desperate need to create a collective bargaining agreement for college athletics-- but that would imply an employment relationship, which is another level of relationship that we have yet to get to previously
I think that may be the only way to reign in this wild west landscape that NIL currently resides.
There may be other viable solutions, but this would certainly be an improvement over the current system.
The core problem is that the NCAA is a relic, designed to govern non-revenue, club-style activities within academic institutions. It is now being asked to impose structure on a trillion-dollar, entertainment-driven industry—something it was never built to do.
.
desperate need to create a collective bargaining agreement for college athletics-- but that would imply an employment relationship
The other issue with that solution is that a significant %, maybe even a majority of NCAA brand-name state schools are in places where public sector unions and thus collective bargaining by state employees are outlawed
desperate need to create a collective bargaining agreement for college athletics-- but that would imply an employment relationship
The other issue with that solution is that a significant %, maybe even a majority of NCAA brand-name state schools are in places where public sector unions and thus collective bargaining by state employees are outlawed
I don’t think they are actually “outlawed”, but they are right to work states where a union can form, but there is no obligation for individuals who work along side union employees to join (pay the dues) and you get a free rider situation so the organization falls apart.
that being said, the NFL is successful in maintaining unions in those states, like Texas. So maybe we could use that model.
I don’t think they are actually “outlawed”, but they are right to work states where a union can form, but there is no obligation for individuals who work along side union employees to join (pay the dues) and you get a free rider situation so the organization falls apart.
No, public sector unions and collective bargaining by government employees are explicitly illegal in certain states with some exceptions (cops, firefighters, sometimes teachers) made by those states.
So for example:
In both Georgia and Indiana, it would violate state law for UGA and IU respectively to collectively bargain with the UGA and IU football players as employees of state govt institutions.
that being said, the NFL is successful in maintaining unions in those states, like Texas. So maybe we could use that model.
(1) Employees of NFL franchises are not employees of their state governments. Therefore, they are not subject to state-level laws against public sector collective bargaining.
(2) The pro sports leagues (mainly thinking of MLB here) have longstanding antitrust exemptions that were granted by Congress, which is what the NCAA has been begging for the last decade or so.
Thanks for the clarification; I was clearly mistaken on parts of my understanding.
That said, there are still some important distinctions between what the NCAA was requesting and how professional‑sports antitrust exemptions work. At least as I currently understand, but as you know I have been wrong before.
1. College athletes are generally not treated as employees of their schools under current federal law, but they are students enrolled at academic institutions, and courts have repeatedly described them as “student‑athletes” rather than employees for many purposes. So if the state laws only prohibit state employees from unions, this wouldn’t apply to students t athletes.
At the same time, recent cases such as Johnson v. NCAA have left open the possibility that, under certain economic‑realities tests, some athletes could qualify as employees in specific contexts, which is why their status remains contested rather than definitively settled.[1]
2. My understanding is that the NCAA’s legal posture in Alston and related NIL litigation is not meaningfully comparable to the main antitrust exemptions enjoyed by professional leagues. Professional leagues have long imposed restraints on player movement and labor markets (reserve clauses, drafts, salary caps), but they have not relied on a exemptions to justify a prohibition on players monetizing their own name, image, and likeness through third‑party endorsements.
By contrast, the NCAA effectively sought antitrust deference for rules that capped or barred athlete compensation, including NIL, which is a different and more aggressive kind of restraint. Justice Kavanaugh’, in NCAA v. Alston, highlighted this by analogizing the NCAA’s model to a group of restaurants seeking an exemption from antitrust law so they could avoid paying workers on the theory that customers prefer food prepared by unpaid labor.[2][3]
3. I would need to look more closely at the specific antitrust exemptions that apply to each professional league, but my current understanding is as follows. Major League Baseball enjoys a unique, judge‑made antitrust exemption, and the major professional leagues share a statutory exemption under the Sports Broadcasting Act that allows joint sale of national broadcast rights. College athletics could, in theory, be reorganized to fit more closely within those kinds of structures—especially if athletes were recognized as employees bargaining collectively—but absent such a framework, it is not obvious how the NCAA can claim those exemptions for restrictions on athlete compensation.[2]
4. In my view, the likely outcomes is a model in which athletic programs are spun off as more distinct legal entities, with universities primarily licensing intellectual property (marks, logos, and names) and providing academic enrollment rather than directly operating high‑revenue sports enterprises. This kind of separation, as I see it, would make it easier to treat athletes as employees of athletic entities for labor and antitrust purposes while preserving only a looser, contractual affiliation with the universities themselves.
Sources
[1] Johnson v. NCAA: Student-Athlete Employment Status in the ... https://www.venable.com/insights/publications/2025/01/johnson-v-ncaa-student-athlete-employment
[2] [PDF] Touching Base with Baseball's Antitrust Exemption https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3543&context=lawreview
[3] Supreme Court unanimously sides with former college players in ... https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/31679946/supreme-court-sides-former-players-dispute-ncaa-compensation
Thanks for the clarification; I was clearly mistaken on parts of my understanding. That said, there are still some important distinctions between what the NCAA was requesting and how professional‑sports antitrust exemptions work.
Good points, both of you, on the subject.
First off, I was not clear in my multiyear contract concerns. The NCAA has classically had a one-year-at-a-time connection for student-athletes, as scholarships have been for one-year only (allowing schools to pull scholarships for a variety of reasons). The NCAA trying to have its cake and eat it too would be a tricky problem with antitrust implications-- holding multiyear contracts but allowing scholarships to be only a yearly decision is something that cannot be easily enforced-- especially in an era of a transfer portal. And if the NCAA unilaterally adopted a rule requiring multiyear contracts it would cause an antitrust issue.
So it isn't an issue that multiyear contracts aren't legal-- that wasn't my point-- but applying them in the NCAA environment would be tricky unless it was bargained for.
My reference to a CBA is intending to demonstrate a situation whereby the schools could bargain with a class representative of the student athletes to create an overarching agreement governing the relationship. As both point out, it is very tricky-- student-athletes are not employees (and nobody seems to want them to become employees for a variety of reasons), so they cannot unionize (and, as pointed out, may be even more problematic if they were). But creating a class representative is also tricky because who gets to decide who should be the representatives of the class?
Courts seemingly want Congress to create these lines; Congress, influenced by special and local interests, seems more interested in a return of the previous arrangement- but given the political discord, nothing is getting done anyway there. Courts are generally reluctant to make a broad class of law without the legislature acting, so the result is the current mess.
