The headlines from the Big Ten's spring meetings in Rancho Palos Verdes are telling: SEC and Big Ten leaders are openly exploring a breakaway from the NCAA. NCAA president Charlie Baker keeps inching toward accommodation. And the financial arms race at the top of college sports continues to accelerate — with no ceiling in sight.

This is a moment that demands clarity and courage, not capitulation. Charlie Baker and the NCAA must stop rewarding secession threats with concessions — because the premise behind those threats doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

"This isn't a movement of financial giants demanding more oxygen. It's a handful of elite brands dragging their own struggling members — and the rest of college sports — into an arms race they cannot sustain."

The Breakaway Bluff

The argument from SEC and Big Ten leadership is that the current governance structure — particularly the College Sports Commission's enforcement of the House settlement's NIL cap — is too restrictive for their biggest programs to compete. The implicit threat: give us more room to spend, or we walk.

Charlie Baker has not called that bluff. He should.

A breakaway is not simple. SEC schools remain bound to the House settlement and its $2.4 billion in backpay obligations. A separation would require expanded conference staff, a new enforcement infrastructure, and — most significantly — the potential end of participation in NCAA national championships and the College Football Playoff as currently structured. SEC commissioner Greg Sankey himself has acknowledged the breakaway "would not solve all the problems." Yet the threat persists, and the NCAA continues to treat it as leverage rather than calling it what it is.

The Non-Revenue Sports Problem Nobody Has Solved

Before the financial argument even begins, there is a structural obstacle to any SEC and Big Ten breakaway that has received almost no serious attention: what happens to the hundreds of non-revenue sports programs at these institutions?

The NCAA's competition ecosystem — its championships, its scheduling frameworks, its eligibility rules — is the infrastructure that makes wrestling, swimming, track and field, gymnastics, soccer, rowing, tennis, golf and dozens of other sports viable at the Division I level. A breakaway from the NCAA is not a football and basketball decision. It is a decision that immediately creates a competition crisis for every other sport on campus.

Where does a breakaway SEC or Big Ten school's swimming team compete? Who sanctions their wrestling championships? Which conferences welcome their soccer programs into ongoing competition - knowing those schools just blew up the system everyone else depends on?

The answer, practically speaking, is that they won't. Remaining NCAA conferences - ACC, Big 12, Pac-12 remnants and others — would have little institutional incentive and significant political motivation to exclude breakaway programs from their non-revenue sports scheduling and championship structures. These conferences would be the direct beneficiaries of a fractured landscape. They are not going to make the transition easy.

That means a breakaway SEC or Big Ten school would need to either:

• Build an entirely new competition and championship structure for 20–30 non-revenue sports from scratch - requiring new governance staff, new sanctioning bodies, new scheduling infrastructure and new championship venues. The cost and complexity alone would take years and hundreds of millions of dollars to construct.
• Maintain dual membership - staying in the NCAA for non-revenue sports while breaking away for football and basketball revenue governance. This is the scenario being floated in some circles, but it is legally and structurally precarious. The NCAA's own bylaws would need to permit selective membership and there is no guarantee they would.
• Abandon competitive viability for non-revenue sports entirely - an outcome that would devastate thousands of student-athletes across both conferences, trigger Title IX complications and expose universities to significant legal and reputational risk.

This is not a hypothetical obstacle. It is a concrete, immediate and largely unsolved problem that SEC and Big Ten leadership have conspicuously avoided addressing in their public statements about secession. Greg Sankey and Tony Petitti speak about breakaway governance as if it involves only the sports that generate television contracts. It does not.

Every gymnast, swimmer, wrestler, and soccer player at Rutgers, Arkansas, Maryland, and Mississippi State has a direct stake in this decision - and they are not at the table.

The Inconvenient Truth Inside These Conferences

Here is what gets lost in the breakaway narrative: the SEC and Big Ten are not monolithic blocks of financial strength. They are conferences where a small number of elite programs - Texas, Ohio State, Alabama, Georgia -  are driving the spending agenda, while many of their own conference members are losing money at a pace that is genuinely alarming.

These are not fringe programs. These are full dues-paying members of the very conferences threatening to secede - institutions whose universities are simultaneously under financial pressure from the demographic cliff, tightening federal funding and declining enrollment revenue.

Rutgers has accumulated over $500 million in athletic losses since joining the Big Ten - deficits absorbed through institutional subsidies and, increasingly, student fees. Arkansas is openly soliciting donations from working-class fans to fund payroll-style athlete compensation. Maryland and Mississippi State face their own mounting deficits while their broader universities navigate the same enrollment headwinds hitting higher education nationally. The ACC schools can't be predisposed to share any revenue related to Olympic sports with the traitor SEC and Big Ten.

These schools are not positioned to escalate further. They are already losing ground. Yet their conference leadership - driven by the wealthiest brands at the table - is pushing for a governance structure that removes any spending ceiling at all.

This is Ohio State and Texas pulling the rip cord. Their struggling conference partners are tumbling along for the ride.

The Arms Race Has No Sustainable Floor

The financial projections emerging from college football are staggering. Football rosters at the biggest brands are projected to climb toward $60 million per year in NIL/Revenue Sharing. More than two dozen schools are already believed to carry football rosters valued at $30 million or more. Basketball is not far behind.

For programs like Rutgers, Maryland, Arkansas and Mississippi State, this trajectory is not a stretch goal - it is an existential threat. These schools cannot close a $30–$60 million annual roster gap through donor fundraising or multimedia rights deals. Their endowments don't support it. Their fan bases don't generate it. And their universities are under too much financial strain to absorb it.

• The House settlement cap ($21.3M in 2026–27) was set at 22% of the average power conference revenue - however, schools like Texas and Ohio State, with $350M+ in annual revenue are already operating well above what others can afford.
• If the cap is raised or eliminated at the insistence of the biggest spenders, mid-range conference members face a spending gap they cannot bridge in a fiscally responsible manner - not now, and not in the future.
• Schools already posting eight-figure annual athletic deficits would be forced to either increase institutional subsidies (raising student fees, diverting academic resources, utilizing lines of credit) or fall further behind competitively.
• The institutions most exposed are public universities - many already under scrutiny for how they allocate public funds to athletics given their overall financial strain.

