Even the idea that is suggested in the article-a tourism tax generating enough income to pay for athletes-is a pipe dream. That source of revenue is already being strained by localities who have tapped into it. Until there is some national regulation of NIL Wyoming will be unable to compete in funding. There is no hidden pot of money which can be directed toward paying for athletes. Sorry to be Debbie Downer. honestly hope I am wrong. As without funding Wyoming will be unable to compete successfully with better funded programs.
-
Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your WyoNation.com experience today!
UW and NIL...a solid article
- Thread starter Bosler
- Start date
In talking with people who definitely know... this guy's numbers are full of shit when it comes to NIL budgets.
ragtimejoe1
Well-known member
Any indication if direction they are off and magnitude?
The seemingly secrecy behind nil is frustrating. How much is spent on athletes? Out of every dollar spent on athletes, how much is spent on administration-- you know someone somewhere is taking a cut before it's paid to athletes.
Ragtime, at the risk of getting too far into the weeds, I'd like to know more about this endowment idea.
Can UW Sports Compete In Division I As Lower Divisions Offer More NIL Money?
Montana and Montana State, who compete in a tier below Wyoming, each spend $2.2 million on NIL, while Wyoming spends $1.4 million. "That's embarrassing,"…cowboystatedaily.com
I'm sure everyone read this. Where are they getting the nil numbers? If it's true, here is a systemic issue that will handicap us in the new conference. That's not nearly enough nil.
Also highlights a TB shortage. MT schools' desires have no bearing on what's best for UW. Instead, there should be a well organized description of the benefits/impacts UW and the state recieve from athletics being at this level. It should be backed by sound economic and university data that clearly identify the problems of stepping down. Instead we get some garbled "well Mt State wants to be where we are". Geeze.
Besides satisfaction with performance questions, did you notice he also left off "should we use State funds to pay athletes or even should we pay athletes at UW?"?
Asking for direct payments is likely and should be a fool's errand. How about a loan that is forgiven if certain key performance indicators are met? If not, TB, you just bankrupt athletics.
I think the endowment angle is best and the state retains the initial investment. I have no problem linking anything to performance indicators. If TB can't demonstrate improvement in economic or university indicators (like enrollment) as a result of increased investment, then that funding should be removed or people replaced with those that can use the funds more judiciously to have positive and measurable impact on UW, Laramie, and the State.
I’m genuinely trying to better understand what you mean by the endowment approach, especially the idea that the state would “retain the initial investment.” I currently work at a large state school and manage endowment accounts as a small fraction of my total portfolio.
My understanding of endowments, even internal or state-created ones, is that once funds are endowed, the principal is effectively locked. The institution can spend the annual payout, but the original capital can’t be withdrawn or reclaimed without undoing the entire structure. In that sense, while the principal still exists on paper, it isn’t really recoverable in any meaningful way. At least that's how it works for me right now.
If you’re envisioning something different, for example a quasi-endowment, revolving fund, or some performance-linked investment where the state could pull back funding if outcomes don’t improve, I’d love to hear more about how you see that working in practice.
I’m open to an endowment-style solution, especially if it’s tied to clear performance indicators and accountability. I just want to make sure we’re being precise about the mechanics, because “endowment” can mean very different things depending on the structure.
Again, I don't want to be in the weeds; just simply want to better understand what you're suggesting, as I do think there is some real potential here. The next question, that is yet unanswered for me, is... Why does UW Athletics deserve to be the recipient of this payout over, say, the student recreation center, the new dorms, or a new library?
ragtimejoe1
Well-known member
Endowment probably isn't the best description. Probably investment on behalf of UW.
I don't know how many investment accounts the state has but they could create a separate investment account. Let's say they put 100 mill in that account that is owned and managed by the state's current investment infrastructure. Let's say this year it was invested in treasury bills that returned 4%. The state takes 1 million and adds it to the investment account. 3 mill goes to UW athletics for student athletes. There would be some fees associated with investment management which would need to come out of the annual return.
For performance, honestly probably the easiest would be a subcommittee that evaluated indicators like, wins/losses, camps or other activities the athletes host for WYO youth, commercials for WYO tourism, patches for "visit WYO", community service, etc. The subcommittee approves the release of funds annually with recommendations for improvement the next year (i.e. provide some guidance on the contingencies associated with the funds).
Why athletics and athletes over other ventures? I guess the only thing i can come up with is this is a new approach to address a new world in college athletics. Traditional funding mechanisms are in place for the other areas of need. This is where the importance of UW athletics would be tested. To many, maybe it's not worth it? I was trying to come up with something that might be somewhat viable with voters.
OrediggerPoke
Well-known member
I am struggling to understand. How is this any different than what the State currently does to fund itself? The state already invests surplus funds and earnings on investments currently accounts for about 30% of the state's revenues. This seems it would just me taking a percentage of the money it already puts into investments and creating a separate account that is only earmarked for athletics. I am struggling to understand what the advantage is to that.
ragtimejoe1
Well-known member
You're not wrong. There generally is a surplus in WYO so it is rerouting some of that surplus which is different than an expenditure that is gone after 1 year. It would detract from state opportunity revenue but the initial investment money stays on the state inventory so it's still their money.
The main advantage is that in a single budget session, they aren't taking money and giving directly to athletics. The taxpayer money is still intact and there in an emergency. The taxpayer loses out on investment opportunity and a little on inflation if only 2% is held back.
It's a 1 time commitment to help athletics adjust rather than relying on appropriations each year from the combined state revenue.
Bear Claw
Well-known member
I read an article on the ESPN app that suggested a decent quarterback at the FBS level will be expecting to make >=$3M per year. This would be approximately twice the whole reported athletic NIL budget for UW. This makes me think they may have to go after juco or FCS quarterbacks.
ragtimejoe1
Well-known member
The investment account could also be linked to optional state charges for people to donate. Specialized license plate, add $5 to hunting license, etc.