But creating a class representative is also tricky because who gets to decide who should be the representatives of the class?
First and foremost, the interests of elite star players (the 0.1%) and replacement level / depth players (the 99%) are so far apart as to make this unrealistic in my opinion. On an individual level there is really nothing that could entice self-interested B1G/SEC stars to take a likely steep paycut and have their freedoms restricted, which a CBA would necessitate (it’s bargaining after all) just so that 3rd-stringers on G5 teams can have some more certainty and stability.
the same problem applies to the schools. You can’t have collective bargaining if there’s no collective to speak of and the AD at places like tOSU, Bama etc. have such vastly different interests than say, St. Thomas and Western Michigan
Good points, both of you, on the subject.
First off, I was not clear in my multiyear contract concerns. The NCAA has classically had a one-year-at-a-time connection for student-athletes, as scholarships have been for one-year only (allowing schools to pull scholarships for a variety of reasons). The NCAA trying to have its cake and eat it too would be a tricky problem with antitrust implications-- holding multiyear contracts but allowing scholarships to be only a yearly decision is something that cannot be easily enforced-- especially in an era of a transfer portal. And if the NCAA unilaterally adopted a rule requiring multiyear contracts it would cause an antitrust issue.
So it isn't an issue that multiyear contracts aren't legal-- that wasn't my point-- but applying them in the NCAA environment would be tricky unless it was bargained for.
My reference to a CBA is intending to demonstrate a situation whereby the schools could bargain with a class representative of the student athletes to create an overarching agreement governing the relationship. As both point out, it is very tricky-- student-athletes are not employees (and nobody seems to want them to become employees for a variety of reasons), so they cannot unionize (and, as pointed out, may be even more problematic if they were). But creating a class representative is also tricky because who gets to decide who should be the representatives of the class?
Courts seemingly want Congress to create these lines; Congress, influenced by special and local interests, seems more interested in a return of the previous arrangement- but given the political discord, nothing is getting done anyway there. Courts are generally reluctant to make a broad class of law without the legislature acting, so the result is the current mess.
One of the complications with multi year contracts is simply: contract with whom? If the agreement is between the athlete and a collective, and the school is not a party, the NCAA has essentially no leverage. I believe this is how contracts are currently structured. Texas Tech’s multi year arrangements work this way, I believe, with contracts tied to the collective and implicitly contingent on remaining in Lubbock.
If the NCAA wanted real influence here, the cleaner approach would be to require a standard three year contract between schools and athletes who choose to participate in the school’s revenue sharing. Participation would be voluntary and limited to select athletes, separate from NIL. Athletes who do not participate could still pursue NIL and other revenue opportunities without any long term commitment. However, if a school chose to share revenue with an athlete, it would require a three year commitment and presumably involve higher compensation. Collectives could still add supplemental agreements or riders, but the core relationship would be standardized at the institutional level. That is the only way I can think of for the NCAA to have influence.
Regarding the one year scholarship issue, I’m not sure what the actual constraints are. If scholarships are awarded annually, that still seems workable. A three year commitment could be guaranteed through the revenue sharing contract by covering the tuition amount in any year the scholarship is not renewed, either by the school or the NIL collective, or by simply guaranteeing a three year scholarship outright.
The University of Minnesota is refusing to release either individual or team-by-team details about how it’s directly paying student athletes.
Citing privacy and trade secrets, university officials refused repeated data requests from the Minnesota Star Tribune that aimed to understand how the school is compensating athletes after the historic House v. NCAA settlement, which lets schools pay $20.5 million to its athletes this year. The school cited student privacy when refusing to release data on individual athletes, and also refused to release payment breakdown by program because the school considers it commercially valuable information.
“Such summary data would reveal the method for allocating the $20.5 million, which the university is protecting as a trade secret,” said U spokesman Joe Linstroth.
While the school isn’t disclosing specific spending, officials said last year the money would go to football, men’s and women’s basketball, women’s volleyball and men’s hockey.
Looking down from my High Horse
Morality Police
The University of Minnesota is refusing to release either individual or team-by-team details about how it’s directly paying student athletes.
Citing privacy and trade secrets, university officials refused repeated data requests from the Minnesota Star Tribune that aimed to understand how the school is compensating athletes after the historic House v. NCAA settlement, which lets schools pay $20.5 million to its athletes this year. The school cited student privacy when refusing to release data on individual athletes, and also refused to release payment breakdown by program because the school considers it commercially valuable information.
“Such summary data would reveal the method for allocating the $20.5 million, which the university is protecting as a trade secret,” said U spokesman Joe Linstroth.
While the school isn’t disclosing specific spending, officials said last year the money would go to football, men’s and women’s basketball, women’s volleyball and men’s hockey.
don't blame them and I wouldn't either. Would allow other athletic departments to set targets/quotas to "out offer" possible recruits on the revenue sharing front.
I personally dislike how they're choosing to allocate in terms of sports included, but here that's a different argument
With NIL the NCAA and school athletic departments are building the plane as it's flying.
Scary and interesting at the same time.
“When your best friend is the son of God, you get tired of losing every argument.”
― Christopher Moore, Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff, Christ's Childhood Pal
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The University of Minnesota is refusing to release either individual or team-by-team details about how it’s directly paying student athletes.
Citing privacy and trade secrets, university officials refused repeated data requests from the Minnesota Star Tribune that aimed to understand how the school is compensating athletes after the historic House v. NCAA settlement, which lets schools pay $20.5 million to its athletes this year. The school cited student privacy when refusing to release data on individual athletes, and also refused to release payment breakdown by program because the school considers it commercially valuable information.
“Such summary data would reveal the method for allocating the $20.5 million, which the university is protecting as a trade secret,” said U spokesman Joe Linstroth.
While the school isn’t disclosing specific spending, officials said last year the money would go to football, men’s and women’s basketball, women’s volleyball and men’s hockey.
don't blame them and I wouldn't either. Would allow other athletic departments to set targets/quotas to "out offer" possible recruits on the revenue sharing front.
I personally dislike how they're choosing to allocate in terms of sports included, but here that's a different argument
women’s volleyball getting in on rev share is interesting to me, I don’t mind it as I’m sure a little goes a very long way in that sport. Now, I’m obviously biased but I wouldn’t really care if we fiscally abandoned trying to compete in men’s basketball, I imagine the costs to get our program up to par would be immense relative to the near-term potential ROI
The University of Minnesota is refusing to release either individual or team-by-team details about how it’s directly paying student athletes.