The irony is striking: the conferences threatening to leave the NCAA for more spending freedom include programs that literally cannot afford the spending levels that already exist.

The Fan Equation Nobody Is Discussing

Lost in the governance debate is the most important stakeholder of all: the fan.

College sports fandom is built on something that took generations to construct - traditions, rivalries, regional identity and the emotional investment of watching athletes who chose your school and stayed. That foundation is under direct assault from the current transactional landscape, and a breakaway scenario accelerates the damage.

Do college sports fans actually want a world where the same 20–25 programs compete for national championships every year — while the rest of college sports hollows out around them?

Fan interest is already showing signs of erosion. Roster turnover in the transfer portal era means programs are effectively rebuilt annually. Athletes follow the money - as they should, and as they are entitled to - but fans follow teams. They follow the name on the jersey. They follow the rivalries their parents and grandparents handed down to them.

You cannot manufacture that in a 16-school breakaway super league. 

You cannot replicate a decades-long rivalry with a roster assembled over a single portal cycle. And you cannot ask fans to sustain the deep, irrational loyalty that drives college sports revenue in an environment that has become fully transactional.

The NFL has parity rules, a salary cap and a draft precisely because competitive balance drives sustained fan engagement. College sports is moving in the opposite direction - toward a system where spending power alone determines competitive access - and calling it progress.

What Baker and the NCAA Should Actually Do

The House settlement is imperfect. The College Sports Commission has significant structural challenges. Congressional action is slow and uncertain. None of that means the answer is surrendering governance to the conferences with the largest checkbooks.

• Hold the line on secession threats. A breakaway is complicated, costly, and not in the interest of most SEC and Big Ten members themselves. Call the bluff.
• Reform the CSC thoughtfully - not by eliminating spending limits, but by addressing the legitimate enforcement issues around third-party NIL deals and the $125M+ currently trapped in regulatory purgatory.
  
• Protect the mid-range and smaller members of every conference. Any cap revision must account for the financial reality of schools that are already insolvent - not just the preferences of the schools that are not.
• Acknowledge what fans are losing. The long-term value of college sports depends on competitive breadth and fan loyalty - both of which are actively being undermined by an uncapped arms race and will become evident in lower ratings and attendance.
• Force the non-revenue sports question into the open. SEC and Big Ten leadership are framing breakaway governance as if it only affects football and basketball. Demand they publicly explain the competition framework for the numerous Olympic sport programs whose athletes have no voice in this conversation — and watch how quickly the bluster deflates.
• Push toward collective bargaining. Every major sports league has it. Without it, the cycle of rule changes, legal challenges and institutional conflict will continue indefinitely.

The NCAA is advancing a major shift in how college athlete eligibility is structured. At the center of the proposal is a “5-in-5” age-based eligibility model which would:

• Grant athletes five years of eligibility within a five-year window
• Start that clock at high school graduation or age 19 (whichever comes first)
• Eliminate most redshirts, waivers, and eligibility extensions
• Potentially limit transfers to one time without sitting out a year

The stated goal is to create a simpler, more standardized, and more stable system.

However, while the structure may become cleaner at the college level, the downstream impact on high school athletes, recruiting, and development pathways is significant—and widely underanalyzed.

1. Recruiting Opportunities for High School Athletes: Gradual Increase, Not Immediate Surge

Recent guidance indicates these rules are not expected to apply retroactively to athletes completing eligibility by spring 2026.

This creates a transitional reality:

• College programs will still prioritize the transfer portal in their recruiting for Fall 2026 rosters
• However, they will have greater certainty through excluding athletes with expired eligibility
• The immediate benefit to the current high school class will likely be limited

Where the longer-term shift occurs (commencing 2027):

• Reduced reliance on older transfers and overseas athletes 
• Increased emphasis on traditional high school recruiting pipelines vs transfers

Key takeaway:
Opportunities for high school athletes should increase—but gradually over time, not immediately.

2. Recruiting Pressure and Poaching at the High School Level Will Intensify

As demand for high school athletes grows:

• Your student-athletes will be more aggressively recruited by other high schools, prep schools, and sports academies
• Competing programs will escalate development and placement promises
• Athlete movement between programs will increase

This is already happening—and will intensify further.

Athlete retention is no longer passive. It is a strategic priority.

3. Prep Schools, Sports Academies and Reclassing Will Expand—and Get More Aggressive

One of the most important—and overlooked—ramifications involves prep schools and sports academies.
Under the proposed rules:

• The eligibility clock begins at high school graduation or age 19
• A traditional post-graduate (PG) year may reduce college eligibility

What This Means

Prep schools and academies must adapt:

• They will likely increase recruiting of underclassmen
• Their goal: have athletes reclassify earlier, instead of enrolling as PGs

This is being driven by:

• An expected decline in PG athletes
• The need to maintain talent and tuition revenue pipelines

Resulting Impact

• Earlier recruiting pressure on athletes
• Increased movement out of high school programs
• Reduced viability of the traditional PG pathway

Key takeaway:
Reclassing will likely increase as a strategic response to eligibility constraints—not just a development decision.


4. Timing Decisions Now Directly Determine Eligibility

Under a “5-in-5” model:

• When an athlete graduates
• Whether they reclassify
• When they enroll

…directly determines how much college eligibility remains.

Eligibility is no longer flexible—it is fixed and time-bound.

Missteps can:

• Reduce total playing years
• Limit recruiting opportunities
• Impact long-term outcomes

🎙️ Hear It Directly — RecruitU's George White on the Prep Athletics Podcast
George breaks down exactly how the 5-in-5 rule affects PG year decisions, reclassing timelines, and what families need to do right now.
Listen to the full episode here.

5. Standardized Eligibility: Simpler System, Less Flexibility

A key objective of the NCAA proposal is to eliminate the current system of:

• Medical redshirts
• Hardship waivers
• Eligibility extensions
• Junior college athletes litigation for additional eligibility

Replacing it with:

• A fixed, predictable five-year eligibility window
  

Implication

• The system becomes more consistent
• But athletes lose the ability to recover eligibility through exceptions

Injuries, delays, or poor decisions must now be absorbed within a fixed timeline.


