The Scholarship Isn't the Prize Anymore

I've watched the college athletics model flip on its head in the past two years.

The "full ride" used to be the dream. Free education, a chance to compete, maybe a shot at the pros. Parents cried at signing day. High school coaches framed those commitment letters.

Now? The conversation has changed completely.

Athletes are receiving revenue sharing on top of scholarships. Schools can pay up to $20.5 million annually in direct payments to their rosters starting in 2025-26. The top College Football Playoff teams are spending around $26 million per roster. That's $15 million from schools directly and $11 million through third-party NIL deals.

The money is real. Duke committed $8 million to a quarterback for two years. Michigan is paying another QB $10 million over four years. An offensive lineman at Texas Tech got $5.1 million for three years.

So why am I still seeing elite athletes turn down bigger checks?

Playing Time Beats the Paycheck

Here's what most people miss about revenue sharing. Yes, athletes are making money now. But the distribution isn't equal. If you're sitting on the bench, your revenue share reflects that reality.

The majority of Power 4 players are earning less than the price of a used Honda Civic each year.

Playing time determines everything.

We recently advised a basketball recruit to turn down a six-figure offer from a prestigious program. We picked a smaller D1 school instead.

Less money upfront. Better opportunity to play as a freshman.

The calculation was simple. One strong season with real playing time could make him worth 5 to 8 times what he passed up. The transfer portal has become the multiplier.

But only if you have film. Only if you have stats. Only if coaches at bigger programs have seen you perform under pressure.

You can't showcase talent from the bench.

Licensed Agents vs. NIL Deal-Makers

There's a critical distinction here that gets lost in the hype.

We are licensed agents. Not just NIL deal-makers.

NIL agents focus on college earnings. Brand deals. Social media partnerships. Revenue sharing negotiations. That's their entire scope.

We are planning an athlete's entire professional career. College is one chapter. The foundation matters, but it's not the destination.

Many college athletes are getting bad advice from inexperienced agents. Many of whom aren't properly licensed. They're soliciting offers and bids from other colleges, optimizing for the wrong metric.

They're chasing the biggest check in college instead of building toward a professional career.

That basketball recruit I mentioned? An NIL agent would have pushed him toward the bigger program with the bigger check. More prestige. Better for their portfolio.

But worse for his development.

We're not chasing college money. We're building professional athletes.

The System Is Still Broken

Revenue sharing sounds like progress. In some ways, it is.

But the enforcement is toothless. Schools are supposed to report NIL deals to the College Sports Commission. As of January 2026, only $127 million in cleared deals were reported.

The estimated third-party NIL market for basketball alone is $500 million.

The math doesn't work.

Notre Dame's athletics director said it plainly: "The numbers you're hearing and the numbers we know that are out there don't compute with the cap number."

Texas Tech spent more than $28 million on its roster, including $7 million on its defensive line. The supposed cap is $20.5 million.

Collectives rushed to frontload deals before the revenue-sharing cap kicked in. Schools are finding creative ways around the rules.

The Wild West continues.

This is why athletes need sophisticated career management. The landscape shifts monthly. The rules are unclear. The incentives are misaligned.

Donor Fatigue Is Coming

Here's the uncomfortable truth nobody wants to talk about.

This model isn't sustainable.

Troy Aikman wrote a sizable check to support UCLA athletes. The player took the money and went to another school. Aikman didn't even get a thank-you note.

His response? "I'm done with NIL."

Donor fatigue is real. Boosters are being asked for increased contributions to fund both NIL commitments and revenue sharing. Some are walking away.

Even elite programs with serious resources are making tough decisions. Ohio State, Alabama, Oregon, Texas, Oklahoma, USC, and Tennessee all had more than 20 scholarship players hit the portal in January.

Programs can't keep everyone. They have to choose which players are worth paying and which ones are asking for too much.

That's leverage for athletes who understand their value.

The New Playbook

We tell every athlete the same thing.

Get your education. Make money. But don't chase money at the expense of playing time.

The strategy is fluid. You might commit to a school and plan to stay for four years. But if the situation changes, we adapt.

The transfer portal is a tool. Revenue sharing is leverage. NIL deals are income.

But none of it matters if you're not developing as a player.

Playing time is the only currency that translates to a professional career.

I've seen too many athletes take the big check and ride the bench. Their stock drops. Their development stalls. By the time they transfer, they've lost momentum.

The athletes who succeed prioritize growth over immediate payouts. They pick schools where they'll play. They build relationships with coaching staff who will help them develop. They use the transfer portal strategically when the situation calls for it.

And they work with agents who are planning beyond college.

What This Really Means

The scholarship model isn't dead. It's evolved.

Athletes are getting paid. That's progress. But the system is chaotic. The rules are inconsistent. The incentives are still misaligned between what's good for schools and what's good for athletes.

You need someone in your corner who understands the long game. Who can navigate the portal. Who can evaluate offers based on career trajectory, not just dollar signs.

The ones who chase the biggest college check often regret it.

I've been doing this long enough to know the difference. I've seen what happens when athletes optimize for the wrong thing.

The game has changed. The playbook has changed.

The question is whether you're working with someone who understands the new rules or someone who's still playing by the old ones.