Citing privacy and trade secrets, university officials refused repeated data requests from the Minnesota Star Tribune that aimed to understand how the school is compensating athletes after the historic House v. NCAA settlement, which lets schools pay $20.5 million to its athletes this year. The school cited student privacy when refusing to release data on individual athletes, and also refused to release payment breakdown by program because the school considers it commercially valuable information.
“Such summary data would reveal the method for allocating the $20.5 million, which the university is protecting as a trade secret,” said U spokesman Joe Linstroth.
While the school isn’t disclosing specific spending, officials said last year the money would go to football, men’s and women’s basketball, women’s volleyball and men’s hockey.
don't blame them and I wouldn't either. Would allow other athletic departments to set targets/quotas to "out offer" possible recruits on the revenue sharing front.
I personally dislike how they're choosing to allocate in terms of sports included, but here that's a different argument
women’s volleyball getting in on rev share is interesting to me, I don’t mind it as I’m sure a little goes a very long way in that sport. Now, I’m obviously biased but I wouldn’t really care if we fiscally abandoned trying to compete in men’s basketball, I imagine the costs to get our program up to par would be immense relative to the near-term potential ROI
The upside with MBB is that with the transfer portal, you only need about 3-4 guys and you suddenly have a very good team that could be a solid tournament team. So I don't know that you need to spend oodles of money-- you just have to have the right pieces in place. As much as I love Ben Johnson as a person, he wasn't the right guy for the NIL/Transfer Portal era. Hopefully Niko is.
(But oodles of money together with the coach can make it to the top faster, to be sure).
Because men's volleyball isn't really in as a spectator sport in most places of the country, women's volleyball has a perfect focus to drive spectators and revenue. And the B1G is in a great position to capitalize on making VB a huge deal in this part of the country.
There is zero chance a B1G program is going to shelve men's basketball.
There is zero chance a B1G program is going to shelve men's basketball.
i think more the intriguing question is, you make your money off TV deals. B10 football and M/WBB are collectively negotiated and by far the biggest drivers of revenue. But, even if your team sucks, you still get the same share. so, one could foreseeably say its fine if we suck, our team is still giving us revenue we can use elsewhere (and the B10 isn't going to kick out the Minneapolis market).
Think that's more what people are saying. Similar to football. Does putting 15mil in there to finish middle of the pack make a difference? Or could you cut and put it elsewhere for higher return on "championship" profile to spend it on other sports.
Think we see a lot of southern NIL boosters doing this with VB, women's softball, and there are schools doing this for wrestling too. clearly not at all what NIL was supposed to be but a school could also do this type of thing with their revenue sharing, though that likely has to split across an entire team rather than doled out to certain players at higher allocation rates.
The football program is the highest profile sport at the U, and who knows what MBB might be able to do with Medved as the coach. If they wanted to short-change that program they would have kept Ben Johnson.
The harsh reality is that we as hockey fans are in the minority. There is zero chance they're going to scrap or pullback spending on MBB, and you're deluding yourself if you think it could happen. With all due respect.
Gopher hockey was the ONLY non FB or MBB sport in the ENTIRE B1G to make money. That is crazy. To the institution, then, you put it in the column of revenue drivers. Other sports, like VB or WBB which make some revenues but not enough to cover the overhead, the question is how do they limit their losses in the face of revenue gained. Then you have some of the Olympic sports which are simply losses. We won't drive any revenue from tennis sufficient to even come close to paying costs ever.
It is good to be in the first column. Those are your golden geese.
I think the calculation that Coyle has to make is whether redirecting assets away from hockey toward MBB or even FB would net even more money overall for the institution. At the same time, you protect them too-- you don't want to allow a profitable venture to become unprofitable because of neglect (see: Wisconsin hockey).
Right now, I don't think that redirecting money away from hockey would be a good idea- basketball is swinging up with the investments you have, and football is at a place not seen since the 1960s here. But market conditions change...
Gopher hockey was the ONLY non FB or MBB sport in the ENTIRE B1G to make money. That is crazy. To the institution, then, you put it in the column of revenue drivers. Other sports, like VB or WBB which make some revenues but not enough to cover the overhead, the question is how do they limit their losses in the face of revenue gained. Then you have some of the Olympic sports which are simply losses. We won't drive any revenue from tennis sufficient to even come close to paying costs ever.
It is good to be in the first column. Those are your golden geese.
I think the calculation that Coyle has to make is whether redirecting assets away from hockey toward MBB or even FB would net even more money overall for the institution. At the same time, you protect them too-- you don't want to allow a profitable venture to become unprofitable because of neglect (see: Wisconsin hockey).
Right now, I don't think that redirecting money away from hockey would be a good idea- basketball is swinging up with the investments you have, and football is at a place not seen since the 1960s here. But market conditions change...
I hope i didn't give off any impression money should be diverted away from hockey as that should never happen. I simply don't think they will take from MBB to give to hockey either.
Gopher hockey was the ONLY non FB or MBB sport in the ENTIRE B1G to make money. That is crazy. To the institution, then, you put it in the column of revenue drivers. Other sports, like VB or WBB which make some revenues but not enough to cover the overhead, the question is how do they limit their losses in the face of revenue gained. Then you have some of the Olympic sports which are simply losses. We won't drive any revenue from tennis sufficient to even come close to paying costs ever.
It is good to be in the first column. Those are your golden geese.
I think the calculation that Coyle has to make is whether redirecting assets away from hockey toward MBB or even FB would net even more money overall for the institution. At the same time, you protect them too-- you don't want to allow a profitable venture to become unprofitable because of neglect (see: Wisconsin hockey).
Right now, I don't think that redirecting money away from hockey would be a good idea- basketball is swinging up with the investments you have, and football is at a place not seen since the 1960s here. But market conditions change...
I hope i didn't give off any impression money should be diverted away from hockey as that should never happen. I simply don't think they will take from MBB to give to hockey either.
No-- good call. We are on the same wavelength here.
Thinking in the mindset of an athletics administrator, it is simply a cost/profit calculation, and where is the highest upside. Where do they get the biggest bang for the buck?
To the group-- the converse is also true-- if hockey has better profitability, they will divert money there too.