6. Stronger Need for a Holistic Recruiting Process

While high school opportunities may improve:

• Transfer flexibility is expected to be more limited once enrolled

This creates a critical shift:

Athletes must get the decision right the first time.

Recruiting should now emphasize:

• Athletic fit
• Academic alignment
• Development pathway
• Long-term roster opportunity

At RecruitU, this holistic evaluation is central to how athletes and families are guided through the process.


7. Mid- and Low-Major Programs Become More Attractive

With reduced transfer movement:

• Programs are less likely to lose top players annually
• Team continuity improves

This creates:

• More competitive balance
• Stronger development environments

Result:
Mid- and low-major programs become more attractive recruiting destinations, offering:

• Increased playing opportunity
• Stability
• Long-term development
• Opportunity to compete at the highest levels

8. Other Ramifications to Monitor

Additional impacts include:

• Continued legal challenges and uncertainty
• Adjustments to NIL and revenue-sharing structures
• Sport-specific changes (e.g., hockey recruiting age trends)

How High School Programs Can Respond

Programs that adapt early will have a clear advantage.

Key actions:

• Develop a structured athlete retention strategy
• Educate families on recruiting pathways and risks
• Anticipate increased pressure from prep schools and academies
• Plan for earlier decision timelines

Critically Important

Programs must clearly explain:

How a post-graduate (PG) year impacts an athlete’s college eligibility window.

This is widely misunderstood.

Without proper guidance, athletes may:

• Lose eligibility unintentionally
• Make avoidable development mistakes
• Limit long-term opportunities

Key Takeaway

The NCAA’s “5-in-5” proposal is creating:

• More long-term opportunity for high school athletes
• More aggressive competition for those athletes—earlier in the process
• Greater importance on timing, planning and informed decision-making

Final Thought

The system may be simpler—but the decisions required to navigate it are becoming more complex.

Programs and families that understand the full downstream impact of these changes will be best positioned to succeed.

 The NCAA is considering major changes to athlete eligibility rules, including:

• A five-year participation window
• Stricter redshirt limitations, including reduced medical redshirt flexibility
• A defined eligibility structure where an athlete’s participation window is tied to time elapsed since high school graduation or their 19th birthday (whichever comes first)
• A practical upper limit that restricts participation for athletes who delay enrollment into their early-to-mid 20s

This article goes beyond the headlines and outlines the real-world implications for high school administrators, coaches, and families—many of which have not been addressed elsewhere.

Bottom line:

One of the rationales for these these changes is to provide roster stability and shift opportunities back toward high school athletes—but the timing, risks, and unintended consequences require careful planning.

The Current Reality: College Coaches Are Prioritizing Older, Proven Players

Over the past several years, college programs have increasingly moved away from traditional high school recruiting in favor of:

• Transfer portal athletes who have already produced at the college level
• Older international players, often 21–24 years old, who have trained or competed with professional clubs overseas

This shift has been enabled by relaxed rules allowing international athletes who previously received compensation from pro clubs to remain eligible.

The result for high school athletes:

• Fewer available roster spots
• Offers delayed until transfer decisions are made
• More athletes being pushed to lower college levels than originally projected

A Key Change: When Eligibility Actually Begins

One of the most important changes is how eligibility will be measured.

Under the proposal:

• An athlete’s eligibility clock begins at high school graduation or their 19th birthday (whichever comes first)
• From that point, the athlete has a limited window (five years) to complete their eligibility

Why This Matters

This directly impacts two major recruiting trends:

1. Older International Athletes

Athletes who delay college enrollment into their early-to-mid 20s would:

• Have already used a portion of their eligibility window
• Be less attractive to college programs due to limited remaining years

2. Delayed Entry Pathways (Reclassing, Prep Schools, Academies)

Athletes who:

• Reclass
• Attend prep school following high school graduation
• Attend a  post-grad sports academy or program

…would now be using eligibility time before they ever compete in college.

In practical terms, delaying enrollment could cost athletes part of their college career before it even begins.

More Opportunities for High School Athletes—But Not Right Away

While these changes are intended to shift recruiting back toward high school athletes, the impact will take time.

If current college athletes are granted a fifth year of eligibility, programs will:

• Keep existing players provided resulting eligibility on rosters longer
• Continue prioritizing these experienced athletes
• Limit available roster spots for incoming freshmen in the near term

What this means:

High school athletes should expect a continued squeeze on roster spots over the next several recruiting cycles before conditions improve.

Injury Risk: Now a Career and Financial Issue

The tightening or elimination of traditional medical redshirt protections significantly increases risk for athletes.

At the College Level:

• Athletes may not recoup seasons of eligibility missed due to injury
• They may be replaced on the roster or depth chart
• They could lose NIL or revenue-share compensation tied to participation
• Transfer limitations could leave them without viable options if they are pushed out

Injuries now impact not just playing time—but eligibility, income, and mobility.

A More Stable College Environment—With Tradeoffs

If implemented, these changes could improve roster stability for college programs by:

• Reducing reliance on constant transfer turnover
• Allowing coaches to plan rosters over multiple years
• Easing pressure on programs that cannot compete at the highest levels of NIL spending

This could also help prevent additional programs from dropping down competitively—such as Saint Francis University’s recent move from Division I to Division III after making despite making the NCAA DI tournament.

Additionally, mid- and low-major programs may retain their best players longer, improving competitiveness and restoring balance—particularly in basketball.

The New Reality: Athletes Must Operate Like Professionals

These changes reinforce a fundamental shift:

College athletics now requires professional-level decision-making.

Athletes and families must:

• Navigate the ever-changing recruiting landscape
• Understand NIL and revenue-share agreements in detail
• Evaluate how compensation can change or be reduced
• Plan for scenarios such as injury, reduced role, or roster turnover
• Engage experienced advisors to protect their interests

RecruitU works directly with athletes, families, and high school programs to provide this guidance.

