Can USF's all-sports excellence survive the era of salary caps and cash‑chasing?

USF rightly celebrated its accomplishment of finishing first among American Athletic Conference teams in the 2024–25 Learfield Directors' Cup standings.

The Cup identifies the most successful collegiate athletics programs in the country based on NCAA postseason performance across all sports.

Note those last two words: “all sports.”

Now, think about the new financial reality that athletic departments across the country face. While they could they start directly pay their athletes on July 1, they basically face a $20.5 million salary cap.

NIL deals are subject to NCAA approval to ensure programs stay within the financial parameters.

During Michael Kelly’s time as USF’s Vice President for Athletics, one of his most significant accomplishments was providing the school’s 21 athletic teams the resources they needed to succeed.

We saw how that paid off in the 2024-25 athletic calendar.

The Bulls won American Athletic Conference championships in volleyball, women's basketball, softball, and men's indoor and outdoor track and field.

Going forward, though, whoever USF’s new athletic director turns out to be could find overall excellence like that challenging to achieve.

USF has about 500 student-athletes. Nearly one-fifth of those are football players. How will all that be divided?

Will each head coach receive a set amount of money that he or she can divide among their players?

The Bulls have an outstanding track and field program, but can USF afford to allocate the necessary funds to remain nationally competitive in the salary cap world if that possibly costs them a four-star football player?

Do sports like golf and tennis become collateral damage?

Will top athletes in all sports be strictly interested in a cash grab from the highest bidder, or will relationships with their coaches and teammates matter more?

Looking strictly at the rulebook, USF is equal to Power 4 programs in the amount of money the Bulls can spend. But even though the NCAA vows to enforce the rules, there are possibilities for abuse.

Does a major booster offer Daddy or Mommy a high-paying new work-at-home job as a back-channel way around the cap?

If they did, how would we know?

Another "what if" possibility: The power conferences tell the NCAA to take a flying leap and form their alliance, spending whatever they want to spend. Does the NCAA, essentially toothless now, still believe it can tell the SEC and Big Ten what to do?

I have said before and will repeat here: For decades, the NCAA had a monopoly on college athletics. Top executives earned handsome salaries primarily from the labor of 18- to 22-year-olds, who were locked into the sham of amateurism.

When the winds of change began to blow and antitrust action loomed, the NCAA fought it tooth and nail to avoid losing its indentured labor source..

Yes, those players received college educations – that’s a significant benefit. But even then, athletes in the so-called “minor sports” – translation, those sports don’t generate revenue – usually received a pittance, if that much.

I’m for all of the athletes receiving what they can.

However, I would also recommend that the person chosen to succeed Michael Kelly stock up on remedies for the headaches that are sure to come.