Gopher hockey was the ONLY non FB or MBB sport in the ENTIRE B1G to make money. That is crazy. To the institution, then, you put it in the column of revenue drivers. Other sports, like VB or WBB which make some revenues but not enough to cover the overhead, the question is how do they limit their losses in the face of revenue gained. Then you have some of the Olympic sports which are simply losses. We won't drive any revenue from tennis sufficient to even come close to paying costs ever.
It is good to be in the first column. Those are your golden geese.
I think the calculation that Coyle has to make is whether redirecting assets away from hockey toward MBB or even FB would net even more money overall for the institution. At the same time, you protect them too-- you don't want to allow a profitable venture to become unprofitable because of neglect (see: Wisconsin hockey).
Right now, I don't think that redirecting money away from hockey would be a good idea- basketball is swinging up with the investments you have, and football is at a place not seen since the 1960s here. But market conditions change...
I hope i didn't give off any impression money should be diverted away from hockey as that should never happen. I simply don't think they will take from MBB to give to hockey either.
No-- good call. We are on the same wavelength here.
Thinking in the mindset of an athletics administrator, it is simply a cost/profit calculation, and where is the highest upside. Where do they get the biggest bang for the buck?
To the group-- the converse is also true-- if hockey has better profitability, they will divert money there too.
to you both, yes this is crux of it. I'm not expecting they'd move money away from MBB (and they certainly won't from FB), but it is an interesting question. Football they revenue share for basically everything but if you qualify for certain things you make more money. The ROI difference on ticket sales for football, when compared to post season, is pretty nil. However, football has shown across institutions that it can drive increased student body applications/enrollment
I have yet to see that meaningfully change for any women's sports to where it pulls them out of the red. We will get a case example for Gopher WBB here.
I think the question raised is, to pull Gopher MBB out of the cellar and into contention with any regularity, does that dollar amount investment have an ROI that moves the needle for the institution? The TV revenue doesn't change. Ticket sales in theory will go up, but do they increase enough to offset what you put in, knowing that TV revenue is static? Just contending better (kind of like this year) will have made them a few more dollars from fans in seats but they're not playing in any financially beneficial postseason games so did the extra investment actually generate any net benefit?
My worry is that they will look at MBB as one of the "drivers of revenue" because they generate TV money (which is negotiated conference wide/nationally). To me, I would exclude it from the calculus if I was the AD because that money isn't going anywhere (and if anything, even if you suck, its going to go up). So really it comes down to butts in seats and donations to the GGF/NIL apparatus to keep your programs funded. Does dumping extra money into it increase your kicks into the program that's never historically been any good in a way that increases your ROI drastically/sustainably? I don't know as our donation base has just been so historically weak comparatively to our B10 peers. Instead you have a sport where investment can be relatively low to be very good, a robust alumni base who follows the sport, and history of being very good (with season ticket prices that match that feeling) that turns a profit entirely outside of TV revenue but is going to be teetering a bit heading into next year. Do you invest there to prevent it from going into the doldrums we have seen?
I have no optimism that they would shunt money to Gopher hockey even if they would win/generate profit because they are chasing a perceived golden goose (ie be like Indiana) in football and BB (spending anything on women's sports is a relative PR move) and because we haven't seen them do so despite it being by far the most successful men's program of the last 50 years at the U (which isn't saying a ton). Add to it you have an AD who has said next to nothing about hockey, is from Iowa and went to Drake/FSU, and had major stops in Kentucky, Boise State, and Syracuse (all football/basketball predominant places) and I think you're going to see hockey relegated to the back burner regardless of success.
There are a ton of additional parts that factor in (alumni donations, student applications, student experience scores, business partnerships) that make this calculus impossible for us to know because a ton is behind the scenes or not publicized. Going to be an interesting offseason either way, but this team does need to compete nationally/internationally for recruits better. Think we'll learn how much of that was Bob and how much of that was money this year a little better
A couple things. Everyone is focused on revenue sharing, but that’s not where differentiation comes from. In football and basketball, it’s just baseline compensation driven by P4 TV money, spread across the same number of players. It will be inflationary, causing players to cost more. It doesn’t separate programs. NIL collectives and endorsements still do.
Hockey is different. Many top programs don’t have P4 football TV money behind them. That creates an opening. If Minnesota put ~$2M of revenue share into men’s hockey on top of NIL, it’s something most schools can’t match and most B1G schools won’t prioritize since their hockey programs don’t generate revenue. That’s how you create a dynasty.
I don’t expect it to happen. Football controls the pie, and even though I believe that $2M is marginal and subject to diminishing returns at that level, PJ would lose his mind over reallocating it.
Let's move the NIL discussion out of the Larson thread
@skiumahlaw @coach-klein @scsufan
Here is a good article from CHN about the NIL landscape across hockey
https://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2026/03/31_CHN-Special-Report-Part-.php
I am the official Iowa Hawkeye football fan of GPL!
Sorry gang-- busy week on my side before I could chime in.
Thanks for the conversation in my absence. The hard part about NIL is that there are rules, RULES and what everyone is doing.
The House settlement is the current RULE between student-athletes and schools. In addition to the class-action settlement for alumni, it imposes a quasi-collective bargaining agreement to govern the relationship between student-athletes and schools. This includes:
- Ability for schools to pay an amount (currently up to $21.5M) to student-athletes to compensate for name/image/likeness activities annually;
-Ability for athletes to earn more from third parties for NIL activities through legitimate business deals
-Ability for schools to eliminate caps on scholarships but impose roster maximums.
The first part allows schools to effective pay athletes for their play (though it is not compensation for performance. That would make student-athletes employees; instead, they are contractors being compensated for their brands. This compensation is taxable to the athlete!). With the school's cumulative salary cap of $21.5M there aren't many other current restrictions. Most P4 schools appear to be devoting a significant amount (approximately 70-75% in the B1G has been reported) to men's football. So that means a school could pay a player $10M and still have money left to pay the rest of the team something but not close to that level. Most places are then funding MBB/WBB/VB and maybe one or two other sports from the remainder. At UMN, we are including Men's Hockey in that amount, but the exact dollars are a highly guarded secret between schools.
