|
|
Post by mervinswerved on May 14, 2024 18:44:33 GMT -5
The tweet contains most of the top-line news, but an interesting tidbit is the possibility (likelihood?) of moving away from scholarship limits and to a sport-by-sport roster limit with unlimited scholarships for the whole roster.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2024 18:53:44 GMT -5
From what I hear, this is happening.
Non P4 schools won’t have a chance with this model.
21 million per school, to pay players a salary. How they divide it up is going to be a mess. I’m sure Title 9 will be a part of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on May 14, 2024 19:57:37 GMT -5
One of the stickiest things I don't see being addressed directly, is some athletes simply have a higher market value than others. It does mention the difficulties of Title IX.
So on the one hand, the market value of some athletes is much higher than their peers. On the other there is federal legislation requiring resources to be invested equivalently regardless of gender. The market is going to have a say in compensation, whether under the table or above it.
In any case, it will be interesting how this is all resolved. The other thing to look for is even more mergers to solidify the top schools' hold on the marketplace. Specifically the Big Ten and SEC doing something together to grab an even bigger piece of the pie than they already possess.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on May 14, 2024 19:58:18 GMT -5
What they *should* have done is drop FBS Football as an NCAA sport. Let the schools organize football the way they like, and the NCAA retains the other sports. Probably too late for that now.
The NCAA exists to be a cartel to keep the program costs and blatant hiring of professional athletes from skyrocketing due to a runaway arms race by the programs that have the most income. Looks like the cartel is failing to hold in the face of ever-increasing pressure to consolidate the media money for football.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on May 14, 2024 20:02:26 GMT -5
So on the one hand, the market value of some athletes is much higher than their peers. On the other there is federal legislation requiring resources to be invested equivalently regardless of gender. The market is going to have a say in compensation, whether under the table or above it. It's one thing for schools to violate NCAA rules in their quest to pay Jonny Strongarm enough money to get him to QB their team. It's another thing for schools to jeopardize the BILLIONS of dollars they get from Federal funding by breaking Federal law. I'm not saying they wouldn't do it (see USC et al.), but it would very much not be a smart thing for them to do. |
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on May 14, 2024 20:06:40 GMT -5
The writing is on the wall....The NCAA is done. Most D1 schools will be forced to drop sports altogether because they can't afford it. When that eventually happens, my guess is that the remainder of D1 "college sports" will subsequently become professional operations that pay licensing fees to the schools for the use of the school's name, likeness, and image in an effort to get around any title IX requirements.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on May 14, 2024 20:10:17 GMT -5
The writing is on the wall....The NCAA is done. Most D1 schools will be forced to drop sports altogether because they can't afford it. When that eventually happens, my guess is that the remainder of D1 "college sports" will subsequently become professional operations that pay licensing fees to the schools for the use of the school's name, likeness, and image in an effort to get around any title IX requirements. Except the real value to college sports is that they ARE college sports. People simply do not pay large sums of money to attend or watch minor-league pro sports, and that's what college sports would become under your scenario. All that would have to happen is the NFL starts scheduling on Saturdays (as they already schedule on Thursdays, Sundays, and Mondays), and nobody but the local community cable channel would want to pay to show "minor-league football sponsored by Big State University". |
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on May 14, 2024 20:15:00 GMT -5
The writing is on the wall....The NCAA is done. Most D1 schools will be forced to drop sports altogether because they can't afford it. When that eventually happens, my guess is that the remainder of D1 "college sports" will subsequently become professional operations that pay licensing fees to the schools for the use of the school's name, likeness, and image in an effort to get around any title IX requirements. Except the real value to college sports is that they ARE college sports. People simply do not pay large sums of money to attend or watch minor-league pro sports, and that's what college sports would become under your scenario. Hence the licensing fee arrangement. It's a private operation that pays for the exclusive right to retain and market itself as the school's sports arm. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on May 14, 2024 20:34:33 GMT -5
Except the real value to college sports is that they ARE college sports. People simply do not pay large sums of money to attend or watch minor-league pro sports, and that's what college sports would become under your scenario. Hence the licensing fee arrangement. It's a private operation that pays for the exclusive right to retain and market itself as the school's sports arm. People are stupid, but not *that* stupid. Usually. Unless there was some kind of plausibility that the players on the field were actual students, the scheme would fail. And if they *were* actual students, Title IX would still apply. |
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on May 14, 2024 20:49:56 GMT -5