Ongoing Uncertainty: Legal Challenges and Congressional Gridlock

It is important to understand that these changes are not final.

The NCAA and its member institutions will continue to face:

• Legal challenges from athletes asserting their rights
• Uncertainty in how rules are applied and enforced
• Significant legal costs associated with defending these rules

At the same time, efforts to secure federal legislative support have stalled in Congress and are likely to remain unresolved.

Until colleges engage in collective bargaining with athletes—a step they have so far resisted—this cycle of rule changes, legal challenges, and associated costs will continue.

What High School Administrators and Coaches Should Do Now

Given these developments, high schools should take proactive steps:

• Educate athletes and families on eligibility timing rules
• Reevaluate the risks of reclassing, post-grad options, and delayed enrollment
• Prepare athletes for a more structured and competitive recruiting process
• Provide guidance on NIL and long-term decision-making

Programs that take a structured, informed approach will be better positioned to support their athletes.
RecruitU works with schools to build strategies aligned with this evolving landscape.

Final Takeaway

The NCAA’s proposed eligibility changes are intended to address real challenges—but they also introduce new complexities.

They may:

• Shift opportunities back toward high school athletes over time
• Improve roster stability
• Increase competitiveness across more programs

But they also create:

• New eligibility risks tied to timing and injury
• Greater pressure on athletes to make informed decisions early to connect with long-term college matches
• Continued legal and structural uncertainty

This is not a simple rule change—it is a fundamental shift in how college athletics operates.

Those who understand the details—and plan accordingly—will have a clear advantage.

What Parents and Athletes Need to Know Right Now

College athletics is changing faster than ever. Between NIL deals, revenue-sharing models, transfer portal rules, and a new executive order from President Trump, the system is being reshaped in real time.

But here’s the truth most families aren’t being told:

The current direction of college sports is creating more uncertainty, more risk, and fewer opportunities for many athletes.

⚖️ A Balanced View: What the Executive Order Gets Right

To be fair, the recent action does attempt to address some important challenges in today’s landscape:

1. Protecting Non-Revenue & Olympic SportsAt a time when many of these programs are under pressure, efforts to stabilize — and potentially expand — opportunities are both necessary and commendable.
2. Expanding Opportunities for High School AthletesAdditional structure could help bring more clarity to roster management and recruiting pathways in what has become an increasingly unpredictable system.

These are meaningful priorities — and they matter for families navigating the recruiting process.


⚠️ The Reality Behind “Reform”

Despite these positives, broader developments involving the NCAA show a system attempting to impose structure — without actually solving the core problems.

• Spending is escalating, not stabilizing
• NIL deals are becoming more complex and one-sided
• Transfer rules may become more restrictive
• Legal challenges are increasing

This is not stability. It’s a system in conflict.

📉 The Hidden Impact on Opportunities

Following the House v. NCAA settlement, the ripple effects are already being felt:

• Programs are being cut entirely
• Schools are dropping out of Division I competition
• Roster sizes are shrinking, especially in Olympic and non-revenue sports
• Overall opportunities for athletes are declining

At the same time, top programs continue to spend aggressively, widening the gap.
More money at the top. Fewer opportunities everywhere else.


💰 NIL Contracts: What Families Need to Watch

Many athletes are now being presented with NIL or revenue-share agreements that include:

• Terms heavily favoring the school
• Limited long-term guarantees
• Clauses allowing payments to be reduced or canceled

If a player’s role changes — or they are pushed out — those agreements can quickly lose value.
And with potential transfer restrictions, athletes may not have the freedom to recover elsewhere.

That’s both a financial and career risk.

🔒 Transfer Restrictions Could Trap Athletes

Efforts to limit transfers are being framed as a way to create stability.
But in today’s environment, they can have the opposite effect.

If an athlete:

• Loses playing time
• Gets caught in a coaching change
• Or is impacted by shifting roster priorities

They could be left with:

• Limited transfer options
• Lost NIL income
• No real leverage

In short: stuck.

⚖️ What Comes Next: More Lawsuits, More Uncertainty

Here’s what’s almost certain: More legal battles are coming.

As athletes push back on restrictions around movement and compensation, the result will be:

• Increased antitrust litigation
• Ongoing arbitration disputes
• Continued uncertainty across college sports

And ultimately: Millions more spent on legal fees by schools — instead of supporting athletes.

❗ The Core Issue No One Is Fixing

Every major sports league has one thing college athletics still avoids: Collective bargaining with players.

Without it, schools are trying to control:

• Compensation
• Movement
• Opportunity

…without negotiation.

That approach doesn’t work — and it’s why the system continues to destabilize.

🎯 What This Means for You (Parents & Athletes)

If you’re navigating recruiting right now, this environment requires a different level of awareness.

It’s no longer just about:

• Finding the right school
• Getting exposure
• Earning a scholarship

Now it’s also about:

• Understanding NIL contracts
• Evaluating long-term fit and stability
• Protecting your flexibility and options

The margin for error is smaller than ever.


✅ How RecruitU Helps You Navigate This

At RecruitU, we work directly with families to provide:

✔️ Clear guidance through the recruiting process
✔️ Education on NIL opportunities and risks
✔️ Strategy to protect long-term flexibility
✔️ Honest evaluation of programs and fit

Because in today’s environment, informed decisions matter more than ever.


📞 Take the Next Step

If you’re a parent or athlete navigating recruiting right now, don’t do it alone.

👉 Schedule a consultation
👉 Get clarity on your recruiting strategy
👉 Understand the risks before making decisions

Terms: college sports reform, NIL contracts, transfer portal rules, college athlete rights, NCAA lawsuit, recruiting advice, NIL risks, college sports blog

 College Sports Reform Is Missing the Most Important Voice

At the recent Saving College Sports Roundtable — and in newly formed committees shaping the future of college athletics — no current college athletes were included.

This raises a critical issue in today’s evolving landscape of NIL (Name, Image, and Likeness) and college recruiting:

How can meaningful college sports reform happen without athlete representation?