(NOTE: there are lots of questions here about whether Title IX applies to these payments that are yet unresolved. A conversation perhaps for a different day)
The second part allows students to continue earning NIL monies from outside, third parties. Pursuant to House, students must submit their proposed arrangements to a clearinghouse for those to be acceptable earnings. That clearinghouse is entitled NILGo and there is no shortage of issues here. This is where the "rules" (small r) come in, as the College Sports Commission ("CSC") which has been created by the colleges/conferences to administer these proposed deals has made their own regulations and guidelines and periodically released reports and guidance. It is unclear if these guidelines are binding yet-- they have not been tested (but are currently being so!). Current guidance says any proposed third party NIL deal must have a valid business purpose and receive fair market compensation. But since there is limited market guidance, and what constitutes a valid business purpose behind a willing payor and an athlete is difficult to determine, the CSC has had a hard time doing much of anything as of yet regulatory. The current conventional wisdom is there is a hard salary cap in college football of $21.5M, but a soft cap of about $20-25M more from the current market.
THAT BEING SAID, the CSC is starting to flex some regulatory muscle in limited circumstances. They are currently investigating Texas A&M for not submitting deals to NILGo. There was a splash about a week ago with the CSC looking at tampering (schools contacting students while not yet in the portal). There will be lawyers and lawsuits on this coming.
Because the dollar amounts are so vast, schools are definitely involved in running NIL activities for students beyond merely their $21.5M "revenue share" obligation. Student-athletes know nothing of tax withholding (big deal since all of these NIL payments are 1099 contractor income), and schools need to keep some degree of tabs on who is offering their students what (do we really want Target 'buying' Brodie Ziemer and thus telling him when to play or not?). So while schools aren't involved directly in payments for NIL activities beyond revenue sharing, they are involved in procuring resources and perhaps directing them to targeted athletes (though none will admit on the record to doing so). We actually want this-- a system where schools cannot have oversight as to its own programs would be truly the inmates running the asylum, and in this case the ones profiting would be unscrupulous agents and advisors on behalf of those inmates.
The roster issue means everyone in theory could be on scholarship, but the House settlement says that the first $2.5M of new scholarships count against your revenue sharing. So that would mean you have less direct funds from the school to pay out. I hope this goes away, personally.
Put together, the system continues to evolve and bubble and have the envelope pushed. It is a compliance nightmare because your guidance is good until it is not and there is no warning when that could happen.
Things like collectives continue to struggle (as they are no longer allowed to funnel monies directly to chosen student athletes) and have evolved into more of a connector between athlete initiatives and less of a way to directly fund athletes. Again, you have to have appropriate NIL activities of a fair market variety for athletes to earn money (called "activations" in the business) for the deal to pass NIL Go given the House RULES and the CSC rules, so you need those in place. But tracking what is market value is really, really hard.
Schools like Denver/UND/Mankato are actually in a very interesting position right now-- they don't have P4 football, so they aren't trying to compete in an arms race that would necessitate using their revenue sharing monies for that. So they could devote their revenue sharing to their prime D1 sport-- which is hockey. So while B1G schools are constrained by the salary cap and actually caring about football, other college hockey schools can actually outspend B1G directly using revenue sharing (to the extent they can raise the money to do so, and whether Title IX will limit this!).
Finally, nobody has confirmed the amount McKenna is actually receiving from Penn State. We have heard what he was offered to go to Michigan State, but remember that athletes/agents want to inflate these to create a bidding war and a market, but there is no actual confirmation. Further, Penn State has a significant donor in Pegula who also owns an NHL team that would love to have McKenna's services. Might that play a role here as well? Could some of that compensation be "back loaded" to be paid once he is in the NHL? Couldn't happen to everyone. But maybe his situation.
So-- clear as mud.
Guys, I thought I would continue our conversation over here, per the suggestion.
I Really appreciate you laying all of that out. It’s one of the clearest “all in one place” explanations I’ve seen. I may have some of this wrong, but here’s how I’ve been trying to map it, and I’d be curious if you see it the same way.
House “RULES” vs. CSC “rules”
I’m with you that House is the operative RULE right now between schools and athletes. I was under the impression, though, that it’s still not a true union‑negotiated CBA, so some of the “this is settled” feel is more fragile than people talk about. The 21.5M hard ceiling on school‑funded revenue sharing is real, but on paper everyone is still insisting this is “brand” compensation and not pay for play, because calling it wages would blow up the non‑employee structure.
The way I’ve been seeing CSC/NILGo is as an enforcement layer under House. House already gives CSC a narrow but real kind of enforcement power: they can label deals “non‑compliant NIL” under the NILGo standards and push the first round of fighting into arbitration instead of straight to court. The separate CSC participation agreement is about upgrading that into something much heavier for *schools*—more mandatory arbitration, fewer lawsuit options, and clearer sanction tools—if and when they sign it.
A&M “light touch” vs. Nebraska “hard conflict” (plus the Supreme Court shadow)
The Texas A&M situation looks like the light‑touch end of that House/CSC authority: scrape public info, send a notice, get on calls, have A&M walk through deals and fix reporting gaps, then close it with no fines or lost revenue share. More “compliance nag” than “judge and jury.”
Nebraska feels like the opposite end. You’ve got seven‑figure, school‑adjacent NIL deals with a real media partner that CSC has effectively said “no” to, and 18 players using the House arbitration lane to ask an arbitrator to overrule that veto. That’s not Nebraska conceding CSC can void contracts under state law; it’s Nebraska and the players saying, “Inside your own system, we want these specific deals blessed so they can be paid without eligibility or compliance risk.” And the more CSC uses that position to veto large third‑party deals inside a capped, coordinated compensation system, the more it starts to look like an Alston‑style antitrust case just waiting for someone to take another run at it.
So A&M shows the “nag and clean up” version of House‑based enforcement; Nebraska is the test of how far CSC can go in actually blocking big money and whether that sort of veto can survive both arbitration and, eventually, more serious antitrust scrutiny.
Third‑party NIL Cap Can't Actually Exist
I was under the impression there really isn’t a theoretical upper bound when it’s a genuine sponsor with a genuine business purpose. A college‑aged Tiger Woods and Nike is the example that sticks in my head: by the early 2000s he was reportedly on a five‑year Nike endorsement worth around 100 million dollars, purely brand/marketing money, not team salary. That kind of number is perfectly coherent as fair‑market value for a once‑in‑a‑generation star.
That’s why I’m not sure the "amount" can be restricted. How do you tell a court you know more than Nike or Steve's auto shop, how much a player is worth? The legal debate will be around the "type" of deal and how it’s characterized. Is it genuinely broad marketing/content, or effectively “we’re buying your presence at School X and calling it activation”? Once you’re drawing that line deal by deal, it’s inherently subjective and you’re going to get more Nebraska‑type fights where athletes say “this is marketing” and CSC says “this is you trying to get around the cap.”