Hence the licensing fee arrangement. It's a private operation that pays for the exclusive right to retain and market itself as the school's sports arm. People are stupid, but not *that* stupid. Usually. Unless there was some kind of plausibility that the players on the field were actual students, the scheme would fail. And if they *were* actual students, Title IX would still apply. I would agree that if the private organizations condition set was that you had to be enrolled at the school in order to qualify for employment, it probably wouldn't pass legal scrutiny, but even if it wasn't the rule, it wouldn't preclude said private organization from fielding a team from the student population. Also, maybe it's just me, but I just don't think that many people that have such an investment in college sports actually care about the school side of their teams' athletes. Back when I was in school, rocks for jocks was actually a thing and it was a running joke in my freshman classes of the football and basketball players who never went to class... I doubt it's any different now. The Nebraska community just shelled out over a hundred million for a stadium renovation from their own pockets, meanwhile those same people don't seem to care that the overall school is cutting tens of millions in academic services...I just don't think these are the kinds of people that are going to abandon their investment of their football team if the student isn't in good standing at the university - or even a student at all. People like their sports and their sport brands, and now that NIL is front and center, I think it's making it even clearer that the student side of college sports is a charade. When you have football players driving around the Texas campus in Lamborghini's in exchange for wearing the burnt orange on game day, I'd bet a good sum of money that most of the die hard Texas fans couldn't even tell you what classes that same athlete is taking in any given quarter, but they can tell you how many yards he rushed for in any given game. |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on May 14, 2024 22:01:24 GMT -5
The writing is on the wall....The NCAA is done. Most D1 schools will be forced to drop sports altogether because they can't afford it. When that eventually happens, my guess is that the remainder of D1 "college sports" will subsequently become professional operations that pay licensing fees to the schools for the use of the school's name, likeness, and image in an effort to get around any title IX requirements. I don't see any reason that mid- and low-majors won't continue to operate almost exactly as they are now. |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on May 14, 2024 22:06:13 GMT -5
So on the one hand, the market value of some athletes is much higher than their peers. On the other there is federal legislation requiring resources to be invested equivalently regardless of gender. The market is going to have a say in compensation, whether under the table or above it. It's one thing for schools to violate NCAA rules in their quest to pay Jonny Strongarm enough money to get him to QB their team. It's another thing for schools to jeopardize the BILLIONS of dollars they get from Federal funding by breaking Federal law. I'm not saying they wouldn't do it (see USC et al.), but it would very much not be a smart thing for them to do. Title IX specifies equity in participation opportunities and scholarships. Ultimately the courts will decide about whether to expand Title IX. But as the guidance is currently written, I see nothing that would require universities to PAY male and female athletes the same amount. |
|
|
|
Post by tablealgebra on May 14, 2024 22:21:26 GMT -5
Hence the licensing fee arrangement. It's a private operation that pays for the exclusive right to retain and market itself as the school's sports arm. People are stupid, but not *that* stupid. Usually. Unless there was some kind of plausibility that the players on the field were actual students, the scheme would fail. And if they *were* actual students, Title IX would still apply. People in general prove to be quite intellectually flexible when it comes to giving up their principles vs giving up the things they love. If they are heavily emotionally invested in their favorite college sports teams they will find ways to justify their continued fandom after the last shreds of amateurism are ripped away. Frankly, at this point if the NCAA can give up amateurism in return for controlling the rampant tampering and poaching going on in the major revenue sports right now, people are going to be glad no matter what the price. |
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on May 14, 2024 22:28:23 GMT -5
It's one thing for schools to violate NCAA rules in their quest to pay Jonny Strongarm enough money to get him to QB their team. It's another thing for schools to jeopardize the BILLIONS of dollars they get from Federal funding by breaking Federal law. I'm not saying they wouldn't do it (see USC et al.), but it would very much not be a smart thing for them to do. Title IX specifies equity in participation opportunities and scholarships. Ultimately the courts will decide about whether to expand Title IX. But as the guidance is currently written, I see nothing that would require universities to PAY male and female athletes the same amount. That would depend on whether the licensing fee arrangement is separate enough from the University. If the University is in a position to direct whatever entity administers those licensing fees, it would probably still fall under Title IX jurisdiction. From the anti-trust side, if a corporation with a monopoly establishes a subsidiary company that does the same thing, or significantly benefits the corporation, that isn't competition (i.e. a competitor to the monopoly), it is actually anti-competitive if it enhances the corporation's monopoly position. |
|
|
|
Post by staticb on May 14, 2024 22:29:14 GMT -5
From what I hear, this is happening. Non P4 schools won’t have a chance with this model. 21 million per school, to pay players a salary. How they divide it up is going to be a mess. I’m sure Title 9 will be a part of it. Even a lot of P4's are going to have to make tough decisions about what to do. You could see schools cutting sports to the NCAA minimums in order to be maximally successful at the sports they decide to sponsor. Nebraska might want a 20 woman volleyball roster. Kansas might want 20 man basketball roster. |
|
