I recently reviewed a NIL/revenue share agreement generated by a college program for one of our recruited athletes and flagged numerous issues and areas of exposure for the athlete. This is from a school that the athlete was considering committing to in his recruiting. Believe it or not, my analysis of the issues and areas of exposure ran longer than the contract itself. This should tell you something about the state of college athletics and recruiting -- BUYER BEWARE!
If you or your athlete has a NIL or Revenue Share contract awaiting your signature, do not sign it yet. Not until someone who possesses expertise in NIL contracts has combed through it. Here are some common issues to look for, and why it matters more than most families realize. These Contracts Are One Sided, and Not in Your FavorI will say this plainly: every NIL and revenue share agreement I have reviewed is structured heavily, in some cases egregiously, in favor of the college. A primary cause of this reality is that there is no standard contract across college athletics largely because there is no collective bargaining in place to enable protection for athletes from usurious contracts. They are written in legalese, complicated and packed with references to issues and matters that are beyond the capabilities of most athletes and parents, let alone a 17 or 18 year old who has never read a contract in their life. They are intended, whether anyone at the college would admit it or not, to take advantage of the athlete’s understandable naivete and inexperience. One sided terms plus dense legalese is exactly how the worst clauses are able to pass through ignored or misunderstood, compounded by the absence of qualified athlete representation and protection. As we wrote about in Why is College Football's NIL Model a House of Cards?, the entire system is currently moving faster than athletes’ capability to organize to protect themselves. Here is the part that deeply disturbs me about the realities of today’s recruiting process — a coach will look your athlete in the eye — they will tell them how much they want them, how much they care about them, how their program is going to look out for and develop them. Then the contract shows up — it communicates something entirely different. It says: we will take advantage of every opportunity to void our payment obligations to you, we are not going to protect you if things go wrong, and we will cast you adrift at any time for any reason that we manufacture at our discretion. What gets promised by coaches during a recruiting visit is not documented. It is not binding and it does not have to match what actually gets put in writing. The contract is the only part that is enforceable, and it is the only part that matters once you have signed. And here is the part that makes it worse: a lot of athletes commit to a school, verbally or otherwise, before they have even seen the NIL or revenue share contract. This puts you in a position of weakness. You do not owe anyone a NIL contract commitment, and you certainly do not owe them one sight unseen. Negotiate Get the actual contract terms. Negotiate them to limit potential damages and exposure before you commit or turn down another offer. Don’t give in to pressure to sign prematurely. Once you have committed, your negotiating leverage is eliminated. Red Flag 1: Ambiguous Revenue-Share Commitment All of your compensation terms should be specific, clearly defined and from a university guaranteed source, not on the come from some contingent income source. If elements are unspecified, the college could later treat that part of your compensation as discretionary, meaning the money you expected may be significantly less. Red Flag 2: Loss of Control Over Your Own Name and Image and Likeness Rights These agreements grant the college broad rights to your name, image and likeness, meaning they can hand your NIL rights to other parties without needing your approval, and limit your own usage. Nothing in this space should be open ended and unrestricted. Red Flag 3: Performance or Conduct — Withholding Payments and Eligibility With No Due Process Beware of terms that let a college stop paying you or suspend you without the opportunity to defend yourself prior to enforcement of any penalty. Red Flag 4: More Restrictive Obligations Than NCAA or Rule of Law Allows Contracts try to impose obligations on athletes that are more burdensome than what the NCAA’s own rules already require, such as transfer portal rules. A school inserting its own differing requirements is the school claiming ownership over your freedoms that are not actually theirs to control. It is worth revisiting what we wrote in How Does the Wilson Case Expose Hypocrisy of College Sports Contracts? — coaches leave freely and are often rewarded for it, while athletes face contractual penalties for doing the same thing. Red Flag 5: Independent Contractor Status That Does Not Match Reality Colleges go out of their way to classify athletes as independent contractors while imposing restrictions that align with employee status. Schools can’t have it both ways. Red Flag 6: Lack of Injury Protection Contracts that stay silent or restrict compensation or reimbursement if the athlete gets hurt explicitly provide the college with an out to reduce, delay, or stop paying. In addition, coverage for health care should be addressed. The financial risk of an injury should not land on the athlete instead of the institution. Red Flag 7: Demands Stricter Than What the NCAA Actually Requires Contracts add restrictions well beyond