Collectives, funnels, and antitrust risk
On collectives, I agree with your “on paper” description – they’re not supposed to be simple pass‑throughs funneling cash directly to hand‑picked athletes without real activations. In practice, I was under the impression that a lot of the arms race still runs through school‑adjacent collectives that coordinate closely with coaches, administrators, and now the House/CSC framework.
I am no a lawyer, but this is where the antitrust alarm bells ring loudest for me. If schools and a central enforcement body are effectively coordinating how independent third parties can and cannot pay athletes, that starts to sound a lot like a horizontal agreement among competitors to restrain compensation in a shared labor market. I am curious if you see it the same, that intersection of CSC rules, school compliance, and collective behavior as the place where they’re most at risk of looking like “NCAA 2.0 in a new outfit”?
Hockey vs. P4 football (and the DU example)
Your point on Denver/UND/Mankato is really interesting. I see the logic: no P4 football means they *can* focus more revenue‑sharing attention on hockey. The piece I’d shade differently is scale. P4 state‑school football still drives the bus; hockey (and volleyball, etc.) feels more like it’s strapped to the roof.
Take Denver as a rough example. Their entire athletic department is on the order of maybe 50 million dollars t’s roughly a 50‑million‑dollar, break‑even athletic department. They don’t have anything remotely like Minnesota’s 163.6M budget, where roughly 21.5M is only 14% made possible by a $75M Big Ten tv payout. So even if hockey is their top internal priority, most of what they can actually put on the table is still going to depend heavily on third‑party NIL, because their absolute pool is so much smaller than a P4 football school’s.
It sounds great in theory that a non‑P4 hockey school could out‑bid a B1G program on pure school dollars, but practically, it seems like any “advantage” will be narrow and case‑specific, not a systemic flip of the hierarchy.
That’s how I’m trying to make sense of it: House already gives CSC enough power to block some deals and send fights into arbitration; A&M is the light‑touch version of that, Nebraska is the hard‑conflict version with real money on the line, and if CSC leans too aggressively into using that position to police caps on big deals, it’s hard not to see the Supreme Court’s shadow starting to loom over the whole thing.
There is a lot to unfold in what @skiumahlaw posted. @coach-klein did allude in an earlier post how things are definitely different for Minnesota compared to other institutions where they don't have D1 football. I will maintain that with the institution of NILGo and having to vet most transactions/activations through them and universities compliance offices getting a $700k deal done seems like a stretch. The $10k tweet seems like a stretch. I guess it will come down to whether a program will make the deal and see if they can get away with it. Talking again with my boss this morning, the Line Change Collective here in Mankato isn't willing to put the program at risk and the athletic department isn't willing to put their athletes in the cross heirs of something that even seems close to shady. So it does become a risk/reward situation.
I am the official Iowa Hawkeye football fan of GPL!
There is a lot to unfold in what @skiumahlaw posted. @coach-klein did allude in an earlier post how things are definitely different for Minnesota compared to other institutions where they don't have D1 football. I will maintain that with the institution of NILGo and having to vet most transactions/activations through them and universities compliance offices getting a $700k deal done seems like a stretch. The $10k tweet seems like a stretch. I guess it will come down to whether a program will make the deal and see if they can get away with it. Talking again with my boss this morning, the Line Change Collective here in Mankato isn't willing to put the program at risk and the athletic department isn't willing to put their athletes in the cross heirs of something that even seems close to shady. So it does become a risk/reward situation.
I hear you, and you may be right. I think, however, it will be much easier to restrict types of arrangements rather than amounts. Like my example, Tiger Woods in his early 20s had a $100MM contract with Nike, and CSC can't reject that deal. So for the top 5 picks of the first round, I think it would be hard to refute a high six-figure number. Hell, Koi Perich is said to be making $2MM transfering to Oregon.
Honestly, the line change collective is making the smart move. Bottom line, let the Football schools fight it out, sit back and watch, with a box of popcorn.
But onward to the brave new world.
I realize this topic was created for hockey, but I'm curious how this may or may not have any influence on NIL for the hockey program.
https://twitter.com/GopherHole/status/2041950293555102093?s=20
I realize this topic was created for hockey, but I'm curious how this may or may not have any influence on NIL for the hockey program.
Assuming this is purely NIL (third-party funding) on top of revenue sharing (school-funded), my first reaction is: wow. I suspect it’s actually a combination of both, but even then, it still implies a meaningful increase in third-party NIL. The math suggests men’s basketball receives less than $3MM in revenue sharing, so anything above that is real external growth.
If men’s basketball is now raising $4MM+ in third-party NIL, that’s a significant jump in community support for Gopher athletics, especially considering football was rumored / believed to be around $3MM just a couple of years ago.
To your question on hockey: I believe this is a very positive signal.
First, increased community support means the collectives are gaining traction, and that momentum should carry across all sports to some degree. Rising tide effect.
Second, men’s hockey has a uniquely strong base in Minnesota. On a proportional basis, it’s arguably more embedded in the culture than basketball, especially at the high school level.
Based on limited data and some assumptions (which I’ll admit I can be wrong), this suggests there is either already stronger NIL support for hockey than we think, or meaningful upside we haven’t fully tapped yet.
On the subject of NIL, given it may be a minute until the GHC fully gets rolling, anyone a member of DTA and can speak to the experience and if you do earmark your membership to a specific program and that is all/mostly spent there? Firm believer every bit helps, but honestly I don't care to fund the MBB/WBB or even Gopher football for that matter
On the subject of NIL, given it may be a minute until the GHC fully gets rolling, anyone a member of DTA and can speak to the experience and if you do earmark your membership to a specific program and that is all/mostly spent there? Firm believer every bit helps, but honestly I don't care to fund the MBB/WBB or even Gopher football for that matter
Sent you a PM
Looking down from my High Horse
Morality Police
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/24131129/gallery_image.JPG "Hey_Sioux_Suck")
On the subject of NIL, given it may be a minute until the GHC fully gets rolling, anyone a member of DTA and can speak to the experience and if you do earmark your membership to a specific program and that is all/mostly spent there? Firm believer every bit helps, but honestly I don't care to fund the MBB/WBB or even Gopher football for that matter
Sent you a PM
Is there a hockey specific NIL site for the Gophers? In 2023, I joined the $5k/yearly DTA group. Was promised an autographed jersey, messages from players, other giveaways and merch. Only ever got one form Cameo message from Justen Close about getting ready for the 2024 season. I really don't care about that, the players are busy. But, never got my jersey. And only ever got news and invites to football and basketball meetups. Kind of a waste of money. Want to know my money is at least going to the hockey team. And bring back the cartoon player shirts. The personal player hockey merch sucks.