The Business of College Athletics Depends on Student-Athletes

College sports is a multi-billion-dollar industry built on the performance and visibility of student-athletes. These athletes drive:

• NIL opportunities and sponsorships
  
• Media and television revenue
• Ticket sales and fan engagement
  

Yet despite their role, student-athletes still lack:

• Collective bargaining rights
• Representation in policy decisions
  
• Standardized protections in NIL contracts
  
• 
  

This imbalance is at the core of the current challenges in college athletics.

NIL Deals Are Creating Opportunity — and Risk

NIL has changed the recruiting landscape, but it has also introduced significant risk for student-athletes and their families.

Common issues we see include:

• Confusing or one-sided NIL contract terms
• Pressure from unvetted advisors or “street agents”
• Lack of legal review before signing agreements
• Long-term consequences that are not fully understood

At RecruitU, we regularly work with families navigating these challenges.

Without proper guidance, NIL can shift from opportunity to exposure very quickly.

Transfer Rules and Legal Pressure on Athletes

Recent developments have made transferring schools more complicated for athletes. In some cases, athletes have faced legal challenges tied to movement between programs, including situations connected to University of Georgia.

At the same time, coaches continue to operate under a different standard. Cases like Will Wade illustrate how coaches can move between programs despite controversy.

This creates a growing imbalance in college sports:

• Coaches maintain career flexibility
• Athletes face increasing restrictions and scrutiny

The Core Issue: Lack of Athlete Representation in College Sports

The biggest issue in college athletics today is not NIL itself. It is the lack of athlete representation in decision-making.

Without athlete input:

• Policies fail to reflect real athlete experiences
• Protections remain inconsistent
• Power stays concentrated at the institutional level
  

Any sustainable reform must include student-athletes at the table.

What Needs to Change in College Sports

To improve the current system, college athletics must evolve in key ways:

• Athlete Representation - Student-athletes must be included in committees and governing bodies shaping NIL and recruiting policies.
• NIL Contract Transparency - Clear standards and oversight are needed to prevent exploitative agreements.
  
• Education for Families - Student-athletes and parents need early education on recruiting, NIL, and contract evaluation.
  
• Accountability - Across the System, consistent standards must apply to both coaches and athletes.
  

How RecruitU Supports Student-Athletes and Families

RecruitU provides guidance for families navigating:

• College recruiting decisions
  
• NIL opportunities and contract evaluation
  
• Transfer portal strategy
• Long-term athlete development

Our focus is simple:

Educate. Protect. Position.

We help student-athletes make informed decisions in a rapidly changing environment.

Final Thoughts on NIL and College Sports Reform

College sports is evolving quickly, but without athlete representation, current reform efforts risk repeating the same structural issues.

Student-athletes are not just participants — they are the foundation of college athletics. Their voices must be included for real progress to happen.


About RecruitU

RecruitU is a college recruiting and NIL advisory platform dedicated to helping student-athletes and families navigate the modern recruiting landscape with clarity and confidence.
We specialize in:

• Recruiting strategy and college placement
  
• NIL education and risk management
  
• Athlete development and positioning

Explore More Resources

• Learn more about NIL opportunities for student-athletes
  
• Understand the college recruiting process step-by-step
  
• Get guidance on the transfer portal and athlete mobility
  

Contact RecruitU

Ready to make informed recruiting and NIL decisions?

Schedule a consultation today to protect your opportunities and position yourself for long-term success.

The College Sports Financial Model Is Racing Toward a Cliff
College athletics is sprinting toward a financial breaking point — and the most alarming part is that the warnings are now coming from inside the power conferences themselves.
​
For years, the NCAA and its largest member institutions pushed aggressively toward expanded athlete compensation models, culminating in the revenue-sharing framework tied to the House settlement. The move was framed as necessary modernization. But now, many of the very schools that helped build this new system are openly acknowledging they may not be able to afford it.

When Power Programs Start Claiming Poverty
Houston men’s basketball coach Kelvin Sampson recently described his own athletic department as “very poor” when discussing the ability to fund recruiting and player compensation. That statement should stop college sports observers in their tracks. Houston is a national contender competing at the highest levels of college athletics — yet even programs of that stature are raising financial alarms.

UCLA coach Mick Cronin has been equally blunt, acknowledging the widening gap between the “haves” and “have-nots” in the NIL and revenue-share era even within power conferences. Cronin has pointed directly to programs like fellow Big 10 member Rutgers as examples of schools struggling to compete financially in the new landscape. 
These are not fringe voices. These are leaders within major conferences sounding warnings about the system they now operate within.

Rutgers: A Case Study in Structural Deficits
Rutgers provides one of the clearest examples of the growing financial strain inside major conference athletics.
The university reportedly posted a $78 million athletic deficit during the 2024–25 fiscal year. Since joining the Big Ten, Rutgers has accumulated more than $500 million in total athletic losses.

Those deficits do not simply disappear. They are typically offset through institutional subsidies and increasingly through rising student fees. In practical terms, many students are being asked to help fund what is rapidly evolving into a professionalized sports model — regardless of whether they benefit from or even follow those programs.

Passing the Hat to Fans
Financial stress is not limited to Rutgers. Florida State athletics carries a debt of over $400M while Penn State's exceeds $500M. Schools like Arkansas have intensified fundraising efforts, openly soliciting donations from everyday, working-class fans to support athlete compensation and recruiting collectives. When major SEC programs are asking fans to fund payroll-style athlete compensation, it raises serious questions about the sustainability of the current model.

The House Settlement: A System Schools Helped Create — But May Not Afford
The revenue-share framework largely stems from the House settlement, which was heavily supported by both the NCAA and power conference leadership. Their rationale for the settlement was to bring stability to the evolving NIL marketplace and reduce litigation risk. 

Instead, it has accelerated a spending arms race that many schools are now discovering they cannot sustain in addition to concerning short-sighted consequences (and continued litigation specifically related to athletes to gain additional eligibility and related compensation).

And when athletic departments are forced to cut costs, history suggests those cuts rarely impact football — the primary revenue engine. Instead, Olympic and non-revenue sports often become the first casualties. Scholarship opportunities shrink. Rosters are trimmed. Entire programs disappear.