what the NCAA and College Sports Commission actually require, presenting them as mandatory when they are not or yet to be resolved. That leaves you agreeing to obligations tighter than the rules that are supposed to govern your eligibility and compensation. Red Flag 8: Clawbacks and Performance-Based Payment Adjustments Do not allow claw back provisions, particularly when a transfer is involved. This is functionally the same as a non-compete clause that punishes an employee for quitting to join a rival, except here it is aimed at a college athlete choosing to play somewhere else. Also watch for language that lets the school adjust your payment based on subjective terms. This gives a school enormous leverage to reduce what it owes you, or demand money back, using standards it gets to set on its own. Why Expert Representation Matters There is no licensing, certification or credentialing requirement for player agents or NIL advisors in college athletics. Anyone can put that title on a business card and charge unlimited fees. That matters because these contracts are being negotiated, on the other side, by university compliance offices and legal counsel who do this for a living. An athlete and family deserve representation with real expertise, not just bluster and self-promotion. Be skeptical of anyone who does not deliver proven experience and references. Why Contract Protection Cannot Wait Until After You Commit Every one of these issues is negotiable before signing the contract, especially if you have other offers to leverage. Almost none of them are fixable after. Committing to a school before a knowledgeable third party has actually reviewed the language is one of the more common, and most avoidable, mistakes I see families make during the recruiting process. For High School Coaches and Counselors You do not need to become a contract expert and you should not feel compelled to give legal advice as it opens you up to liability. But you are often the first person a family turns to when an offer occurs. Knowing these red flags exist, and knowing to tell a family “get this reviewed by an expert before you sign anything,” is the best advice that you can provide. George’s Take “These documents are drafted in a complicated format on purpose to bully and intimidate the athlete with highly onerous and one-sided terms in favor of the university in a take it or leave it approach. It must be reviewed with a fine tooth comb because the college is shotgunning terms camouflaged under a flood of legalese and references that overwhelm and compromise athletes and families. My advice is emphatic: Do not sign anything and do not commit until the agreement has been dissected by an expert in this niche. Remember, your NIL or revenue share contract is a business negotiation in the current environment. You can’t rely on just a handshake agreement with the coach.” — George White, Founder and CEO, RecruitU Frequently Asked Questions Can a college really classify my athlete as an independent contractor? Yes, colleges are doing this deliberately, but the classification needs to actually match how the relationship works in practice. Restrictions that mirror employment while the contract denies employment status are worth raising with someone who understands the distinction. Is it normal for a revenue-share percentage to be left blank in a draft contract? It happens more often than families expect, but it should never be signed that way. An undefined percentage with no attached schedule is not a minor detail, it can mean that part of the compensation is not actually enforceable. What should I do if I already signed something without a full review? Have it reviewed anyway, plus it positions you to be better prepared to negotiate your next contract. Some issues can still be addressed, renegotiated, or, at minimum, understood clearly, even after signing. Is this only an issue at big Division I programs? No. We are seeing versions of these same issues across division levels, wherever NIL and revenue share agreements are being used. How long does a contract review usually take? It depends on the contract, but families should factor a few weeks’ review and negotiation period before signing, not attempt this the night before a decision is due. Before You Sign Anything RecruitU reviews NIL and revenue share contracts for athletes and families before they commit to anything. We tell you plainly what is acceptable, what is a red flag, and what needs to change before you sign. Contact RecruitU for a Contract Review →This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every NIL or revenue share contract should be reviewed by a qualified attorney, in addition to any guidance you receive elsewhere, before signing.
0 Comments
If your recruiting has stalled or gone lukewarm heading into the fall, the first step is understanding why: colleges have not stopped recruiting high school athletes, but staffs are focused on nailing down their priority recruits for the roster slots they have allocated to high schoolers this cycle, which can be a smaller number relative to transfers. Selective academic schools are also working through admissions reads on their high school recruits during this window and those schools tend to recruit fewer transfers overall. Once 2027 begins, programs with roster spots still open will increasingly turn to the transfer portal to fill them. That does not mean your recruiting opportunities are empty. It means your strategy has to change. Here is exactly what athletes and families should be doing in response.