On the subject of NIL, given it may be a minute until the GHC fully gets rolling, anyone a member of DTA and can speak to the experience and if you do earmark your membership to a specific program and that is all/mostly spent there? Firm believer every bit helps, but honestly I don't care to fund the MBB/WBB or even Gopher football for that matter
Sent you a PM
Is there a hockey specific NIL site for the Gophers? In 2023, I joined the $5k/yearly DTA group. Was promised an autographed jersey, messages from players, other giveaways and merch. Only ever got one form Cameo message from Justen Close about getting ready for the 2024 season. I really don't care about that, the players are busy. But, never got my jersey. And only ever got news and invites to football and basketball meetups. Kind of a waste of money. Want to know my money is at least going to the hockey team. And bring back the cartoon player shirts. The personal player hockey merch sucks.
I sent you a PM as well with my experience with DTA.
Looking down from my High Horse
Morality Police
So here is an update regarding the Golden Helmet Collective.
First off, the NCAA through the College Sports Commission (“CSC”) continues to crack down on collectives providing naked compensation to athletes through the NIL2Go system. Prior to the House settlement, collectives were naked booster clubs that handed out literal bags of cash to incentivize athletes. With the NIL2Go system, remember, any compensation for athletes needs to be for work actually performed. Since collectives lack a valid business purpose, deals with them to athletes appear to be heavily scrutinized. The legitimacy of the NIL2Go and collectives was actually affirmed this past week by an arbitrator in the case of the Nebraska athletes challenging it.
What this means is that in the changed landscape, collectives are kind of on the way out. The role of Dinkytown Athletes has significantly changed—it is no longer the external force to be fundraising, but an independent entity focusing on athlete interactions. To that end, we are continuing with the wait-and-see approach to determine whether or not the GHC would add value beyond its cost for the NIL—as of now, that is not yet clear.
In working with the university over the past year however, to give credit where it is due, the U has been on top of this changed environment and has reorganized itself to take advantage of the new system. This reorganization is similar to what everyone else in the B1G is doing—so we aren’t unique—but has done so in a pretty clever way that maximizes the benefits to athletes while passing NIL2Go muster. The U is in a very solid situation now—and while there are always will be a desire for more, it recognizes the importance of NIL and is prepared to deal with it. From what we can tell, the U is among the top 2-3 schools for NIL distributions in hockey. That is where we expect to be—and all without the need for a hockey-specific NIL.
We would like to think that the push for Golden Helmet Collective, along with the other market conditions in the B1G at the same time, did spur the U to take NIL seriously. And they have responded appropriately. The Gophers are well positioned to take advantage of things, and from what we can tell, are able to offer appropriate monies to the best players in college hockey being one of the biggest participants in NIL.
That is our expectation and it appears from our conversations with the fundraising folks and those inside the program, is theirs as well.
There remains lots of opportunities to directly hire athletes—if you have an interest, we can help put you in touch to make that happen. That is the best way we as fans can contribute right now unless you want to make a direct donation to the school affiliates themselves.
We are continuing to explore other routes that might make sense around the GHC. An idea arose about a return of the Blue Line Club, which used to sponsor luncheons and speakers. But that is a different animal than the idea of a collective per se.
So we will keep exploring ideas, but you may not see the GHC launch in the way we were thinking originally.
@skiumahlaw Thank you for taking the time to explain in such detail.
Just another NIL update.
Colleges continue to discuss the salary cap and the CSC. See this article by Ross Dellenger (who is fantastic at covering this issue currently).
This could have ENORMOUS implications for college hockey.
Just another NIL update.
Colleges continue to discuss the salary cap and the CSC. See this article by Ross Dellenger (who is fantastic at covering this issue currently).
This could have ENORMOUS implications for college hockey.
would you say then based on where things have ended up, it will be DTA for the foreseeable future for Gopher hockey as far as NIL resources go?
@upnorthkid Convoluted answer, but no.
DTA is still on the scene but moreso in helping athletes through logistics.
NIL through the U (and other B1G schools) is being handled in a different way. The school is far more hands-on in raising the NIL funds and in creating activations.
As of right now it seems the U is not interested in the crowdfunded NIL operations-- that was entirely the DTA model.
I would expect the U to roll out new opportunities to get involved in NIL for the average fan/alum this fall. Gopher Sports Properties, a division of the Athletic Department handling NIL, can route business partnerships for NIL activities.
@upnorthkid Convoluted answer, but no.
DTA is still on the scene but moreso in helping athletes through logistics.
NIL through the U (and other B1G schools) is being handled in a different way. The school is far more hands-on in raising the NIL funds and in creating activations.
As of right now it seems the U is not interested in the crowdfunded NIL operations-- that was entirely the DTA model.
I would expect the U to roll out new opportunities to get involved in NIL for the average fan/alum this fall. Gopher Sports Properties, a division of the Athletic Department handling NIL, can route business partnerships for NIL activities.
super helpful. Thank you!
DTA is still on the scene but moreso in helping athletes through logistics.
The Line Change Collective sounds like it is in the same boat as DTA right now. My boss said that it could be possible that it may go away completely if a couple things fall into place.
I am the official Iowa Hawkeye football fan of GPL!
Wanted to chime in on an interesting legal issue that could be the next domino to fall with very interesting ramifications to college hockey.
Recently, a number of individuals who had signed professional contracts in the NFL and attended training camp were ruled eligible by a Court to return to play college football. Both the B1G and the $EC immediately have created rules preventing their schools from bringing about players who have signed professional contracts.
But it begs the question: could ECHL/AHL/NHL players, especially those under the age of 24, petition for a restoration of college eligibility?
It is a little bit of apples and oranges to football, where NIL monies are prevalent and significant. And I have not looked into how the NHL CBA would apply to this situation directly. But if a 22 y/o were to be released from a NHL contract, could they come back and play college hockey?
Presumably the B1G would prevent this by the same rule it has adopted for football. But what about the NCHC, CCHA, or Hockey East?
