Illini Football 2026

[Big Jack]

Wtf? Does he realize he is working for another big ten team and scum didn't have an opening for him?

I thought it was a positive answer and he was stating the truth, yes he will always be a Scum guy, but he is here to do a job. Be honest we all know these assistants are 2 year guys and then move on if they are any good, none of them are staying for ever, except hopefully Art. Would not mind seeing him stay here after Bret retires

 

[Boomauer]

https://twitter.com/x/status/2029616559463837976

LOL, why say this out loud?

 

[FlyingIlliniFan]

Two things...

1. There is school NIL money. About $21 million for everyone, but you gotta split it across the sports. I'd guess most schools have about $15 million allocated to football, some to basketball, and some other sports. This is the settlement money pool. After that, there is outside NIL money, the stuff that is supposed to go through the clearinghouse. The only way Illinois or Maryland or anyone goes above the first $21 million is through outside clearinghouse deals. Schools can help advise collectives and do other things to increase the outside pool, but at the end of the day, there's a layer between the school and the outside pool. This means, among other things, that there is a whole lot of bullsh!t in numbers you read about the school's "budget" because it's not really the school's money.

2. I am surprised at the proliferation of assistant coaches. I'm an old econ guy so forgive the lingo, but if memory serves, when there are regulation-generated economic profits to be had, such as those that existed when the return to having great players couldn't be paid to the players, the rents should flow to the most inelastically supplied (hardest to duplicate) inputs. That meant elite coaches and elite program facilities. Now that you can pay players, rents should fall (and I expect the facilities arms race will be over soon), but I'm absolutely baffled that assistant coach salaries are taking any resources that could flow to an NIL pool. I'd be pushing every donor into the NIL collective program that I could, rather than trying to build the number of people on my staff.

 

[altgeld88]

2. I am surprised at the proliferation of assistant coaches. I'm an old econ guy so forgive the lingo, but if memory serves, when there are regulation-generated economic profits to be had, such as those that existed when the return to having great players couldn't be paid to the players, the rents should flow to the most inelastically supplied (hardest to duplicate) inputs. That meant elite coaches and elite program facilities. Now that you can pay players, rents should fall (and I expect the facilities arms race will be over soon), but I'm absolutely baffled that assistant coach salaries are taking any resources that could flow to an NIL pool. I'd be pushing every donor into the NIL collective program that I could, rather than trying to build the number of people on my staff.

Speaking as a former engineer who became an economist, I love your analysis in (2). I haven't seen anyone explain the economics this well.

Beautiful. Don't ever apologize.

 

[the juiceman cometh]

For the 2026 fiscal year, the University of Iowa is preparing to implement a revenue-sharing "salary cap" of approximately $15 million

You're describing revenue sharing under the House settlement. The cap for 2025-26 is $20.3 million, with most schools likely to distribute 75% of that to football (which on average accounts for 75% of revenue). So $15 million seems about right.

For the 2026 fiscal year (FY26), the University of Washington (UW) is budgeting more than $20 million annually

For just football, under revenue share? They're not going to give any other athletes anything? Unlikely. This is likely their total revenue share outlay.

Maryland is projecting a significant increase in its football player budget, with plans for a $25 million NIL budget for the 2026-2027 season.

Are we talking NIL or revenue share? You seem to be jumping around between different things. They can't allocate $25 million for revenue share, as the cap for 2026-27 is projected to be $21.3 million.

In 2025–26, the University of Minnesota is implementing a revenue-sharing plan expected to distribute approximately $21.3 million to student-athletes. Football is projected to receive about 75% of this total, roughly $15.97 million,

This is what most programs will do and I also suspect what we will do.

We are in the bottom 5-7

Based on what again?

 

[pvaughn8]

You're describing revenue sharing under the House settlement. The cap for 2025-26 is $20.3 million, with most schools likely to distribute 75% of that to football (which on average accounts for 75% of revenue). So $15 million seems about right.


For just football, under revenue share? They're not going to give any other athletes anything? Unlikely. This is likely their total revenue share outlay.


Are we talking NIL or revenue share? You seem to be jumping around between different things. They can't allocate $25 million for revenue share, as the cap for 2026-27 is projected to be $21.3 million.


This is what most programs will do and I also suspect what we will do.


Based on what again?

You did your homework

 

[therealmiket86]

Two things...

1. There is school NIL money. About $21 million for everyone, but you gotta split it across the sports. I'd guess most schools have about $15 million allocated to football, some to basketball, and some other sports. This is the settlement money pool. After that, there is outside NIL money, the stuff that is supposed to go through the clearinghouse. The only way Illinois or Maryland or anyone goes above the first $21 million is through outside clearinghouse deals. Schools can help advise collectives and do other things to increase the outside pool, but at the end of the day, there's a layer between the school and the outside pool. This means, among other things, that there is a whole lot of bullsh!t in numbers you read about the school's "budget" because it's not really the school's money.