Why Does Recruiting Interest Go Quiet in the Fall? Coaching staffs work in cycles. Once the season starts, in-person evaluation windows shrink and staffs turn their attention to preparing their team on campus and closing out their priority recruits for the high school slots they have allocated, which is exactly why fall so often feels quiet even though recruiting has not stopped. Being marginalized on the recruiting front generally means one of two things: you are likely further down a program’s priority list for the roster spots they have allocated or the staff simply has not seen enough of you yet to gain the comfort level they need to move forward. Neither one is necessarily permanent and both are things an athlete and family can work to change.
What Should Athletes Do If They Are Not a Priority Right Now? Keep Reaching Out to Your Matching Colleges Silence is not a no. Continue reaching out to the programs already on your matching list — a short, direct update email or call keeps you visible when a roster spot opens or a staff revisits its board. Expand Your Pool of Matching Colleges If your current list has gone quiet, this is the time to widen it. Add programs that fit your academic and athletic profile, so you are not depending on a small number of coaches to respond and reach out to these schools. Update Your Video With Your Best Recent GamesCoaches prefer current film, not video from a year ago. Update your video distribution with clips and full game from the competitions where you performed well most recently — recruiting decisions are made on what a coach can see right now, not on reputation alone. Keep Your Social Media Active and CurrentCollege coaches and their staffs check athlete social media as part of their evaluation process. Keep it updated with recent highlights, results and activity - an inactive or outdated profile can quietly work against you. Attend Remaining On-Campus Prospect CampsCamps still remaining on the calendar are a direct opportunity to be evaluated in person by a coaching staff. This matters even more when digital outreach has slowed down, because it puts you in directly front of decision-makers. What Is Parallel Path, and Why Does It Matter Right Now? Parallel Path is the term we use at RecruitU for a group of ideal colleges that are a strong holistic fit for an athlete academically, socially, and financially, even if they may not involve athletic participation. A stalled recruiting timeline is exactly the moment to make sure this group exists alongside your athletic list, not instead of it.
Building an accurate Parallel Path group takes real due diligence and expertise, not a handful of extra applications tacked on at the end. This is a core part of the guidance we provide our clients - we work directly with athletes and families to develop their Parallel Path group with intention, so it is a set of colleges they would be genuinely happy at, not a fallback list. If Your Season Goes Well but Recruiting Still Does Not Pick UpKeep your Parallel Path options in place regardless. But if an athlete has a strong season and recruiting still does not follow, it may be worth considering a post-grad year at a prep school or academy to keep developing and generate a fresh recruiting window.
This is a conversation we have often with our clients, and we would encourage any family considering a post-grad year to consult us on the eligibility and strategic implications before committing to it. George’s Take: “This time of year, staffs are focusing on their priority recruits and preparing their team for their season, so they have a lot on their plate. That does not mean high school athletes have been forgotten - it means staffs are working to lock down the recruits they want for the slots they have allocated to high schoolers and at the highly selective schools, they are also waiting on admissions to weigh in on their priority group before they move further. What I would caution families on is recognizing that once 2027 opens up, staffs with remaining spots will typically prioritize the transfer portal to fill openings. That is exactly why every athlete needs a genuine Parallel Path in place, not as a backup plan but as a real group of colleges that fit them regardless of how their athletic recruiting plays out. We build that Parallel Path with our clients directly, because it is too important to leave to the end of the process.” — George White, Founder and CEO, RecruitU Frequently Asked Questions Does a stalled recruiting process mean a coach is no longer interested? Not necessarily. Staffs go through cycles where their attention shifts to other priorities, including transfer portal athletes, and may return to their high school recruiting board later in the process. Why are colleges focusing more on the transfer portal heading into 2027? It is not that colleges have stopped recruiting high school athletes - it is that programs with roster spots still open after