, though in practice there is often significant coordination. Collective funding is not capped.

My understanding is that many schools are shifting the bulk of player retention to NIL collectives. As you might expect, private donors are often more willing to pony up money to keep a proven player (e.g. Malachi Toney) than to fund an unfamiliar one (such as a high school recruit or even a solid transfer portal addition). That said, collective money still matters for high school and transfer recruiting; it’s just especially important for retention.
Click to expand...
Adding one more insight to this: many schools are not abiding by the $20.5M cap.

Schools are gambling that until and unless Congress grants the NCAA an anti-trust exemption, the NCAA cannot, and perhaps will not, seek to prosecute schools that violate the cap.

That puts Miami at a potential disadvantage. SEC and Big 10 schools earn $70-$80 million a year in TV revenue, whereas Miami earns more like $45 million, tops, even with the changes to the ACC distribution model.
 
CanesNation26 said:
Adding one more insight to this: many schools are not abiding by the $20.5M cap.

Schools are gambling that until and unless Congress grants the NCAA an anti-trust exemption, the NCAA cannot, and perhaps will not, seek to prosecute schools that violate the cap.

That puts Miami at a potential disadvantage. SEC and Big 10 schools earn $70-$80 million a year in TV revenue, whereas Miami earns more like $45 million, tops, even with the changes to the ACC distribution model.
Click to expand...
Congress is never going to give the NCAA an antitrust exemption. And we should all be grateful for that.
 
tdjones34 said:
thanks for posting

Beck has a rumored 4 million NIL deal, Miami is rumored to have paid between 2.3 and 2.8 not 4

Jermiah Smith has 6-7 deals rumored to total 4.2, he isnt getting that number from OSU
Click to expand...
I can’t believe Jeremiah Smith is going to be catching passes from ‘Fats’ Raiola next season……













IMG_8274.gif
 
tdjones34 said:
thanks for posting

Beck has a rumored 4 million NIL deal, Miami is rumored to have paid between 2.3 and 2.8 not 4

Jermiah Smith has 6-7 deals rumored to total 4.2, he isnt getting that number from OSU
Click to expand...
Hope he leaves them regardless to see them meltdown . Wouldn’t be shocked if it’s Texas
 
Advertisement
Something I haven’t seen discussed at all with regards to Raiola:

Dawson and Dana Holgerson are very tight. We know Dawson does his homework on QBs (recall he spoke directly with Monken before we took Beck).

If Holgerson gave him negative feedback on Raiola, it could explain why we’d be lukewarm about him.
 
CaneMutiny06 said:
Something I haven’t seen discussed at all with regards to Raiola:

Dawson and Dana Holgerson are very tight. We know Dawson does his homework on QBs (recall he spoke directly with Monken before we took Beck).

If Holgerson gave him negative feedback on Raiola, it could explain why we’d be lukewarm about him.
Click to expand...
Or why we'd be interested. If you take a look at DR closely, he has an NFL arm.
 
Back
Top