Started By
Message
re: Texas Tech billionaire and NIL... interesting read
Posted on 11/4/25 at 9:11 am to MtVernon
Posted on 11/4/25 at 9:11 am to MtVernon
quote:
Campbell is proposing all sorts of interesting gyrations that all sound potentially reasonable, although you get lost and fall asleep while trying to digest it.
We really didn’t need further confirmation that your pea-sized brain was incapable of more complex thought than wondering when your shift ends so you can resume smoking meth. You’ve made that crystal clear already
2
Posted on 11/4/25 at 9:12 am to idlewatcher
quote:
It’s not good for CFB however because you become a league of haves/havenots
Just wait until the Saudis decide they want a college football team. Good luck to everyone else when whatever team they get behind gets a billion dollars to spend on their roster.
Posted on 11/4/25 at 9:12 am to NWLA_Bama
So how many of these $28 million dollar checks does this guy have because either it is going to get old constantly handing money over to an athletic department which then hands it over to 18-year old kids in the hope that an overpaid coaching staff will gel them into a contender or . . .
. . . the $28 million dollars/year is going to be seen as small potatoes to Ohio State, Texas and every other program with a larger fan base than Tech will ever have and he will be asked to up the ante to maintain a spot at the table with the Big Dogs?
. . . the $28 million dollars/year is going to be seen as small potatoes to Ohio State, Texas and every other program with a larger fan base than Tech will ever have and he will be asked to up the ante to maintain a spot at the table with the Big Dogs?
Posted on 11/4/25 at 9:22 am to thatthang
quote:
when your shift ends
what is shifting? what do you mean, please explain
Posted on 11/4/25 at 9:24 am to thatthang
quote:
you can resume smoking meth
huh? is that like brisket? Please explain your world.
Posted on 11/4/25 at 9:27 am to JacieNY
quote:
So how many of these $28 million dollar checks does this guy have because either it is going to get old constantly handing money over to an athletic department which then hands it over to 18-year old kids in the hope that an overpaid coaching staff will gel them into a contender or . . .
. . . the $28 million dollars/year is going to be seen as small potatoes to Ohio State, Texas and every other program with a larger fan base than Tech will ever have and he will be asked to up the ante to maintain a spot at the table with the Big Dogs?
Donor fatigue is going to ultimately happen to every school. That's why some form of a CBA will ultimately be adopted. Only one team wins the NC each year yet you've got donors from all these other schools being asked to drop millions every year. At some point, regardless if they "have it" or not. They're going to get tired of it. It is an unstainable model.
Posted on 11/4/25 at 9:30 am to DE4D
quote:Most people are usually a little bit behind the curve. It took people a while to realize the potential of NIL, but now that House is about to neuter NIL, most people are blind to it and think unlimited NIL is here to stay. Campbell doesn't; he acknowledged that in the quoted article, yet people keep suggesting that he can just pump unlimited money into sports without noting the necessity of needing a vehicle.
Nah, he puts just as much money into softball, and is a huge contributor to Olympic athletes training. Put aside your tech bias, brother.
Campbell has made Tech competitive through NIL. Tech spends more on NIL (particularly in softball and football) than other schools, so that's made them competitive. But, when the NIL pipeline gets blocked by House, he can't really funnel more money to Tech than whatever fully funding scholarships and revenue sharing allows. If Tech does that (full schollies, full revenue share), that will put them ahead of most P4 schools, and even some Big Ten/SEC schools, but it won't be the same as throwing tens of millions of dollars of NIL money around.
Posted on 11/4/25 at 11:23 am to Tropicofcapricorn
quote:
t's funny when commissioners are quoted "he doesn't understand the business of football"
Let's say a program brings some players in, at a specific position, during the transfer portal in January. What will happen when a player finds himself buried on the 4th string of a program in February or after spring ball. Especially in a high demand position like quarterback.
He can't transfer out but he ( and his agent ) can sue to have the transfer window open year round. This 3 week transfer portal only in January idea may get shot down in flames this off season.
Why would this happen? Agents want to make money year round.
Posted on 11/4/25 at 11:29 am to Houag80
quote:
Sankey's arrogance is unmatched.
Maybe, but he's is right, why would the SEC want to combine their TV rights with the Big 12 and ACC?
Posted on 11/4/25 at 11:31 am to TigerintheNO
quote:
why would the SEC want to combine their TV rights with the Big 12
Not so fast, you may like this. Texas would go back to the Big 12.
Posted on 11/4/25 at 5:49 pm to Tropicofcapricorn
Idk why the universities are dishonest about the source for funding their ADs.