2. I am surprised at the proliferation of assistant coaches. I'm an old econ guy so forgive the lingo, but if memory serves, when there are regulation-generated economic profits to be had, such as those that existed when the return to having great players couldn't be paid to the players, the rents should flow to the most inelastically supplied (hardest to duplicate) inputs. That meant elite coaches and elite program facilities. Now that you can pay players, rents should fall (and I expect the facilities arms race will be over soon), but I'm absolutely baffled that assistant coach salaries are taking any resources that could flow to an NIL pool. I'd be pushing every donor into the NIL collective program that I could, rather than trying to build the number of people on my staff.

You are describing the Zook era. A lot of talent and no coaching

 

[Dan]

 

[Dan]

 

[AirTran]

You're describing revenue sharing under the House settlement. The cap for 2025-26 is $20.3 million, with most schools likely to distribute 75% of that to football (which on average accounts for 75% of revenue). So $15 million seems about right.


For just football, under revenue share? They're not going to give any other athletes anything? Unlikely. This is likely their total revenue share outlay.


Are we talking NIL or revenue share? You seem to be jumping around between different things. They can't allocate $25 million for revenue share, as the cap for 2026-27 is projected to be $21.3 million.


This is what most programs will do and I also suspect what we will do.


Based on what again?

Do the math and the research.

This debate is exactly what I wanted to avoid - go research what the estimated football player comp is estimated as of today.

Here is Minnesota's estimate :

Player Compensation Breakdown (Fiscal Year 2026)
Minnesota's "pay-for-play" budget is split across five programs, with football receiving the vast majority:

• Revenue Sharing (Football): Roughly $15.4 million (75% of the $20.5M total) is designated for the football roster.
• Total Athletic Department Payout: The full $20.5 million will be distributed among football, men's and women's basketball, volleyball, and men's hockey.
• Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL): These direct school payments are separate from external NIL deals funded by boosters and the Dinkytown Athletes collective. Top Gopher players, such as QB Drake Lindsey, are expected to command over $1 million annually in combined retention costs.

Now is that higher, lower or roughly the same as Illinois?

Lower-End / Mid-Tier Notes​

Teams with less aggressive collectives or lower revenue generation (e.g., some Group of 5 or lower-revenue Power programs) lag significantly in supplemental NIL, though revenue sharing levels the baseline. In Big Ten context (from prior discussion), schools like Rutgers, Northwestern, Illinois, and Purdue often rank lower in supplemental spending power.

 

[EyeoftheIllini]

Sounds like he was just honest. I mean he is a Michigan HS and Michigan legend. I'm sure they've checked everything out before hiring. The quote isn't all peaches and cream but that type of transparency and honesty is a staple of the program from accounts I've read. Interested to see the caliber of RB he brings in.

Thank you. People get all bent out of shape over every little thing. Guy was honest. Also, just pulling the answer or a snippet of the answer to an unseen question can make it look/sound much worse. He didn’t just walk up to the podium and that was the first thing he said.

 

[lstewart53x3]

Thank you. People get all bent out of shape over every little thing. Guy was honest. Also, just pulling the answer or a snippet of the answer to an unseen question can make it look/sound much worse. He didn’t just walk up to the podium and that was the first thing he said.

Honestly disappointed in Jeremy Werner. He shared one of the original tweets with the quote and decided not to share the full quote or the question that was asked.

Later on, he shared the additional context to say, “see! it wasn’t that bad!”

But the damage was already done.

Journalism for outrage and clicks, instead of accuracy.

 

[mhuml32]

You're describing revenue sharing under the House settlement. The cap for 2025-26 is $20.3 million, with most schools likely to distribute 75% of that to football (which on average accounts for 75% of revenue). So $15 million seems about right.


For just football, under revenue share? They're not going to give any other athletes anything? Unlikely. This is likely their total revenue share outlay.


Are we talking NIL or revenue share? You seem to be jumping around between different things. They can't allocate $25 million for revenue share, as the cap for 2026-27 is projected to be $21.3 million.


This is what most programs will do and I also suspect what we will do.


Based on what again?

This is a good breakdown. I get that it's complicated for folks, and in some ways the system is designed to be complicated. Folks should just remember the part bolded above, there is a revenue share bucket (likely around 75% of the total revenue share number) and an NIL bucket (can be unlimited).

 

[FlyingIlliniFan]

Maybe, but I guess what I see is very little differentiation among the 14th assistant coach on the staff and what you could come up with if you put that money to NIL. These are dime-a-dozen positions that turn over a ton. The first six or seven coaches (HC,OC, DC, QB, two superstar recruiters) sure, pay for those. But there is a sea of good resumes out there for position coaches and I’d be much more inclined to pay more NIL than reach deep into my pockets to maybe marginally upgrade my tight ends coach. Give the money straight to Mack Sutter.

