UA’s Yurachek has a lot to consider

For fans, the numbers that matter most are wins and losses. For athletic directors, it’s also about dollars and cents.

The two are linked, which is one reason Hunter Yurachek’s job is getting harder.

Yurachek, the University of Arkansas athletic director, is navigating a quickly changing financial climate that changed again June 6 with the settlement in the House v. NCAA court case.

Under that settlement, major colleges each can divide up to $20.5 million among all their athletes directly. They will decide which players are paid how much. They will do that rather than working mostly through less transparent “collectives.” Those are university-affiliated groups that have been raising money to pay players since this all started in 2021. The NCAA, meanwhile, will pay nearly $2.8 billion over 10 years to athletes who played from 2016 onward.

The $20.5 million cap is far less than some schools have been paying. Athletes still can be paid for their name, image and likeness (NIL) by businesses and other sponsors. The NCAA is creating a College Sports Commission meant to regulate the money flow and make sure the rules are being followed.

It’s still unclear how this will shake out. The NCAA is hoping Congress will pass legislation to prevent athletes from becoming potentially union-belonging employees. It also wants anti-trust exemptions so it can have more control over the situation.

I would not hold my breath on Congress acting quickly.

The $20.5 million represents a new expense for athletics departments’ budgets. That money must come from somewhere. As reported by the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, the department is trying to save $2.5 million through staff reductions and early retirements that affected about 10 percent of staff members. In that article, Yurachek described the job cuts that occurred June 25 as “one of the toughest if not the toughest day in my 16 years as an athletic director.” He said this year has been as hard as the COVID year of 2020.

The decisions won’t get any easier as Yurachek and his colleagues decide how to divide the money. The $20.5 million must be spread across all sports — men’s and women’s. Football is the biggest revenue producer, and it remains the most high-profile sport at the UA. A winning team brings in more money.

But the Razorbacks aren’t a top 20 program. In fact, with a schedule that includes a home game against Notre Dame, last year’s national championship runner-up, the Hogs might do well to win seven games this year.

At the same time, the Razorbacks men’s basketball team is led by Hall of Fame Coach John Calipari, who won a national championship at Kentucky in 2012. His recruiting class this year includes two five-star players.

The Razorbacks baseball team, meanwhile, advanced to the College World Series semifinals this year and was one out from winning the national championship in 2018.

The UA will spend big on football, of course. But should it invest a little more than some other schools in other sports, such as basketball and baseball?

Arkansas has a better foundation in those two sports, and they are both cheaper. Basketball requires only two or three great players plus four or five good ones. Baseball requires eight starting position players plus pitchers and backups. In football, 22 players start on offense and defense, and they all need credible backups because injuries are so common. There are also kickers, punters and other specialists.

If you have $20.5 million to spend on all sports, do you invest big in a middle linebacker in football who is one of dozens needed to win? Or do you invest in the basketball star who can win you a national championship? And how many baseball players can you get for that one middle linebacker?

Now more than ever, it may be too much for fans to expect the program to excel in all sports. Basketball is the second most prestigious sport and second biggest revenue producer. Other than this year’s national champion, Florida, the men’s champs from the past few decades have come from schools known for playing basketball, not football: Duke, Connecticut, Kansas, North Carolina, Kentucky, Villanova.

It may be obvious: Invest a little more in the cheaper sports where the Razorbacks are already good. But football is the sport that makes the most money. Fans don’t fill the stadiums to root for losing teams.

It’s a tough job balancing wins and losses, and dollars and cents. Yurachek and other athletic directors have more challenging years in front of them.

•••

Steve Brawner’s column is syndicated to 19 outlets in Arkansas. Email him at brawnersteve@

mac.com.