For many athletes, particularly in sports outside football and men’s basketball, the opportunities that college athletics has historically provided are already being significantly reduced.

The Timing Could Not Be Worse for Higher Education
The financial pressure on college athletics is colliding with broader economic challenges facing universities nationwide.

Higher education institutions are already confronting what is widely known as the demographic cliff — a projected decline in the number of college-age students over the coming years. At the same time, federal funding streams are tightening, and international enrollment patterns are becoming less predictable. International students have historically played a critical role in supporting university budgets, as they often pay full tuition rates.

Despite these mounting pressures, many universities are doubling down on an increasingly expensive athletics model that depends heavily on subsidies and external fundraising.

A Familiar Economic Pattern
The structure beginning to emerge in college sports mirrors trends seen in other industries. Massive data center expansions across the country have driven corporate growth, but they have also contributed to rising electricity costs that are often passed along to everyday consumers.

Similarly, college athletics is increasingly shifting financial burden onto students, fatigued donors and fans.
A System at a CrossroadsCollege athletics has never been more visible. It has never generated more revenue. Yet it has also never appeared more financially fragile, structurally unequal or careening off the rails of its intended purpose.
​
The central question is no longer whether the system will face reform. The real question is how many student-athletes, Olympic sports, and educational institutions will be compromised before enlightened reform occurs.
If current trends continue, the greatest risk is not simply financial imbalance. The greater risk is that college athletics could drift further away from its educational mission — and toward a model that fewer schools can realistically afford to sustain.

A recent Yahoo Sports report detailing LSU’s pursuit of transfer quarterback Brendan Sorsby reinforces long-standing concerns about the shortsighted and incompetent approach of the NCAA regarding the NIL and revenue-share ecosystem — and where it is headed.

At first glance, the numbers are eye-catching. Multi-million-dollar “marketing guarantees,” sophisticated deal structures, and the involvement of multimedia rights partners suggest a professionalized marketplace finally taking shape.

But beneath the surface, the system increasingly resembles a house of cards.

Unapproved Contracts and Unclear Authority

One of the most concerning realities is that many NIL and revenue-share agreements are being discussed, promised, and relied upon before approval by the College Sports Commission’s NIL Go clearinghouse.

The NCAA created the College Sports Commission for the stated purpose of ensuring that compensation aligns with legitimate services provided and falls within acceptable market rates. In practice, this framework appears more likely to generate lawsuits than stability — though that analysis is better suited for an entirely separate dissertation.

When deals move faster than oversight, the risk is obvious. If contracts fail to meet Commission standards, schools and athletes could face eligibility issues, enforcement actions, or litigation — outcomes that were entirely predictable when the regulatory framework was created.

Compensation Detached From Services

Another structural flaw is valuation.

Reported NIL figures often appear to significantly exceed what the Commission has indicated are reasonable rates for actual marketing, promotional, or endorsement services.

When compensation becomes untethered from verifiable value, scrutiny is inevitable. And when oversight exists but is bypassed or delayed, enforcement is no longer theoretical — it becomes a matter of timing.

Athletes, meanwhile, are left exposed to risks they did not create and cannot control.

The Multimedia Rights Assumption

Perhaps the most under-examined issue is revenue sustainability.

Many NIL packages are now routed through multimedia rights partners or future-facing revenue models. The assumption is that these entities will generate sufficient incremental income to fund massive guarantees.
But what happens if they don’t?

If projected revenues fall short, history suggests the financial risk will not be absorbed by institutions. Instead, it will fall on athletes through reduced payments, clawbacks, or contract disputes.

A System Built on Assumptions

What emerges is a model built on shaky assumptions:

• Contracts will be approved after the fact
• Compensation levels will withstand scrutiny
• Future media revenues will cover present obligations
• Enforcement will remain selective

That is not a stable foundation.

It is a house of cards.

If college sports is truly moving toward a professionalized model, it must also embrace professional standards: pre-approved contracts, transparent valuation, standardized terms, and real representation for athletes before commitments are made — not after.
 
Until then, both athletes and institutions remain exposed in a system racing ahead of its own rules.
















​

Categories and Tags:
College Athletics
Student-Athlete Rights
CSC
College Sports Commission
Athlete Advocacy
Due Process
Fair Play
NIL
College Athletic Recruiting
College Recruiting Advisors
recruiting  experts
sports recruiting
Damon Wilson NIL lawsuit
college athlete contracts
NIL contract protections
liquidated damages NIL
NIL transfer penalties
Georgia football NIL
athlete representation recruiting
standardized athlete contracts
NIL injury clauses
college football recruiting advice
athlete contract negotiation
unfair NIL contracts
college sports hypocrisy
coaching carousel movement
RecruitU athlete advisory
NIL collectives contract terms
Power 4 NIL rules
college transfer penalties
lower-tier conference NIL deals

The announcement that Georgia is seeking nearly $400,000 from former defensive end Damon Wilson after he transferred to Missouri has pulled back the curtain on an issue that has existed for far too long. Georgia is enforcing a liquidated damages clause in Wilson’s $500,000 NIL deal, even though he reportedly received only a small portion of that amount before leaving.

What this situation really highlights is that college athletes are being held to professional-level penalties without being given professional-level protections.

COACHES MOVE FREELY, ATHLETES PAY THE PRICE

This news comes during one of the busiest coaching-movement seasons in recent memory highlighted by the Lane Kiffin circus. Coaches are leaving for new jobs, being fired, or negotiating their way out of contracts with little to no penalty. In many cases, they are paid to leave or rewarded with raises to join their next program.
Meanwhile, an athlete like Damon Wilson faces six-figure penalties simply for transferring to another school. The contrast could not be more stark.

THIS PROBLEM EXISTS WELL BEYOND POWER 4 PROGRAMS

A common misconception is that these extreme contract terms only show up at Power 4 schools. In reality, the same issues are appearing across:

• Group of 5 programs
• FCS and mid-major schools
• Non-football conferences
• Even some Division II and NAIA programs adopting NIL-style agreements

In many of these lower-tier conferences, athletes have even less leverage, less access to representation, and more pressure to sign whatever is put in front of them.