locking down their priority high school recruits tend to turn to the transfer portal to fill what remains, especially as 2027 begins. How often should I follow up with a college that has gone quiet? A brief, professional update every few weeks - new film, a recent result, or an upcoming camp you are attending - keeps you visible without becoming excessive. Should I add reach schools to my list if recruiting has slowed down? Yes. Expanding your list, including Parallel Path schools where you would attend without playing, protects your college outcome regardless of how the athletic recruiting process unfolds. Is it too late to attend a prospect camp this late in the process? No. Camps remaining on the calendar are still valuable, especially when digital outreach has slowed because they put you directly in front of a coaching staff. What is a Parallel Path in college recruiting? A Parallel Path is a group of colleges that are a strong holistic fit for an athlete academically and socially, even if they may not enable athletic participation. It is a strategy we develop directly with our clients at RecruitU. Will a post-grad prep or academy year affect my NCAA eligibility? It can, depending on your age and the NCAA’s 5 in 5 eligibility rule. The impact is not automatic and depends on individual circumstances, so this decision should be made with guidance from someone who understands the rule, not on your own. Ready for a Recruiting Strategy That Adjusts With You?RecruitU combines former college coaches with real recruiting expertise and direct access to coaching networks — Expertise Plus Access, for athletes and families navigating every stage of the recruiting process, including the moments when it goes quiet. Contact RecruitU to Reset Your Recruiting Strategy → 
The 5-in-5 rule is now official. A lawsuit was quickly filed. And the one-time transfer limitation — the issue that most directly squeezes high school athletes out of opportunities — was dropped from the proposal entirely. Here's the breakdown and current implications for major recruiting stakeholders and their families. By George White | June 25, 2026 | Recruiting Tips The NCAA's age-based 5-in-5 eligibility model is now officially approved — and the fallout was immediate. This piece is an update and deeper look at the rule now that the dust is starting to settle, updating my original analysis of the terms of the NCAA's initial proposal — what was approved, what the NCAA quietly dropped from its earlier proposal, the lawsuit already filed and the Congressional action that could still reshape everything. To understand the full picture — not just the headline — and what it means for high school athletes, college athletes and families navigating the recruiting process right now, read on. What Was ApprovedEarlier this week, the Division I Cabinet unanimously approved the age-based eligibility model. Five seasons of competition within a five-year window. The clock starts when a student-athlete first enrolls in college full-time, or at the beginning of the academic year following their 19th birthday — whichever comes first. Redshirts, hardship waivers, and clock extensions are essentially gone, with narrow exceptions for religious missions, pregnancy, or active-duty military service. Injured athletes will no longer qualify for extensions under this model. One note on the clock trigger: the rule as approved is anchored to full-time college enrollment, not high school graduation as stipulated in the original proposal. A traditional post-graduate year should not, in most cases, cost a student-athlete college eligibility as long as they enroll before the age threshold is crossed. Families should verify individual situations with a compliance expert, but a PG year is not automatically off the table.
⚠ NCAA Also Punted on the One-Year Transfer Rule The earlier version of this proposal included a provision that would have limited athletes to one transfer without having to sit out a year of competition. That provision was dropped entirely from what was approved — and most coverage is not mentioning it. This is the part of this story that matters most for high school athletes. More below.
What the NCAA Left Out — And Why Nobody Is Talking About ItThe earlier version of this proposal — which evolved significantly as it moved through the committee and review process — included a provision that would have limited athletes to one transfer with immediate playing eligibility, with a second transfer requiring a year in residence before being able to compete. That provision was dropped entirely from what was approved. To understand why this is significant, you need to understand where transfer rules stand today. In 2024, the NCAA eliminated all restrictions on the number of times an athlete can transfer, granting immediate eligibility regardless of how many times they move. The result has been a transfer portal that now functions like a free agency market.
