Written from 13 named sources INTERNAL WORKING PAPER (Decision-Ready) TO: Keli Zinn; Matt Colagiovanni; Maggie Long FROM: Strategic Development Analysis Team (Senior Collegiate Development Strategist & Former Athletic Director) DATE: March 30, 2026 SUBJECT: Cracking the Athlete Giving Paradox: A 2026–2028 Strategic Framework (Post-House Settlement) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (What’s Broken + What We’ll Do) Rutgers Athletics has a repeatable paradox that shows up nationally and at Rutgers: former college athletes—especially stars/pros—give back at materially lower rates and dollars than non-athlete alumni, while the career backup/walk-on cohort tends to give more faithfully. This is not a loyalty problem. It’s a framing + structure problem. The Diagnosis in one line Stars/pros increasingly experienced the scholarship-athlete relationship as an exchange (labor/platform for compensation/opportunity), not a “gift that creates psychological debt.” The House settlement environment makes that “exchange frame” more explicit in how athletes think about their college period—reducing the emotional “you owe us gratitude” pathway that older giving models depended on. cite(see sources [1][2][4][8]) What we’re changing We’ll keep the revenue-recognition reality intact (we can’t undo it). We’ll change the ask architecture by doing four things: Segment beyond “letterwinners” into Tier 1/2/3 + sport/gender framing splits. Time the asks to re-entry windows when emotions reopen (not just when renewals are due). Offer investment vehicles to stars/pros (status, permanence, tax-aware mechanisms where appropriate), not gratitude guilt. Use Tier 3 as the conversion engine at low cost—because they already over-index on giving—and then reinvest proven results into Tier 1 high-touch cultivation. Rutgers is not starting from zero R Fund + Athlete Alumni Network work (launched 2018) produced a real 8% participation uplift (2022–2025). The March 2025 YouKnighted Million Dollar Match drove $1.6M+ with 712 individual donations across RU Giving Days producing $275K+ and ~440K social impressions—proof that frame + urgency + digital resonance can move athletes when it’s done correctly. SECTION I — THE DIAGNOSIS: WHY STARS ARE POOR DONORS 1) The “Transactional vs. Emotional” thesis (the real failure mode) Traditional athletic-fund fundraising leaned on a scholarship-as-gift story: you received educational opportunity → you feel gratitude → you develop giving debt. But when an athlete’s college experience increasingly functions like a market exchange (and is experienced as such), psychological giving debt shrinks. The donor motivation literature repeatedly points to giving being tied to how people interpret what they received and whether they perceive an obligation/connection strong enough to convert emotion into a gift—not just whether they “should” be loyal. [14][10] Under the House settlement framework, revenue sharing and related compliance/tax realities reinforce the idea that athletes are receiving more like compensation than charity. That matters because it changes the internal story athletes tell themselves about “what the university owes them” vs. “what they owe back.” [1][2][4][8] Bottom line: Stars/pros aren’t refusing Rutgers. They’re refusing the old frame. 2) Why backups/walk-ons outperform (the behavioral model) Backups and walk-ons often over-index on giving because their identity is less built on individual highlight-and-contract narratives and more built on community membership—teammates, coaches, shared discipline, and a felt sense of “belonging.” That identity produces a different reciprocity script: “You gave me a spot / a chapter / a community.” “Now I want the next person to get that same shot.” So Tier 3 is not merely a “small donor segment.” It’s the behavioral template for how to create giving behavior among Tier 1—by transplanting community membership conditions into the star/pro frame. 3) NIL sharpened the transactional frame (and magnified gender/sport disparities) Since 2021, NIL has increasingly professionalized athlete identity and incentives—making the “exchange frame” more natural for high-profile athletes. [9][11][15][12] And importantly for Rutgers: early NIL capital distribution was lopsided toward men’s revenue sports through booster collectives, leaving many women/Olympic athletes with a more hybrid identity frame (institutional belonging + less direct “market compensation” gating). This isn’t a moral judgment—it’s a segmentation requirement. 