Q

 

[lstewart53x3]

Maybe, but I guess what I see is very little differentiation among the 14th assistant coach on the staff and what you could come up with if you put that money to NIL. These are dime-a-dozen positions that turn over a ton. The first six or seven coaches (HC,OC, DC, QB, two superstar recruiters) sure, pay for those. But there is a sea of good resumes out there for position coaches and I’d be much more inclined to pay more NIL than reach deep into my pockets to maybe marginally upgrade my tight ends coach. Give the money straight to Mack Sutter.

Q

That’s not how it works.

Each school has a max of $21 million they can invest into revenue sharing. According to Whitman, most schools are investing 75% of that into football.

At the school level, they are not allowed to invest any more than that.

They cannot save money by forgoing an additional hire to invest that money into NIL, they are capped.

In fact, at the school level, they are not allowed to invest any resources into NIL.

Revenue sharing comes from the school. It’s capped. NIL is unlimited, but comes from 3rd parties and is supposed to be for legitimate advertising of businesses (though, I’m sure teams are still finding ways to work around that).

So if a school has a $30 million roster, roughly $15 million of that is coming from the school through revenue sharing and the additional $15 million is coming from 3rd parties through NIL.

 

[therealmiket86]

Maybe, but I guess what I see is very little differentiation among the 14th assistant coach on the staff and what you could come up with if you put that money to NIL. These are dime-a-dozen positions that turn over a ton. The first six or seven coaches (HC,OC, DC, QB, two superstar recruiters) sure, pay for those. But there is a sea of good resumes out there for position coaches and I’d be much more inclined to pay more NIL than reach deep into my pockets to maybe marginally upgrade my tight ends coach. Give the money straight to Mack Sutter.

Q

The assistant tight ends coach and positions like that are cost very little. It’s definitely not the difference between getting Mack Sutter. I heard he got 750k for 3 years to go to Bama. Also by having more coaches players are able to get more reps in practice.

 

[FlyingIlliniFan]

That’s not how it works.

Each school has a max of $21 million they can invest into revenue sharing. According to Whitman, most schools are investing 75% of that into football.

At the school level, they are not allowed to invest any more than that.

They cannot save money by forgoing an additional hire to invest that money into NIL, they are capped.

In fact, at the school level, they are not allowed to invest any resources into NIL.

Revenue sharing comes from the school. It’s capped. NIL is unlimited, but comes from 3rd parties and is supposed to be for legitimate advertising of businesses (though, I’m sure teams are still finding ways to work around that).

So if a school has a $30 million roster, roughly $15 million of that is coming from the school through revenue sharing and the additional $15 million is coming from 3rd parties through NIL.

Yeah, but you can steer donors and sponsors, at least a little. They can fund NIL or they can fund things that have to go to something other than NIL. I’d just be pushing every red cent to NIL.

 

[therealmiket86]

Yeah, but you can steer donors and sponsors, at least a little. They can fund NIL or they can fund things that have to go to something other than NIL. I’d just be pushing every red cent to NIL.

Also in your scenario why would Mack want to come play for a position coach that has no business being at this level

 

[AirTran]

Yeah, but you can steer donors and sponsors, at least a little. They can fund NIL or they can fund things that have to go to something other than NIL. I’d just be pushing every red cent to NIL.

It wiould appear to me just the opposite based on Indiana's success. The teams that are succeeding are spending on coaching (on field) and development (off field) and the magic number (away from the head coach) appears to be $8mm. Not a lot of teams spend that much on assistants. There is no correlation whatsoever (and of course this is with only 3 years of data) between spending on players and CFP berths.

Indiana was in the middle of the pack on player spend last yeaar (based on the data I have seen) but they were near the top on coach spend.

I also noticed that O;e' Miss, Oregon and Ohio State lost coaches for the playoff. I am fairly confident that impacted how all of them performed.

 

[FlyingIlliniFan]

Also in your scenario why would Mack want to come play for a position coach that has no business being at this level

Cuz he’s getting more $$$$ and the difference in quality in the 50 or so tight ends coaches at that level just ain’t that much

 

[Old.Edgy]

As much as I don’t like scUM, this seems like he was answering a question. I do respect his loyalty to his Alma mater but have no doubt he’ll do his best for Illinois.

I'm afraid Gary Moeller tainted my view of scUM people who come to work for my beloved.... I hope he proves me wrong...

 

[Dan]

 

[Dan]

 

[AirTran]

I'm afraid Gary Moeller tainted my view of scUM people who come to work for my beloved.... I hope he proves me wrong...

If that were really the case (and I am guessing it's not) therapy would definitely be in order.

 

[kmunt09]

Caught up on most of the player interviews, really enjoy getting to know their personalities.

Alex Perry....can't help but like him, and think of his potential.