Transfer Portal Impact — 2026 Cycle
FBS players who entered portal
~25%
Group of Six all-conf. players who stayed
29.5%
Power Four all-conf. players who stayed
74.6%
SEC/Big Ten eligible returners who stayed
97.4%
Source: CBS Sports / Transfer portal data, 2026 cycle
The portal has fundamentally disrupted roster continuity and, critically, consumed scholarship spots that would likely go to incoming high school recruits. Limiting transfers to one immediately eligible move was the most direct mechanism available to begin restoring that balance. The NCAA had it in its initial proposal. It removed it. This is not a small omission. Even President Trump's April executive order on college sports specifically directed the NCAA to allow athletes to transfer only once before graduating without sitting out, with a second transfer triggering a redshirt season. The NCAA moved forward on eligibility and left transfers completely untouched.
"The transfer portal problem remains exactly where it was. High school athletes are still competing for roster spots against a revolving door of experienced transfers. That dynamic is not changing under this rule."
A Lawsuit Was Filed Quickly — The NCAA Is Moving Forward AnywayShortly after the Cabinet vote, a group of 15 college basketball players filed suit in Ohio state court claiming the new age-based model unfairly shuts them out of further competition. The plaintiffs are members of the high school Class of 2022 — athletes who began their college careers in fall 2022, never redshirted, and now find themselves denied a fifth year that players they competed against were granted through COVID extensions. The complaint argues that the new rule "unjustifiably restrains their ability to earn money through use of their name, image, and likeness connected to their work as Division I athletes." Importantly, the suit doesn't challenge the 5-in-5 concept. The plaintiffs challenge the selective application — pointing out that classes of 2017–2020 and 2023–2025 received additional years of competition, and that former professional players were permitted to compete in a fifth year, while the Class of 2022 is denied the same. Attorneys filed for a temporary restraining order, which was denied, and a hearing on a preliminary injunction has been scheduled for next Wednesday. Similar lawsuits are expected in other states. The Division I Cabinet responded that it is aware of the legal action and does not intend to change course. Here is why this matters beyond the courtroom: if a court grants preliminary injunctive relief, next season could look like a COVID hybrid year — some athletes competing under extended eligibility while the broader system has moved on. Roster spots, playing time expectations for incoming freshmen, and recruiting timelines would all be disrupted. This is not a far-fetched outcome. We have seen it before.
If You're a College Athlete Who Just Used Your 4th Year of Eligibility And you still want to compete — look into the litigation groups forming around this issue. Joining may be your clearest path to obtaining an additional year of eligibility. Similar to the COVID era, a court-ordered hybrid season is a real possibility if injunctive relief is granted.
The transfer portal and spending arms race aren't just a college problem — they're squeezing high school athletes out of opportunity at every level. Source: RecruitU The Protect College Sports Act: The Transfer Rule's Last Hope — And Much MoreThe only remaining vehicle to address the transfer portal problem is federal legislation. The Protect College Sports Act, written after months of bipartisan negotiation between Senators Ted Cruz and Maria Cantwell and also sponsored by Senators Eric Schmitt and Chris Coons, was introduced on May 27, 2026, passed the Senate Commerce Committee and is headed to a full Senate vote. Under the bill, NCAA athletes would only be allowed to transfer one time without penalty. A second transfer would result in sitting out one full year of competition — a return to rules that were in place before the portal era began. But the transfer provision is just one piece. This is sweeping legislation that covers a range of issues that will affect athletes, families, programs and schools:
One critical caveat: even as a bipartisan bill, it will still need 60 votes to clear the Senate — a threshold supporters do not currently have. The bill's predecessor, the SCORE Act, stalled and was pulled from the House floor earlier this year. The version of the Protect College Sports Act that ultimately passes — if it passes — may look different from what was introduced. Federal legislation, if enacted, would also be far more resistant to legal challenges than any NCAA rule. The antitrust exemption is what gives Congress the ability to settle many of these issues in a way the NCAA simply cannot on its own.
Take Action: Contact Your Senator and Congressperson If you care about creating more opportunities for high school athletes in the recruiting process, urge your elected representatives to support the Protect College Sports Act. This is one of the most direct levers available right now — and who gets heard on this matters.
