|
|
Post by mervinswerved on May 28, 2024 9:00:10 GMT -5
The NCAA agreed to a cap of $21 million a school. And they think this will keep them from being sued for a while. But I think the reality is, this eliminates most of D1 schools outside the P4. Eliminates them from what? Why? |
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 13,306 
|
Post by bluepenquin on May 28, 2024 9:24:57 GMT -5
As I understand - and let me know if I am wrong.
Only the P4 conferences are talking about ~ $20m paid to athletes each year and a number that is likely to go to ~ #30m not that long from now (this is tied to % of revenue). Schools from other conferences will be paying less than this - and I am thinking some schools could opt out and not pay athletes? Also - only the P4 conferences are committed/talking about scholarships for all rostered athletes. Most other universities are going to opt for fewer scholarships than the max and will rely on more walk on players.
I am sure that non revenue sports will be in real jeopardy because of the settlement - but I don't necessarily see the number of women's volleyball teams materially decreasing.
I have no doubt that the Big Ten and SEC are going to have a sizeable advantage over the rest of the schools in volleyball going forward. I think some schools in the B12 and ACC could be viable (Stanford will always be viable in volleyball). But it is going to be tougher for teams not in the B1G/SEC. And especially tough for non P4 conference teams.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 13,306
|
Post by bluepenquin on May 28, 2024 9:29:36 GMT -5
The NCAA agreed to a cap of $21 million a school. And they think this will keep them from being sued for a while. But I think the reality is, this eliminates most of D1 schools outside the P4. And the P4 schools will have to shrink their sports to 7. 3 men and 4 women sports. And because of this settlement they won’t be able to turn back. There is a strong incentive for most D1 schools to stay D1 in terms of Men's basketball. The tournament is guaranteed to be around for at least 10 more years (life of the back pay settlement) - and that tournament is going to be filled with a lot of non p4 schools. No P4 school will shrink anything close to 3 men and 4 women sports. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on May 28, 2024 9:57:09 GMT -5
No P4 school will shrink anything close to 3 men and 4 women sports. You are awfully fond of making confident predictions like this. You record on their accuracy isn't the best. |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on May 28, 2024 10:03:53 GMT -5
As I understand - and let me know if I am wrong. Only the P4 conferences are talking about ~ $20m paid to athletes each year and a number that is likely to go to ~ #30m not that long from now (this is tied to % of revenue). Schools from other conferences will be paying less than this - and I am thinking some schools could opt out and not pay athletes? Also - only the P4 conferences are committed/talking about scholarships for all rostered athletes. Most other universities are going to opt for fewer scholarships than the max and will rely on more walk on players. Yep. Everything I've read about the settlement is that the revenue sharing will be permissive, not required. Texas will always be paying the max. Le Moyne probably won't be paying their athletes anything. The scholarship piece will be interesting. Under the current setup, the scholarship limits allow maybe 75% of D1 schools to fully fund all of the sports they offer. (That's made up, but maybe?) I think what we'll see going forward is big funding gaps even within conferences. Creighton and Marquette will offer the maximum number of scholarships. Seton Hall and Providence will not. James Madison and Coastal Carolina will offer max scholarships while Louisiana Monroe and Arkansas State will not. A question I have is if a conference will be allowed to agree to scholarship limits. Can the MAAC require to keep the scholarship cap at 12? Or will that open them up to a lawsuit? Regardless, I think we're on the way away from American pro sport style parity to something that looks like European pro leagues with massive "payroll" differences, even in the same conference. This will be interesting. I think I agree. But I will say this, the one thing that almost always triggers a Title IX lawsuit is dropping sports. If a school chooses to do so, they better ACTUALLY hit the proportionality prong, offer as many chartered flights to women as men, etc. I think the schools most tempted to cut sports will be FBS football schools that have more than the 16 minimum teams. And maybe basketball schools that are really trying to compete at the highest level in basketball (for example, Georgetown has 29 teams). While I agree, it's not like you couldn't already say that. Like is anybody saying no to Nebraska to go to Creighton right now? I guess the question will be if people will start saying no to Creighton to go to Kansas State or saying no to Pitt to go to Michigan State. This might nudge the needle, but not in a huge way. But we'll see. In fact, there will be things about the roster cap that might hurt big schools a bit. If Texas's volleyball roster is already capped at 16, they can't just go add an athlete with NIL money like they can now. Whoever was #17 and #18 on their roster this past season would absolutely have helped a team on the NCAA bubble. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on May 28, 2024 10:33:56 GMT -5
Stanford (and they are not the only ones) are "viable" for recruiting for reasons other than their immediate payments to athletes. This is especially true for women athletes, where the potential to make lifetime-type money from playing pro sports is even smaller than it is for male athletes. (And it's not all that big for the men to start with.)