4) Rutgers’ record: progress, but the structure didn’t change Athlete Alumni Network + R Fund programming drove 8% participation uplift (2022–2025). Yet the 25% athlete-vs-non-athlete giving gap remains (and is precisely what this strategy is built to close). The current outreach model improved contact frequency and visibility—but didn’t fully repair the psychological mechanism that converts athletes into recurring and major donors. SECTION II — SEGMENTATION ARCHITECTURE (What We Segment For) We segment on three axes: Capacity (giving ability) Propensity (likelihood to give under the right frame) Frame sensitivity (what makes them say yes) Tier Definitions (Core Model) Tier Who Capacity Propensity Frame Dominance Cultivation Style Tier 1: Stars & Professionals NFL/NBA/WNBA draftees; high public profile; NIL/pro earners Highest Lowest Transactional; status/permanence/tax-aware motives High-touch relationship + “investment vehicle” offers Tier 2: Solid Contributors multi-year lettermen/starters; captains Mid Moderate Competitive + peer validation + recognition Gamification + cohort status + peer-to-peer ask Tier 3: Career Backups & Walk-ons scout team; walk-ons; bench contributors Lower individually Highest Community membership Digital-first “pay it forward” with emotional recognition Sport/Gender Split (Rutgers-specific execution rule) Add a messaging rule inside Tier 1: Men’s Revenue (Transactional/Frustration-heavy): “Pseudo-GM” and “fix the resource gap” asks. Women’s/Olympic (Hybrid frame): heavier community/legacy permanence + program elevation. SECTION III — ATHLETE-TO-DONOR JOURNEY MAP (Text-Rendered) Inflection: the “Cliff” at Graduation The athlete donor relationship breaks at the moment they stop receiving program-coded support (per-diem/structure/training access). Stars/pros also interpret that moment through the exchange frame, not the gift frame. Journey Table (Lifecycle + Re-entry Windows) Phase Years Post-Grad Psychological State Star/Pro Behavior (Expected Drop) Backup/Walk-on Behavior (Expected Retention) Re-entry Window (What Triggers Emotional Re-Opener) Outreach Mode Ask Level / Focus The Grind 0–3 survival / career-propulsion disengage quickly (no “debt” story) stay connected socially career disruption or milestone contract moments career services + alumni networking only No ask The Pivot 4–7 stability emerging; nostalgia begins to soften cynicism “fixing the resource gap” resonates if message is precise continues community identity 5-year reunion; first major career promotion peer-led reunion + teammate-to-teammate Mid-level; framed as remediation + access-building The Reflection 8–12 peak earnings; college memories feel “meaningful” again opens to permanence/status offers continues “pay it forward” Iconic anniversary (program-defining wins); major personal milestones 1:1 cultivation + site/suite invitation Major gift to AEF/legacy vehicles The Legacy 15+ intergenerational thinking; permanence estate/planned giving keeps giving when identity remains “Rutgers person” child entering college age; retirement planning planned giving integration Planned gift / endowment (protect scholarship pipeline) SECTION IV — TACTICAL PLAYBOOK (Segmented, Table-First) Tier Programs + Tactics (What We Launch) Tier Program Name Behavioral Insight Targeted Specific Tactics (What We Actually Do) Rutgers Infrastructure Leveraged Projected Impact Metrics (Internal Targets) Tier 1 The Scarlet Legacy Circle Stars want permanence/status and tax-aware “investment” logic; they resist gratitude guilt (1) Pseudo-GM play: athletes fund infrastructure tied to their position room (running back room = RB example) rather than “give back.” (2) DAF integration for appreciated assets where appropriate. (3) Pro-debut anniversary outreach with non-ask touchpoints first, then upgrade to major-gift consults. (4) Donor Impact Guide clarifying: revenue sharing vs IRS-deductible giving distinctions (see compliance row). R Fund / AEF admin; SAMCO for athlete mapping; WealthEngine for capacity; CRM/Paciolan for tracking +15% Tier 1 pipeline value over 3 years; 10 new major gift conversations/year Tier 2 The 1766 Captains