A Fan
01-09-2025, 09:54 PM
My take on the latest move by the Power 5
The Impact of Power 5’s Breakaway on the Big East
The Power 5 conferences are pushing toward a break from the NCAA, proposing a $20 million revenue-sharing cap, with a suggested $7 million allocation for basketball teams. This move gives Power 5 schools a significant advantage in recruiting, as they can offer both guaranteed revenue-sharing payments and lucrative NIL deals. This financial disparity could destabilize smaller programs in conferences like the Big East, particularly those without the resources to compete.
While the Big East’s top programs, like UConn, could potentially remain competitive, smaller schools such as Seton Hall and DePaul would struggle to keep up. As Power 5 schools offer financial security, NIL opportunities, and greater exposure, these programs could siphon top talent, creating a widening gap. The financial pressure might even force the top Big East teams to leave for a more lucrative Power 5 or “P6” league.
The Power 5’s attempts to regulate NIL, by instituting caps and centralized revenue sharing, are unlikely to survive antitrust challenges, according to most legal experts. Even if they succeed in capping the revenue-sharing portion, it would likely mean a base salary of $500K-plus per player. This shift could result in minimal impact on the competitive balance, giving Power 5 schools a direct financial advantage but leaving the Big East and smaller conferences without the ability to compete for elite talent.
Without a cap on NIL, the Big East would face enormous challenges. A revenue-sharing model could be adopted by the conference, but it would be ineffective without regulating NIL. Even Top programs in the Big East would still struggle to compete with the uncapped NIL deals offered by Power 5 schools. A Big East revenue-sharing model on its own would only exacerbate the financial divide, making it impossible for smaller programs to financially compete.
Thus, the Big East could face serious fragmentation, with top teams potentially seeking to join more lucrative Power 5 conferences while the smaller schools fall behind. To remain competitive, the Big East would need to find ways to close the NIL gap—perhaps by implementing its own NIL collectives—but this too could prove difficult without significant financial backing.
In conclusion, while the Power 5’s revenue-sharing and NIL regulations could benefit their schools, they threaten to destabilize smaller conferences like the Big East. Without a way to regulate NIL, smaller programs will be unable to compete, leading to potential fragmentation and a reshaping of the college basketball landscape.
The Impact of Power 5’s Breakaway on the Big East
The Power 5 conferences are pushing toward a break from the NCAA, proposing a $20 million revenue-sharing cap, with a suggested $7 million allocation for basketball teams. This move gives Power 5 schools a significant advantage in recruiting, as they can offer both guaranteed revenue-sharing payments and lucrative NIL deals. This financial disparity could destabilize smaller programs in conferences like the Big East, particularly those without the resources to compete.
While the Big East’s top programs, like UConn, could potentially remain competitive, smaller schools such as Seton Hall and DePaul would struggle to keep up. As Power 5 schools offer financial security, NIL opportunities, and greater exposure, these programs could siphon top talent, creating a widening gap. The financial pressure might even force the top Big East teams to leave for a more lucrative Power 5 or “P6” league.
The Power 5’s attempts to regulate NIL, by instituting caps and centralized revenue sharing, are unlikely to survive antitrust challenges, according to most legal experts. Even if they succeed in capping the revenue-sharing portion, it would likely mean a base salary of $500K-plus per player. This shift could result in minimal impact on the competitive balance, giving Power 5 schools a direct financial advantage but leaving the Big East and smaller conferences without the ability to compete for elite talent.
Without a cap on NIL, the Big East would face enormous challenges. A revenue-sharing model could be adopted by the conference, but it would be ineffective without regulating NIL. Even Top programs in the Big East would still struggle to compete with the uncapped NIL deals offered by Power 5 schools. A Big East revenue-sharing model on its own would only exacerbate the financial divide, making it impossible for smaller programs to financially compete.
Thus, the Big East could face serious fragmentation, with top teams potentially seeking to join more lucrative Power 5 conferences while the smaller schools fall behind. To remain competitive, the Big East would need to find ways to close the NIL gap—perhaps by implementing its own NIL collectives—but this too could prove difficult without significant financial backing.
In conclusion, while the Power 5’s revenue-sharing and NIL regulations could benefit their schools, they threaten to destabilize smaller conferences like the Big East. Without a way to regulate NIL, smaller programs will be unable to compete, leading to potential fragmentation and a reshaping of the college basketball landscape.