In the early years of the National Football League, scouting and roster development resembled the wild west. Drafts were held in hotel ballrooms the day after the last game of regular season college football was played. There was no combine, limited scouting, and no salary cap. Over time, these aspects have changed dramatically, in part due to key figures from Pete Rozelle to Gil Brandt to Bill Belichick. The development and learning from this time period have laid the foundational infrastructure that modern roster construction is based upon. In this modern day, managing a team and putting together a roster involves numerous people, intense scouting, layers of technology, and, critically, the management of the salary cap. Since it was first put into place in 1994, managing the cap has become an essential element of building and sustaining a successful team. The New England Patriots’ mastery of the cap is a large part of what enabled their dynastic run over the past twenty years. While their model has undoubtedly proven to be successful, an opposing model has become increasingly popular and yielded results of its own. Both models center around different distributions of the salary cap, starting with the portion paid to the starting quarterback. The Patriots dynasty was, in part, made possible due to their use of both models over the course of their dominance. Drafting, organizational culture, and coaching are all among the numerous critical factors in determining a team’s success and it becomes difficult to pinpoint the true source of success for any given team. Ultimately, however, effective management of the cap proves to be a force multiplier; it does not guarantee that a team will be successful, but it helps teams that handle the other variables well sustain their success.

The NCAA’s legalization of athletes to profit off of their own name, image, and likeness (NIL) was met with mixed response from fans of collegiate sports. A popular talking point among people against NIL was that its legalization would cause talented athletes to “follow the money” and increase the recruiting quality at schools where NIL opportunities were plentiful. In essence, a theoretical “talent gap” would form due to this movement of athlete talent. The goal of this paper is to determine the talent gap’s existence or lack thereof while also setting stakeholders directly involved with NIL deals (colleges, businesses, companies) up for success in the age of NIL. This was executed first through the issuance of a survey that collected five categories of data: fandom and interest in college sports, industry sector interest, NIL preferences (structure, money, form), NIL recruiting preferences, and demographics. Following this collection of survey data, recruiting and transfer data for the years 2011-2023 was obtained and analyzed to determine the influence of specific variables in the recruiting process. The survey used in this paper was sent out to over 300 Arizona State University students from Dr. Eaton’s fall semester marketing class, with 158 participants filtered out in order to exclusively measure the responses of students with a similar perspective to athletes. The recruiting and transfer data was derived from the recruiting websites 247 Sports, Rivals, and On3 sports, with On3 Sports additionally providing NIL valuation estimates. Findings from the survey and recruiting data analysis could neither prove or disprove the existence of the theorized athletic talent gap. Results suggest that football or basketball program prestige is the true primary driver of talent movement, not NIL. Businesses looking to issue NIL deals should focus on the marketing obligations and payment structure of the deal rather than payment value, as money does not significantly influence the decision to take an NIL deal offer.

This paper analyzes different issues within collegiate athletics. Further, it provides a roadmap for how leaders in collegiate athletics can better make decisions involving conference membership and media rights decisions that directly serve the interests of student-athletes, the athletic department, and the entire university community. Relevant literature is addressed in the literature review section regarding the financial components of college athletics and how conference realignment impacts different financial elements of the athletic department and university. Also, the literature review section focuses on how conference realignment decisions impact rivalries. The last part of the literature review focuses on a more contemporary analysis involving conference realignment and how changing some of the financial structures within college athletics would result in a more equitable and fair landscape regarding gender equity. Using data from the Knight-Newhouse College Athletics Database, financial data related to Texas A&M University, the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, and the University of Maryland-College Park were analyzed to determine how these three institutions were affected by their decisions to change conferences within the Power V. Each of these institutions athletic departments finances, including specific revenue and expense categories, were affected differently by their decision to change conferences, but this data can serve as an important indicator for how universities that are currently choosing to change conferences will be affected. Then the next portion of this paper involved primary data collection, where the sample consisted of Arizona State University Introduction to Marketing students. This survey focused on measuring the opinions of college sports fans regarding various issues and topics related to college athletics, including the role of college athletics within the university, conference realignment, the importance of rivalries, and media rights. Lastly, this paper includes an analysis and comparison of survey data from the University of California Office of the President, where UCLA student-athletes comprised the survey population. This survey focused on UCLA student-athletes’ opinions regarding UCLA’s decision to join the Big Ten conference.