|
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on May 28, 2024 10:45:30 GMT -5
No P4 school will shrink anything close to 3 men and 4 women sports. You are awfully fond of making confident predictions like this. You record on their accuracy isn't the best. Well the minimum as it stands is 16 sports for and FBS school, 14 for the rest of D1, and that is 7 men's and 7 women's or 6 men's and 8 women's sports. There is also a requirement that I think 6 are team sports. Not that all of that cannot be changed, but cutting to 3 and 4 sports would be a pretty big change. |
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 13,306
|
Post by bluepenquin on May 28, 2024 11:02:16 GMT -5
Stanford (and they are not the only ones) are "viable" for recruiting for reasons other than their immediate payments to athletes. This is especially true for women athletes, where the potential to make lifetime-type money from playing pro sports is even smaller than it is for male athletes. (And it's not all that big for the men to start with.) Yeah - I was going to mention that Stanford's viability is inversely related to professional $ opportunities. There VB program could take a hit if women's vb professional $'s was something similar to men's basketball/football. |
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 13,306
|
Post by bluepenquin on May 28, 2024 11:13:17 GMT -5
While I agree, it's not like you couldn't already say that. Like is anybody saying no to Nebraska to go to Creighton right now? I guess the question will be if people will start saying no to Creighton to go to Kansas State or saying no to Pitt to go to Michigan State. This might nudge the needle, but not in a huge way. But we'll see. In fact, there will be things about the roster cap that might hurt big schools a bit. If Texas's volleyball roster is already capped at 16, they can't just go add an athlete with NIL money like they can now. Whoever was #17 and #18 on their roster this past season would absolutely have helped a team on the NCAA bubble. #17 and #18 in theory is the 5th and 6th walk-on for Texas/Nebraska. How many of them play a position other than DS that could impact a contending program? I don't think this is going to help Nebraska/Texas/Wisconsin - not because of the roster limits, but because about 15 other programs are going to marginally improve by way more than those top programs - due to increased # of scholarships. I think the top tier of VB programs will get bigger (it was bound to happen eventually anyway). |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on May 28, 2024 11:16:55 GMT -5
You are awfully fond of making confident predictions like this. You record on their accuracy isn't the best. Well the minimum as it stands is 16 sports for and FBS school, 14 for the rest of D1, and that is 7 men's and 7 women's or 6 men's and 8 women's sports. There is also a requirement that I think 6 are team sports. Not that all of that cannot be changed, but cutting to 3 and 4 sports would be a pretty big change. True. But we likely are looking at "pretty big changes" to the entire system. I'm just saying that I wouldn't confidently want to state what will and will not happen as a result of all this. Not yet, anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by noblesol on May 28, 2024 11:23:56 GMT -5
Baker, NCAA President, flat out said since December his plan is to create a Tier 1 in D1 out of the P5/4. The settlement agreement codifies it.
|
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on May 28, 2024 12:52:52 GMT -5
Thanks for these numbers. And so, particularly when you factor that almost every DI schools plays women's (indoor) volleyball, as it is a relatively cheap sport to have, and that they all need to use such sports to satisfy Title IX requirements ...... what possible incentive is there for the new regime to set the new volleyball roster limit to, say, less than 20?? Why not? Just because it's a max of 20, doesn't mean you have to have 20 on your roster (let alone give all 20 a (full) scholarship).