The Youth Redshirting Issue Nobody Is DiscussingHere is a downstream consequence that has continued to fly under the radar. Many parents hold their children back a year in school — commonly called "redshirting" in youth sports — to give them a physical development edge by the time the college recruiting window begins. Under the new age-based model, that decision could cost a student-athlete a year of college eligibility depending on when they turn 19 relative to their enrollment date. This will affect families who made that choice previously without the foresight of what it might mean for college eligibility down the line. It is a conversation high school counselors and coaches need to be having with parents and athletes. The Bottom Line: This Landscape Is Constantly ShiftingThe rule is approved. Litigation is already in court. Congress is still in play, and the Protect College Sports Act — which addresses far more than just transfers and eligibility — could change the picture significantly depending on what passes and what gets amended. What happens in a federal courtroom or on a Senate floor this summer could redefine the rules again before the fall season even begins. I am tracking all of this closely and in real time. If you have questions about how any of this affects your situation as an athlete, a family, or a high school program, reach out directly. Given how much is moving at once, this is a conversation worth having sooner rather than later. Rollout Timeline — For Reference
George White
Founder of RecruitU and former Division I coach. George was a Head Coach at the Division II and DIII levels and served as an assistant at the DI level. A former college athlete, he was Co-Captain of the Harvard Basketball Team. Full bio on LinkedIn.
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:
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. Athletic Department Financial Strain — Inside the Power Conferences
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 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.
Bottom Line
The SEC and Big Ten breakaway threat is leverage — not inevitability. The conferences making that threat include programs that are already financially insolvent and cannot sustain the arms race they are demanding the freedom to escalate. And the breakaway itself is far more complicated than its architects will admit. No one has answered the most basic operational question: where do the swimmers, wrestlers, gymnasts, baseball, volleyball and soccer players at every SEC and Big Ten school compete when the other conferences close the door? A breakaway is not a football decision. It is a decision that puts hundreds of non-revenue programs - and thousands of student-athletes who had no say in any of this - in immediate competitive jeopardy. College sports fans deserve competitive breadth, genuine rivalries and a system where more than two dozen schools can realistically compete for national championships. Fan loyalty - the foundational asset that makes college sports worth billions - does not survive a fully transactional sports landscape. It never has. Charlie Baker and the NCAA must stop rewarding threats with concessions. Capitulation is not governance. Hold the line. 
 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:
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:
Where the longer-term shift occurs (commencing 2027):
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:
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:
What This Means Prep schools and academies must adapt:
This is being driven by:
Resulting Impact
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:
Eligibility is no longer flexible—it is fixed and time-bound. Missteps can:
🎙️ 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:
Replacing it with:
Implication
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:
This creates a critical shift: Athletes must get the decision right the first time. Recruiting should now emphasize:
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:
This creates:
Result: Mid- and low-major programs become more attractive recruiting destinations, offering:
8. Other Ramifications to Monitor Additional impacts include:
How High School Programs Can Respond Programs that adapt early will have a clear advantage. Key actions:
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:
Key Takeaway The NCAA’s “5-in-5” proposal is creating:
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. 
Proposed NCAA Eligibility Rule Changes: Impact on High School Recruiting, NIL, and Athlete Opportunities
The NCAA is considering major changes to athlete eligibility rules, including:
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:
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:
A Key Change: When Eligibility Actually Begins One of the most important changes is how eligibility will be measured. Under the proposal:
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:
2. Delayed Entry Pathways (Reclassing, Prep Schools, Academies) Athletes who:
…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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
But they also create:
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. 🏀 College Sports Reform Is Creating More Risk — Not Less 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.
📉 The Hidden Impact on Opportunities Following the House v. NCAA settlement, the ripple effects are already being felt:
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:
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:
They could be left with:
⚖️ 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:
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:
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: Now it’s also about:
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:
Yet despite their role, student-athletes still lack:
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:
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:
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:
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:
How RecruitU Supports Student-Athletes and Families RecruitU provides guidance for families navigating:
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:
Explore More Resources
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:
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 |
AuthorOur Founder, George White was a Head Coach at both the Division II and DIII levels and served as an assistant at the DI level. A former college athlete, he was Co-Captain of the Harvard basektball Team. His full bio can be found here: Archives
September 2026
Categories
All
|
RSS Feed