LSU for instance is diverting somewhere between $50-$100 million per year from government funds/student tuition and fees to fund their athletic department
The funding comes out of their unrestricted funds, which the universities are free to spend how they please. They try to hide the sourcing, but if you compare line items between years, the morons that do the accounting give it away
Comparing their athletic departments OP BUDGET reports for these years
2011
2019
2023
2024
In 2011 LSU won the SEC CG and made the BCS NCG, in 2019 they also won the SEC and went on to win CFP playoff.
The purpose of using these 2 years is comparing how much revenue changed between 2011 and 2019 as a baseline for the maximum potential change between 2019 and 2024, only a 5 year gap vs 8 and the primary revenue sport didn't have near the success as 2011 or 2019.
Athletic administration revenues is one of the primary ways they're disguising funneling money into the program
In 2011
Athletic Administration generated $0.00 vs $7,822,173 in expenses, for a net -$7,822,173
In 2019
Athletic Administration generated $309,820 vs $12,707,455 in expenses, for a net of $-12,397,635
*Note every year prior to 2022, Athletic administration never generated more than $1mm in revenue and was always a huge net expense
In 2023, the Athletic Admin fund revenues jump to $23,364,471 vs $14,647,556 in expenses, yielding a profit of $8,716,915
In 2024, it climbs even further to $35,934,533 vs $13,987,043 in expenses
Interestingly enough, the TAF/Tradition fund has largely stayed stagnant, not pacing with inflation or NIL funding
2011 $21,006,659
2019 $24,537,683
2023 $24,420,793
2024 isn't available as it's been incorporated into the individual sport line item revenues in an attempt to obfuscate generated revenue
Same thing has been done for SEC related revenue, but it can be easily estimated based on the 2023 numbers
SEC distributions
2011 $19,343,709
2019 $28,837,768
2023 $33,319,199
2024 n/a
Ticket revenue, concessions and merch are mostly stagnant adjusted for inflation, these values are unadjusted
2011 $41,956,531
2019 $53,951,928
2023 $64,006,183
2024 the item is no longer accurate as several outside revenues were incorporated into the figure starting this year
Net revenue - related activities seems to be another arbitrary line item that is used to funnel money from the university direct fund into the athletic department, as looking at the deferred revenues/net asset changes from 2019 to 2023, it's blatantly obvious the athletic department isn't profitable
It lists Net Revenue - related activities as generating the following
2011 $9,832,717
2019 $25,773,135
2023 $30,693,838
2024 n/a, incorporated into individual sports
That income gross is literally impossible given the Assets/Liabilities/Deferred Revenue and AD impact on the balance of the University Fund
2011
Assets $32,058,420
Liabilities $24,830,365
Deferred Revenue $24,146,202
Net Assets $7,228,055
Total OP fund balance $5,726,093
Total Fund Balance $7,228,055
2019
Assets $31,656,474
Liabilities $30,770,508
Deferred Revenue $27,839,259
Net Assets $885,966
Total OP fund balance $36,946
Total Fund Balance $885,966
2023
Assets $24,625,906
Liabilities $60,228,616
Deferred Revenue $55,454,946
Net Assets $-35,602,710
Total OP fund balance $-36,885,751
Total Fund Balance $-35,602,710
2024
Assets $31,554,730
Liabilities $66,929,015
Deferred Revenue $63,415,815
Net Assets $-35,374,285
Total OP fund balance $-36,576,098
Total Fund Balance $-35,374,285
Finally you have Electronic Media/Sports productions, which I suppose are LSU media rights separate from the SEC and ad revenue from LSU digital content
2011 $6,839,228
2019 $23,753,540
2023 $26,921,300
2024 $23,916,660
This growth seems feasible given how much ad revenue has increased online from 2011 to present, but it's hard to take anything at face value given how much BS is present on their OP budget
For FY 2024, LSU incorporated the SEC distribution/Net Revenue-Related Activities and Tradition Fund information into the team sport revenue line items in order to conceal the amounts and inflate self generated revenue numbers
But the reality is the Athletic Admin and net-related activities revenues are coming straight out of the university fund, and assuming the latter went unchanged from 2023, that would amount of $66,628,371 in 2024. And then there's the Tradition fund which I'm assuming is the TAF, which is likely sourced at least partially from fees attached to season ticket sales?
Oh and for the clincher, here's instructions from the department of education in 2024 instructing athletic departments on how to obscure their accounting for a general survey
LINK
LSU isn't the only one doing shite like this, it's likely every program in the country and I'm sure all of them are several million in the red without being subsidized yearly(e.g. The university of Oregon pays the athletic department $1 million a year for luxury seats for the university president. The funding was supposedly sourced from a booster's foundation, as it turns out was coming 100% from tuition/fees)
TL/DR: 30-55% of LSU's AD's expenses are subsidized via taxpayers and student tuition/fees
LSU for instance is diverting somewhere between $50-$100 million per year from government funds/student tuition and fees to fund their athletic department
The funding comes out of their unrestricted funds, which the universities are free to spend how they please. They try to hide the sourcing, but if you compare line items between years, the morons that do the accounting give it away
Comparing their athletic departments OP BUDGET reports for these years
2011
2019
2023
2024
In 2011 LSU won the SEC CG and made the BCS NCG, in 2019 they also won the SEC and went on to win CFP playoff.