You could argue why have a limit at all? The schools want to limit costs. While some don't, plenty of schools are able to achieve Title IX compliance without inflating roster sizes. The public discussion is that they're going to be reducing football roster sizes. My guess is that that might happen with just about every sport. Do soccer teams really need more than 30 athletes? Do baseball teams really need 40? As I've stated before, the participation component of Title IX won't be any different going forward. There isn't a new need for female participants unless they've been out of compliance and are now just worries about a lawsuit. Having higher roster maxes in women’s sports: 1) doesn’t force schools to be at those maxes. An AD can tell the vball coach “I know the max is 20, but we only have the budget for you to have 15, with 3 of those being walk-ons, each year” 2) can’t hurt Title IX, it can only possibly help it. Since again no school is forced to be at the max, it can maintain what it has if it’s already in compliance, OR if it thinks it might need to add a few women’s participants to make sure, then it can. Or if it wants to add a small men’s sport without adding a whole new women’s sport, perhaps that becomes possible. |
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on May 28, 2024 12:57:50 GMT -5
The NCAA agreed to a cap of $21 million a school. And they think this will keep them from being sued for a while. But I think the reality is, this eliminates most of D1 schools outside the P4. And the P4 schools will have to shrink their sports to 7. 3 men and 4 women sports. And because of this settlement they won’t be able to turn back. There is a strong incentive for most D1 schools to stay D1 in terms of Men's basketball. The tournament is guaranteed to be around for at least 10 more years (life of the back pay settlement) - and that tournament is going to be filled with a lot of non p4 schools. No P4 school will shrink anything close to 3 men and 4 women sports. How much money does each DI school get just for being DI, from the NCAA (which means shared revenue from the massive March Madness TV contract)? Is there any that’s automatic? Or do you only get some if you win MM games? |
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 13,306
|
Post by bluepenquin on May 28, 2024 13:09:38 GMT -5
There is a strong incentive for most D1 schools to stay D1 in terms of Men's basketball. The tournament is guaranteed to be around for at least 10 more years (life of the back pay settlement) - and that tournament is going to be filled with a lot of non p4 schools. No P4 school will shrink anything close to 3 men and 4 women sports. How much money does each DI school get just for being DI, from the NCAA (which means shared revenue from the massive March Madness TV contract)? Is there any that’s automatic? Or do you only get some if you win MM games? I don't specifically know - but my understanding, each conference gets revenue from the NCAA for teams making the tournament and then more if they win or advance to a certain spot(s). Since every conference automatically has a participant, they all get some money from the NCAA. I don't think each conference has to split this money equally to each university in the conference, but I think most due. It is my understanding that a portion of the payout/revenue to the conference will be withheld over the next 10 years in order to pay back the past. I don't know if any school that leaves D1 will be liable for revenue reductions? |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on May 28, 2024 13:17:32 GMT -5
How much money does each DI school get just for being DI, from the NCAA (which means shared revenue from the massive March Madness TV contract)? Is there any that’s automatic? Or do you only get some if you win MM games? I don't specifically know - but my understanding, each conference gets revenue from the NCAA for teams making the tournament and then more if they win or advance to a certain spot(s). Since every conference automatically has a participant, they all get some money from the NCAA. I don't think each conference has to split this money equally to each university in the conference, but I think most due. It is my understanding that a portion of the payout/revenue to the conference will be withheld over the next 10 years in order to pay back the past. I don't know if any school that leaves D1 will be liable for revenue reductions? If a school drops down, it won't get D1 payouts anymore and the payout they'd get as a D2/D3 would be MUCH less. So I would imagine they'd get the same payout as their D2/D3 conferencemates. |
|