Predatory or one-sided terms are not a P4 problem—they are a college athletics problem.

THE REAL ISSUE: ONE-SIDED CONTRACTS WITH NO NEGOTIATION POWER

Most NIL, roster, and revenue-share contracts are not negotiated. They are presented to athletes after they have committed, after they have signed, or after they have enrolled. By the time the contract appears, the athlete’s leverage is gone.

Common issues include:

1. Liquidated damages if the athlete transfers
2. Repayment triggers that demand money the athlete never actually received
   
3. Broad morality clauses that allow schools to terminate contracts easily
   
4. Restrictions on the athlete’s ability to earn outside income
5. Injury clauses that allow schools or collectives to stop payment if the athlete gets injured
6. Contracts delivered only after commitment or enrollment
   

These are terms no professional athlete would accept. College athletes shouldn’t have to either.

ATHLETES NEED STANDARDIZED CONTRACTS AND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

If colleges want to enforce professional-style penalties, then they need to adopt professional-style protections. That includes:

• A standardized athlete contract
• Collective bargaining and expert representation
  
• Clear limits on transfer-related penalties
• Protection against injury-related payment termination
  
• Transparent and fair compensation structures

Without these reforms, the imbalance of power will remain extreme and unfair.

WHAT WE DO AT RECRUITU

At RecruitU, we refuse to let families walk blindly into these traps.

We review, negotiate, and redline every contract our athletes are asked to sign, including roster agreements, NIL deals, and revenue-share contracts.

Our policy is simple:

If a college or collective refuses to agree to fair and balanced terms for the athlete, we recommend that the athlete go elsewhere.

We will not compromise on athlete protection or long-term welfare.

CONTRACTS MUST BE PART OF THE RECRUITING PROCESS

Another major flaw in the current system is that athletes typically receive their contracts only after committing or enrolling. No professional athlete would ever agree to play for a team without seeing the contract first.
College athletes should receive draft contracts during the recruiting process, before making any decisions.
​
BOTTOM LINE
​
The Damon Wilson lawsuit is not an isolated case. It reflects a broken system affecting athletes at every level—from the Power 4 to lower-tier conferences.

The least-protected individuals in the system carry the greatest risks and the harshest penalties.
Until there is:

• Real negotiation
• Standardized agreements
• Collective bargaining
• Injury-proof payment protections
• Independent athlete advocacy like RecruitU
  
• 
  

College athletics will continue to prioritize money, power, and institutional control over fairness and athlete development.
​
The system can evolve, but only if athletes receive the protections they truly deserve.

Categories and Tags:
College Athletics
Student-Athlete Rights
CSC
College Sports Commission
Athlete Advocacy
Due Process
Fair Play
NIL
College Athletic Recruiting
College Recruiting Advisors
recruiting  experts
sports recruiting
Damon Wilson NIL lawsuit
college athlete contracts
NIL contract protections
liquidated damages NIL
NIL transfer penalties
Georgia football NIL
athlete representation recruiting
standardized athlete contracts
NIL injury clauses
college football recruiting advice
athlete contract negotiation
unfair NIL contracts
college sports hypocrisy

• coaching carousel movement
  
• RecruitU athlete advisory
  
• NIL collectives contract terms
  
• Power 4 NIL rules
  
• college transfer penalties
  
• lower-tier conference NIL deals
  

The NCAA’s newly created College Sports Commission (CSC) recently sent a participation agreement to colleges — and its terms should alarm anyone who cares about fairness in college athletics. One provision in particular would block athletes from pursuing legal action to challenge CSC rulings, including decisions that restrict or deny NIL income opportunities.

What’s at Stake
The CSC is positioned as the NCAA’s new enforcement arm. However, the participation agreement would bar both athletes and schools from seeking legal recourse. It requires that:

• Schools must not encourage or assist anyone in filing lawsuits against the CSC.
• If any party — including a student-athlete, a school, a booster group, or even a state official — files a claim or lawsuit against the CSC related to rules or enforcement actions, the penalties include:

           – Loss of all conference revenue
           – Ineligibility for post-season competition in the affected sport(s)

Even more concerning: athletes have no representation or advocate involved in negotiating these terms, continuing a long-standing pattern in college sports. Decisions that govern their eligibility, careers, and future income are being made without their voice at the table.

Why This Matters
This is not simply an attempt to prevent frivolous lawsuits. These provisions:

• Strip athletes of the basic right to challenge unfair decisions
  
• Place the CSC in the role of judge, jury, and enforcer with no meaningful oversight
• Use financial pressure and competitive punishment to silence schools and athletes
  
• Could prevent challenges to discriminatory or economically damaging rulings
• Are being imposed on athletes who have no advocate participating in the negotiation process

​
Student-athletes should not have to choose between the opportunity to compete and their fundamental right to fair treatment under the law — especially when the system governing them is created without their participation.

The Question We Should All Be Asking
Should any sports governing body have the power to take away an athlete’s access to the legal system — particularly when athletes are excluded from negotiating the rules that bind them?

Schools Cutting Sports and Opportunities Instead of Leveraging Athletics to Avoid Going Out of Business

College sports are facing a stark paradox: the same Power 4 conferences projected to pay more than $200 million this year in buyouts to coaches — including contracts for newly hired replacements — are simultaneously cutting programs, staff, and roster spots.

These changes are happening under the radar, with little public acknowledgment of their impact on athletes and campus communities. The SEC alone accounts for nearly half of that total, yet its schools have quietly reduced roster sizes below NCAA limits sports such as men’s swimming. Penn State is paying a buyout of $50 Million to its former coach after announcing the closure of seven satellite campuses. In reality,  the sport of football is the beneficiary of these moves. 

As someone whose business and passion is helping athletes identify and connect with their ideal college matches, this myopic mentality makes my head want to explode. Every roster reduction, program cut, or staff loss represents lost opportunities for student-athletes, with consequences that extend far beyond the field or court.

Meanwhile, many enrollment-driven colleges are facing real financial hardship, with ongoing closings due to shrinking tuition revenue. The demographic cliff — a nationwide drop in the number of high school graduates — will only accelerate these pressures, making it more important than ever to view athletics as a strategic tool to support enrollment, revenue, and opportunity.