There are some very plausible antitrust questions that rear their heads pretty quickly on this and it is a lawsuit just waiting to happen.
For those interested, a very good article on this here-- which I largely agree with. When extrapolated to hockey I don't think any conference holds enough market power to cause a problem. But what if all the college hockey conferences made such a rule? Now it looks more like collusion and antitrust. That means: if conditions are favorable, might NCAA hockey serve as the top young minor league in the future?
Quote: SkiUMahLawBut it begs the question: could ECHL/AHL/NHL players, especially those under the age of 24, petition for a restoration of college eligibility?
This has been going on already with guys who played half+ of a full ECHL/AHL season. ASU, Bemidji, Providence all brought in players like that. CHN ran a few articles when it first started happening 1-2 years ago.
The NCAA's stated justification for letting it happen at the time was two fold. Firstly, the players in question had never enrolled in college prior to signing their ECHL/AHL contracts. Secondly, they had only been paid actual and necessary expenses and the upper limit of that seems to be set around $60k.
also I think you may have forgotten to include the article link?
Quote: Walker? I Barely Know HerQuote: SkiUMahLawBut it begs the question: could ECHL/AHL/NHL players, especially those under the age of 24, petition for a restoration of college eligibility?
This has been going on already with guys who played half+ of a full ECHL/AHL season. ASU, Bemidji, Providence all brought in players like that. CHN ran a few articles when it first started happening 1-2 years ago.
The NCAA's stated justification for letting it happen at the time was two fold. Firstly, the players in question had never enrolled in college prior to signing their ECHL/AHL contracts. Secondly, they had only been paid actual and necessary expenses and the upper limit of that seems to be set around $60k.
also I think you may have forgotten to include the article link?
If you scroll over the words, the link is there. For whatever reason it does not show otherwise.
As NIL becomes the norm and compensation continues to be intermixed between pay for play and NIL, my point is that it adds some interesting legal complexities if the B1G rule extends in hockey. And the difference now is that the NCAA's previous justification is no longer a boundary--rather, it is open season.
Quote: SkiUMahLawThat didn't take long.
Couldn’t the leagues just say fine they can play but say levy a fine against the school like a “luxury tax” for anyone signing one?
Think the lever they used with sorsby and just saying we won’t play you then would also in theory be an option though that gets stickier
Thankfully this is working out really well for the lawyers while the rest of This is just unbelievably dumb
Quote: upnorthkidQuote: SkiUMahLawThat didn't take long.
Couldn’t the leagues just say fine they can play but say levy a fine against the school like a “luxury tax” for anyone signing one?
Think the lever they used with sorsby and just saying we won’t play you then would also in theory be an option though that gets stickier
Thankfully this is working out really well for the lawyers while the rest of This is just unbelievably dumb
A luxury tax would be far less defensible imo, you'd be doing the would-be plaintiffs' work of quantifying their monetary damages. Whereas on the other hand, there isn't much (if any) precedent for compelling schools to schedule specific other programs.
Quote: Walker? I Barely Know HerQuote: upnorthkidQuote: SkiUMahLawThat didn't take long.
Couldn’t the leagues just say fine they can play but say levy a fine against the school like a “luxury tax” for anyone signing one?
Think the lever they used with sorsby and just saying we won’t play you then would also in theory be an option though that gets stickier
Thankfully this is working out really well for the lawyers while the rest of This is just unbelievably dumb
A luxury tax would be far less defensible imo, you'd be doing the would-be plaintiffs' work of quantifying their monetary damages. Whereas on the other hand, there isn't much (if any) precedent for compelling schools to schedule specific other programs.
Yeah I guess monetary was just the conference could decide for all members either you could decide to opt in for set price point or do it per player if they wanted to discourage it, while not outright outlawing it
In the past, college athletes have been classified as students, not as employees, IIRCC. It sure seems like payment schemes (sure seems like the term “NIL” is not aging well), the transfer portal, the seemingly increased ease with which teams cut players, and now the courts allowing players to return after being pros have blurred that line even more. Heck, several have openly stated they do not go to class (or step on campus).
It sure seems like athletes are much closer to employees (I don not think they would be considered independent contractors based on recent department of labor guidelines). We were dont hear much about kids being suspended for academics recently! Classification as employees of course opens up workman’s comp, social security, retirement plan, human resource and a spectrum of other confounders. And if schools enter into non-compete agreements related to transfers....
Do the legal eagles in this community have any insights?
Quote: coondogIn the past, college athletes have been classified as students, not as employees, IIRCC. It sure seems like payment schemes (sure seems like the term “NIL” is not aging well), the transfer portal, the seemingly increased ease with which teams cut players, and now the courts allowing players to return after being pros have blurred that line even more. Heck, several have openly stated they do not go to class (or step on campus).
It sure seems like athletes are much closer to employees (I don not think they would be considered independent contractors based on recent department of labor guidelines). We were dont hear much about kids being suspended for academics recently! Classification as employees of course opens up workman’s comp, social security, retirement plan, human resource and a spectrum of other confounders. And if schools enter into non-compete agreements related to transfers....
Do the legal eagles in this community have any insights?
They’re students and schools have lobbied tooth and nail to keep them as such (and will continue to do so) for exactly all the reasons you just listed at the end
That’s also part of the legislation they’re hoping to pass is to not make them employees
Quote: coondogWe were dont hear much about kids being suspended for academics recently!
This is mostly because FBS schools have gotten way better with highly-structured study programs for all their athletes, while also massively expanding their fluff class offerings.
When UNC athletics got in trouble for doing the latter, the main NCAA compliance issue was due to said fluff classes being limited to athletes only. Which means that, so long as the general student body is allowed to register too, it's OK to offer tons of easy-A filler credits.
Totally agree with what you say about the schools lobbying against what they are fearful of-- from my perspective are that the revenue sport athletes (in at least the power 5 conferences) are employees with “continuing education requirements” rather than students. I suppose there are several litmus tests. One test: can a student pick the major of their choice? While it has been somewhat true for decades, I do not see how a student could pick lab intensive courses such as chemistry, physics, biology, computer science.... If you have the academic ability, you should be able to pick your major.
Did not know that about UNC... A school with a pretty decent academic reputation, we are not talking about University of Louisiana at Monroe. Then UNC goes and hires Bill Belichick who immediately says he is creating a “33rd NFL team”.