The purpose of using these 2 years is comparing how much revenue changed between 2011 and 2019 as a baseline for the maximum potential change between 2019 and 2024, only a 5 year gap vs 8 and the primary revenue sport didn't have near the success as 2011 or 2019.
Athletic administration revenues is one of the primary ways they're disguising funneling money into the program
In 2011
Athletic Administration generated $0.00 vs $7,822,173 in expenses, for a net -$7,822,173
In 2019
Athletic Administration generated $309,820 vs $12,707,455 in expenses, for a net of $-12,397,635
*Note every year prior to 2022, Athletic administration never generated more than $1mm in revenue and was always a huge net expense
In 2023, the Athletic Admin fund revenues jump to $23,364,471 vs $14,647,556 in expenses, yielding a profit of $8,716,915
In 2024, it climbs even further to $35,934,533 vs $13,987,043 in expenses
Interestingly enough, the TAF/Tradition fund has largely stayed stagnant, not pacing with inflation or NIL funding
2011 $21,006,659
2019 $24,537,683
2023 $24,420,793
2024 isn't available as it's been incorporated into the individual sport line item revenues in an attempt to obfuscate generated revenue
Same thing has been done for SEC related revenue, but it can be easily estimated based on the 2023 numbers
SEC distributions
2011 $19,343,709
2019 $28,837,768
2023 $33,319,199
2024 n/a
Ticket revenue, concessions and merch are mostly stagnant adjusted for inflation, these values are unadjusted
2011 $41,956,531
2019 $53,951,928
2023 $64,006,183
2024 the item is no longer accurate as several outside revenues were incorporated into the figure starting this year
Net revenue - related activities seems to be another arbitrary line item that is used to funnel money from the university direct fund into the athletic department, as looking at the deferred revenues/net asset changes from 2019 to 2023, it's blatantly obvious the athletic department isn't profitable
It lists Net Revenue - related activities as generating the following
2011 $9,832,717
2019 $25,773,135
2023 $30,693,838
2024 n/a, incorporated into individual sports
That income gross is literally impossible given the Assets/Liabilities/Deferred Revenue and AD impact on the balance of the University Fund
2011
Assets $32,058,420
Liabilities $24,830,365
Deferred Revenue $24,146,202
Net Assets $7,228,055
Total OP fund balance $5,726,093
Total Fund Balance $7,228,055
2019
Assets $31,656,474
Liabilities $30,770,508
Deferred Revenue $27,839,259
Net Assets $885,966
Total OP fund balance $36,946
Total Fund Balance $885,966
2023
Assets $24,625,906
Liabilities $60,228,616
Deferred Revenue $55,454,946
Net Assets $-35,602,710
Total OP fund balance $-36,885,751
Total Fund Balance $-35,602,710
2024
Assets $31,554,730
Liabilities $66,929,015
Deferred Revenue $63,415,815
Net Assets $-35,374,285
Total OP fund balance $-36,576,098
Total Fund Balance $-35,374,285
Finally you have Electronic Media/Sports productions, which I suppose are LSU media rights separate from the SEC and ad revenue from LSU digital content
2011 $6,839,228
2019 $23,753,540
2023 $26,921,300
2024 $23,916,660
This growth seems feasible given how much ad revenue has increased online from 2011 to present, but it's hard to take anything at face value given how much BS is present on their OP budget
For FY 2024, LSU incorporated the SEC distribution/Net Revenue-Related Activities and Tradition Fund information into the team sport revenue line items in order to conceal the amounts and inflate self generated revenue numbers
But the reality is the Athletic Admin and net-related activities revenues are coming straight out of the university fund, and assuming the latter went unchanged from 2023, that would amount of $66,628,371 in 2024. And then there's the Tradition fund which I'm assuming is the TAF, which is likely sourced at least partially from fees attached to season ticket sales?
Oh and for the clincher, here's instructions from the department of education in 2024 instructing athletic departments on how to obscure their accounting for a general survey
LINK
LSU isn't the only one doing shite like this, it's likely every program in the country and I'm sure all of them are several million in the red without being subsidized yearly(e.g. The university of Oregon pays the athletic department $1 million a year for luxury seats for the university president. The funding was supposedly sourced from a booster's foundation, as it turns out was coming 100% from tuition/fees)
TL/DR: 30-55% of LSU's AD's expenses are subsidized via taxpayers and student tuition/fees
This post was edited on 11/4/25 at 9:41 pm
Posted on 11/4/25 at 6:32 pm to Rex Feral
He's 100% right.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News