The NCAA’s House settlement will change college sports forever. Here’s how it could affect Massachusetts schools.

The recent settlement allowing NCAA schools to pay athletes directly could significantly impact sports betting outcomes, particularly for power programs like those in the Big Ten and SEC. This financial advantage may result in increased competitiveness and higher odds, making teams more attractive for bettors. Expect a shift in how odds are set for upcoming college football and basketball seasons.

After more than a decade of creeping change and shifting winds in college sports, the biggest reshaping of the landscape arrived Friday. Federal judge Claudia Wilken signed off on a settlement resolving three antitrust compensation cases brought against the NCAA. Now, schools will be allowed to pay athletes directly — rather than under the guise of name, image, and likeness (NIL) — as soon as next month.

Along with schools gaining the ability to share up to $20.5 million with athletes per year, the NCAA is on the hook for nearly $2.8 billion in back pay to former athletes — long barred from compensation for their athletic performance — over the next 10 years.

The football powerhouses in the Big Ten and SEC — and their massive television deals — have prompted much of the seismic shift in college athletics that resulted in this settlement. But the changes are felt throughout the NCAA, including in Massachusetts. It’s particularly significant for Boston College and UMass, the state’s two institutions that compete in FBS, the highest level of college football, each of which has spent several months preparing for sweeping change after the deal was initially approved in October before a lengthy hold-up.

“It’s been a little bit of what we would call, ‘Hurry up and wait,’ ” said UMass athletic director Ryan Bamford. “I think it’s in some ways relief that it’s here, that we can move forward, that we can meet this moment.”

While athletes will still be able to earn money through the NIL deals that have taken over collegiate athletics, the ability to pay athletes directly is a monumental shift. How universities will handle payments is the first question on the agenda, particularly at the state’s flagship university, which has to contend with the added wrinkle of public funding and the scrutiny that comes with it.

“You’re building the systems, the policies, the procedures, working with campus infrastructure,” Bamford said. “Our student-athletes aren’t employees, so they don’t fit into the HR model. You can’t pay through financial aid, because — you can pay scholarships and room and board and tuition and fees and things like that — but anything that’s rev share is above and beyond. So you’ve got to get the tax people, the Treasury people, the general counsel, to look at your agreement.“

While college football’s powerhouses are certain to max out the $20.5 million they can dole out to athletes, that likely won’t be the case at UMass — that number would represent close to 40 percent of the total operating budget of an athletic department such as UMass’s.

Boston College athletic director Blake James wouldn’t get into specifics on how much the school expects to be paying athletes for the 2025-26 academic year, saying “it’s too early to really know,” while confirming BC’s participation in revenue sharing.

UMass, meanwhile, will be looking to spend between $6 million and $8 million in the first year and in the $10 million-$12 million range in the second, with the long-term goal to be spending around 60 percent of the cap.

“If we’re at 60 percent of whatever [the cap] continues to grow to, we’re probably in a really good, healthy Group of Five position,” Bamford said. “The MAC is not going to spend a ton of money, but we want to be where maybe some of the lower Big East, lower Power Fours are in basketball, and then in football.

“We want to be competitive with the Group of Five. I think we can be in the top, probably, 20 percent of the Group of Five in football with our number. So, you know, that’s certainly a goal.”

Another question is how schools will divide the money within their own department, with a lion’s share of the cash at FBS schools likely heading into football pockets. That’s an especially unique challenge at BC, which has to compete against some of college football’s best in the ACC, while its greatest success has come not on the field but on the ice.

The men’s hockey team boasts five national championships and reached the national title game again in 2024, while the women have made six Frozen Fours since 2010.

“We’re the only team in the ACC that has ice hockey,” James said. “So we’re going to continue to evolve under this new college athletics approach consistent with who we are as an institution, and part of that is recognizing the importance that ice hockey means to us at Boston College and as part of our athletic program.”

It’s possible the new rules could provide an opportunity to BC’s city rivals on the ice at Boston University and Northeastern — neither of which has a football team to fund — to gain some ground. The fourth member of the Beanpot quartet, Harvard, could be looking at a further slip among its rivals, as the Ivy League has opted out of revenue sharing, which Harvard confirmed to the Globe this week.

UMass, another Hockey East competitor, with its most recent national relevance coming through men’s hockey (a Frozen Four in 2019 and a national championship in 2021), will also skew more of its money toward hockey and what arguably remains the Minutemen’s biggest brand, men’s basketball.

The most common formula thrown around in recent months has been that schools will look to use around 75 percent of the money on football, 15 percent on men’s basketball, 5 percent on women’s basketball, and the remaining 5 percent elsewhere. UMass, Bamford said, won’t be that high in football, with greater slices of the pie given to men’s and women’s basketball, as well as hockey.

“Over time, it’ll sort itself out,” Bamford said. “When you make the jump, the formula and the ratios and the percentages are a little bit skewed. But for instance, we’re going to fund, probably $2.5 million on our women’s sports just in scholarships alone.

“We’ve kind of let each coach determine how they want to do it and based on the budget. And I think our coaches are feeling like in talking to their peers, especially in the Group of Five, that we’re in a really strong spot.”

There are plenty of concerns to go around, from how new roster limits rules will affect walk-ons to the effects the settlement could have on Olympic sports, where collegiate athletic programs have long produced some of the nation’s best athletes without generating a lot of revenue in return.

For James, whose place as a Power Four AD means competing with the nation’s true powers, the primary concern is how schools are going to toe the line.

“I think my concerns would be ... the enforcement,“ he said. “I think if everyone follows the rules of the settlement, I think it will put college athletics into a better place than it’s been in some time. With that said, I think there’s always opportunities for people to work around the intent of what has been put in place, whether it’s through the letter of the rule, or just something that they feel that they have to do in their best interest.

“And I would say that’s my biggest concern: How do we get everyone to support and embrace this and give college athletics a chance to grow in this whole new world?”

“I think it’s in some ways relief that it’s here, that we can move forward, that we can meet this moment.”The post The NCAA’s House settlement will change college sports forever. Here’s how it could affect Massachusetts schools. appeared first on Boston.com.

Boston