Contributors respond to cohort competition + peer validation (1) Priority/Cohort “Decade Challenges” with a clear leaderboard and sport-specific storytelling. (2) Captains’ Council: 3–5 former captains per sport recruit peers; provide talk tracks + personalized links. (3) Collective Absorption Campaign (KOTR + Knight Society): instantly convert warm leads into in-house AEF donors (bifurcated co-signers—see below). Paciolan CRM event + attribution; social amplification +10% participation in Tier 2; average gift lift (e.g., $350 → $500) Tier 3 The Walk-On Fund Backups already “mean it”; they need recognition + an easy recurring entry point (1) $18.66/month recurring model with simple impact narration. (2) Walk-On Hall of Fame (digital recognition, no friction). (3) Gear/Meals micro-sponsorships via a live “needs list” style mechanism. (4) Visual continuity rule: every Tier 3 digital touchpoint must prominently feature R NIL branding from the Fall 2025 rollout so it feels official/in-house, not opportunistic. YouKnighted digital giving pages; SAMCO athlete tagging; R Fund communications +20% conversion among Tier 3; cost per acquired donor < $100; 3-year retention > 65% ALL (Compliance Guardrail) House Settlement & Deductibility Distinctions (Required Messaging) Prevents donor confusion, reduces friction, and avoids compliance risk Provide a one-page “Donor Impact Guide” that clearly distinguishes: (a) athlete revenue sharing / compensation is generally taxable, and (b) gifts to the IRS-qualified athletic giving vehicle (AEF/R Fund mechanism) are the route to IRS-deductible philanthropy (subject to applicable rules). Include “what you can/can’t get” expectations up front. Compliance Office + SAMCO deployment 100% audit safety; donor confusion score < 15% (survey-based) Collective Absorption Campaign (KOTR + Knight Society) — CRITICAL BIFURCATION FIX When third-party collectives shut down, Rutgers has a rare opportunity: warm, proven-giving donors already willing to fund athletes—but they must be routed correctly into AEF. Rule: Do not co-sign every list with the same founders. Knight Society list: outreach co-signed by Geo Baker and Eric LeGrand. Knights of the Raritan (KOTR) list: outreach co-signed by Jon Newman and Danny Breslauer. This matters because donors interpret “who vouches for the new home.” The co-signers must match the loyalty memory the donor already formed. SECTION V — BUDGET CASCADE (Sequencing, Not Failure) Context: $1.2M total alumni engagement budget; $400K athlete-specific in the full model. Scenario Total Budget Athlete-Specific What You Get What You Sacrifice Full $1.2M $400K Full Tier 1/2/3; major gift concierge; KOTR + Knight Society absorption with bifurcated co-signing; Tier 2 cohort challenges; full Walk-On Fund — Reduced $750K $250K Tier 1 limited to top prospects (remote-first); Tier 3 digital full; Tier 2 automated cohort outreach; absorption ingestion High-touch Tier 2 events; Tier 1 travel gifting limits Lean $500K $165K Tier 3 digital full; Tier 1 automated SAMCO-only touchpoints; “Young Alumni Athlete Bridge” No bespoke Tier 1 cultivation; no in-person Tier 2 Constrained $250K $85K Tier 3 micro-program + Walk-On Fund launch; SAMCO data audit; absorption ingestion No personal cultivation; no peer-to-peer captains; minimal recognition Minimum $100K $35K Tier 3 exclusively + young alumni within 5 years (digital-first); protect recurring conversion No Tier 1 and Tier 2 high-touch; long-term major pipeline deferred Strategic Recommendation at $100K (and why it’s correct) At $35K athlete-specific, we do not try to “flip” star behavior with high-touch cultivation. That’s too expensive and too frame-sensitive. We sequence instead: Prove recurring Tier 3 conversion with recognition + $18.66/month + R NIL-branded official feel. Use the earned, trackable recurring revenue and donor behavior to justify Tier 1 budget expansion in 2027. SECTION VI — NEXT 30 DAYS (Three Actions, Zero New Budget Approval) Action 1: The Collective Absorption Audit (Warm-Lead Conversion Engine) Owner: Todd Knisley’s team (SAMCO operations) + Maggie Long’s team + Paciolan data support What (must happen in 30 days): Obtain donor lists from Knights of the Raritan (KOTR) and Knight Society (shuttered collectives). Cross-reference with Rutgers’ athlete-alumni database. Identify former