Fairleigh Dickinson’s Smarter Play: Adding Men’s Fencing for Profit

While the Power 4 quietly cut opportunities, Fairleigh Dickinson University is taking the opposite approach. Beginning in 2027, FDU will launch men’s fencing, a program projected to generate net profit through tuition revenue from non-scholarship athletes.

Key details include:

• Starting with 10 athletes in 2027, growing to 24 by 2030.
• With six scholarships spread across the roster, the remaining 18 tuition-paying athletes would each contribute about $37,000 per year.
• Shared facilities and staffing keep costs around $150,000 annually, aided by a three-year USA Fencing grant.

FDU’s model demonstrates how smaller, enrollment-driven universities can use athletics strategically — not only to enhance campus life, but also to generate sustainable financial returns.

Idaho’s Lesson: Cutting Actually Costs More 

In 2018, University of Idaho President Chuck Staben faced a state mandate to cut $1 million from athletics. On paper, this meant eliminating three sports: women’s soccer, women’s swimming, and men’s golf. But when Staben analyzed the full picture — including tuition from non-scholarship athletes — those programs were actually net profitable, and cutting them would have increased the university’s deficit by $1.6 million per year.

He proposed adding sports instead, like men’s swimming, women’s triathlon, and rifle, which would have brought in an additional $843,000 annually. The state board refused to hear his proposal, and within a year, Idaho’s athletic deficit had grown even larger, exceeding $1.5 Million.

Economist Andy Schwarz summarized the issue perfectly:

“If schools with under-enrollment are acting like schools with over-enrollment, there’s a fundamental misunderstanding of economics.”

In other words, smaller and mid-sized schools benefit most from holistic, university-wide financial planning — not siloed athletic department cuts.

Roster Caps and the House Settlement: A Sham Benefit

The NCAA, driven largely by the Power 4 conferences, has imposed roster caps on all Division I schools that opt into the House v. NCAA settlement. While the NCAA has promoted these caps as a benefit to student-athletes — allowing schools to offer scholarships up to the cap rather than the previous fractional number per sport — the reality tells a different story.

• Schools must limit their rosters to the new caps, reducing the number of tuition-paying athletes.
• Few schools will actually be able to fund scholarships up to the new cap.
• The NCAA’s messaging makes this sound like progress, but it’s really a sham benefit that limits access and opportunity.
• Meanwhile, Power 4 conferences like the SEC are lowering rosters even further, redirecting funds to football.

This combination of roster caps and reallocation will eliminate hundreds — potentially thousands — of opportunities for student-athletes across the country, particularly in non-revenue sports.

The Data: Non-Revenue Sports Can Pay Their Way

Economist Andy Schwarz’s analysis of mid-sized Division I athletic departments (Central Michigan, Akron, and Western Kentucky) found that expanding equivalency sports — those with partial scholarships — can increase enrollment, boost Title IX compliance, and create net financial gains.

At Central Michigan, for example, replicating or expanding its non-revenue sports could generate $650,000–$1.3 million in additional annual revenue, while creating opportunities for over 150 more student-athletes.
Yet since 2020, more than 40 Division I programs have been eliminated, many in these very sports that could help stabilize enrollment and revenue.

Rethinking College Sports in an Enrollment-Challenged Era
​
With many colleges already struggling financially — especially smaller, tuition-dependent institutions — shrinking or eliminating sports is counterproductive. Athletics should be viewed as a recruitment and retention asset, not an expense to cut.

The coming demographic cliff will make this even more urgent. Colleges that eliminate sports now may find themselves unable to recover lost enrollment later.

From my perspective, every time a program or roster spot is cut, a student-athlete loses the chance to pursue their dream and gain a transformative college experience. My work is focused on helping these athletes find their best-fit schools, and I’m committed to doing everything possible to preserve those opportunities.

Final Thought

Fairleigh Dickinson’s men’s fencing program and Idaho’s experience both highlight a fundamental truth: non-revenue sports can be financially sustainable, mission-driven, and beneficial for universities.

Plus, it's an opportunity to pick up athletes (and tuition) jettisoned by the power conferences!

Meanwhile, the Power 4 conferences continue to spend hundreds of millions on coach buyouts and football expansion, while shaping NCAA policies that restrict opportunities for the rest of Division I.

The NCAA’s roster caps — dictated by the Power 4 and applied to every school opting into the House settlement — do not help athletes. They limit tuition-paying roster spots and further entrench a football-first, short-sighted approach.
​
If college athletics is to remain a force for opportunity, universities must invest in access and student experience, not excess. It’s time to rethink what truly sustains college sports — and who it should serve.

​Sources

• Michael McCann & Eben Novy-Williams, “Fairleigh Dickinson Men’s Fencing Will Add Hundreds of Thousands in Profit,” Sportico (Oct. 2025).
  
• Daniel Libit, “Cutting College Sports Can Actually Cost Schools Money,” Sportico (2020).
  
• NCAA House v. NCAA Settlement Summary and Roster Cap Framework (2024).
  
• National Student Clearinghouse Research Center, Undergraduate Enrollment Trends (2024).
  
• Andy Schwarz, “The Hidden Economics of Non-Revenue Sports,” Sportico Analysis (2020).
  

Subject matter: Athletic recruiting, college athletic scholarships, college athletic recruiting, connect with college coaches, playing sports in college, get recruited for sports, NCAA recruiting, athletic scholarship, recruiting process, recruiting  experts, sports recruiting, recruiting advice, recruiting tools, college coaches, college recruiters, college athlete, sports scholarships, NCAA recruiting, athletic recruiting, athletic scholarships, NCAA scholarships, sports scholarships, college sports recruiting, college athletic recruiting, college recruiting services, college athletic recruiting services, college sports recruiting services, college sports recruiting experts, how to get recruited to play college sports, NCAA transfer portal, how to get an athletic scholarship, how to get a college sports scholarship, sports recruiting, NCAA House Settlement, NCAA roster caps, colleges closing