athletes giving to a third-party collective but not currently giving to AEF. Deliverable (bifurcated campaigns): Knight Society segment: email + phone co-signed by Geo Baker + Eric LeGrand welcoming them to AEF. KOTR segment: email + phone co-signed by Jon Newman + Danny Breslauer welcoming them to AEF. Action 2: The Walk-On Beta Launch (Conversion + Brand Continuity) Owner: Maggie Long + R Fund digital staff What: Launch Walk-On Fund giving pages within R Fund / YouKnighted. Use the $18.66/month recurring option. Visual continuity requirement: all pages and follow-up emails must prominently feature the Fall 2025 R NIL branding assets (logos/colors/visual identifiers) so the campaign feels official and consistent. Deliverable: Live giving page by April 30, 2026 Goal: 50 new recurring donors and $2,500 first-month revenue Action 3: House Settlement + AEF Donor Impact Guide (Compliance + Trust) Owner: Compliance Office + SAMCO deployment + Priority/CRM integration (Matt Colagiovanni support) What: Draft and approve a one-page Donor Impact Guide explicitly stating: athlete revenue sharing is generally taxable; gifts and deduction mechanics differ AEF/R Fund giving route is the vehicle for IRS-deductible support (subject to applicable IRS rules) Rutgers will not overpromise deductibility or “tax benefits,” and will explain the difference plainly Deliverable: One-page PDF cleared by Compliance Deployed via SAMCO to every athlete who received (or will receive) revenue sharing, and to prospective AEF donors CLOSING ARGUMENT (Why This Works) The athlete giving gap is a framing problem—and also a routing problem. Stars/pros: we don’t ask them to repay gratitude. We offer investment pathways that match their internal logic (status, permanence, position-room infrastructure), supported by clear tax/deductibility expectations. [2][8][14] Backups/walk-ons: we don’t try to “convince” them to care—they already do. We recognize them, make giving effortless, and create an official-feeling in-house identity via R NIL branded digital materials. Tier sequencing: Tier 3 becomes the conversion engine at minimum budgets. Tier 1 becomes feasible later because we build proof, revenue, and trackable behavior. Rutgers has the infrastructure and the behavioral insight now. The only missing ingredient was a strategy that treats psychology and structure as first-class variables. Let’s get to work. Sources [1] House v. NCAA Settlement - FAQ - Temple Athletics — https://owlsports.com/sports/2025/3/31/faq-house-settlement [2] Paid student-athletes: Tax implications for universities and donors — https://www.thetaxadviser.com/issues/2025/jul/paid-student-athletes-tax-implications-for-universities-and-donors/ [4] The House v. NCAA Settlement Explained — https://honestgame.com/blog/house-vs-the-ncaa/ [5] House v. NCAA Settlement Update - Seton Hall University Athletics — https://shupirates.com/news/2025/6/10/general-house-v-ncaa-settlement-update [6] R&G Dugout: The House v. NCAA Settlement—Tax Implications — https://www.ropesgray.com/en/insights/podcasts/2025/06/rg-dugout-the-house-v-ncaa-settlement-tax-implications-for-colleges-and-universities [7] Unpacking the “House” Settlement's Impact on Collegiate Athletics — https://www.jacksonlewis.com/insights/unpacking-house-settlements-impact-collegiate-athletics-0 [8] Client Alert: Tax Implications of the House v. NCAA Settlement — https://www.whitefordlaw.com/news-events/client-alert-tax-implications-of-the-house-v-ncaa-settlement [9] NIL: The Creative Disruption Reshaping Both College Sports And Society — https://www.forbes.com/sites/marcuscollins/2026/01/23/nil-the-creative-disruption-reshaping-both-college-sports-and-society/ [10] The Impact of Athletic Performance on Alumni Giving — https://gceps.princeton.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/162rosen.pdf [11] New research highlights how NIL is reshaping college athlete identity — https://experts.ufl.edu/experts/spotlights/spotlight/?id=11415 [12] New Data Indicates the Impact of NIL on Student-Athletes — https://studentathleteinsights.com/niledu/nil-impact-data [14] An Examination of Annual Athletic-fund Donor Motivations — https://cdr.lib.unc.edu/downloads/8623hz10x?locale=en [15] NIL and Higher Education: An Exploration of the Early Impact of NIL — https://journals.ku.edu/jis/article/view/21468