|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Jun 20, 2024 13:36:26 GMT -5
Don't know. Maybe Division III athletes should be employees but I'm not aware of any plan to share revenue with DIII athletes. What I do know is there's a plan on the table to share revenue with division I athletes and it makes sense that people being paid for their labor would be employees of the organization paying them. Not correct. A school purchasing an athletes NIL is not paying them for their labor and it’s not directly sharing revenue from a TV contract. You are conflating the part of the settlement dealing with unpaid NIL compensation dating to 2016 with the part of the settlement allowing for revenue sharing moving forward. They aren't the same thing. |
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Jun 20, 2024 13:40:27 GMT -5
Not correct. A school purchasing an athletes NIL is not paying them for their labor and it’s not directly sharing revenue from a TV contract. You are conflating the part of the settlement dealing with unpaid NIL compensation dating to 2016 with the part of the settlement allowing for revenue sharing moving forward. They aren't the same thing. There are no actual details released yet for the revenue sharing plan. My guess is that schools purchase athletes NIL directly, as the actual mechanism for getting the dollars to them. Then what I said applies. Just a guess though |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jun 20, 2024 14:15:52 GMT -5
But there is the core problem for these smaller schools: they never signed up to have (“official”) intercollegiate competitive athletics teams under the terms that minimum wage was required paid to each roster athlete for all of their game and training time, as an employee. Most can’t afford or just don’t want to spend anywhere near that much. Getting into an Ivy or a premier academic DIII school simply because being an athlete got you a peg up in the admissions process, is quite a valuable thing in of itself. I may be wrong, but I don't think people get into such schools "simply because of being an athlete". It can be a factor, but I'm pretty sure it's never an overriding factor. I agree, not overriding. But "meet the minimum standard" and "beat out the rest of the applicant pool" is a MASSIVE difference at an Ivy League school. The average profile of an athlete there is excellent, but still much lower than their NARP population. |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jun 20, 2024 14:22:59 GMT -5
The Ivy League isn't DIII. The Ivy League receives millions of dollars a year in NCAA units and media rights. Dumb on me, sure, but it’s also still a valid point because the Ivy League operates under a DIII model. They’re one in the same, other than in name. If Dartmouth goes through, then DIII athletes at Carnegie, etc. now have a leg to stand on. Would also be interested to know the exact number that Ivy Recieves from the NCAA as opposed to say the UAA conf. It may not be the millions you’re claiming. Or if it’s a couple million, does $250k mean that much to the eight Ivy athletic depts? The difference is significant. It's why you see a handful of schools nobody has ever heard of move up to D1 each year. They want a piece of that D1 pie. |
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Jun 20, 2024 14:39:43 GMT -5
Dumb on me, sure, but it’s also still a valid point because the Ivy League operates under a DIII model. They’re one in the same, other than in name. If Dartmouth goes through, then DIII athletes at Carnegie, etc. now have a leg to stand on. Would also be interested to know the exact number that Ivy Recieves from the NCAA as opposed to say the UAA conf. It may not be the millions you’re claiming. Or if it’s a couple million, does $250k mean that much to the eight Ivy athletic depts? The difference is significant. It's why you see a handful of schools nobody has ever heard of move up to D1 each year. They want a piece of that D1 pie. My guess is the $250k or whatever it ends up being is NOT significant to an Ivy athletic dept with their 40 varsity sports. The NCAA payment for one unit (usually, because they usually don’t win games) per year goes to the conf who then chops it eight ways. My guess for why they’ve stayed DI is that they still get a kick out of their auto-qualifier going to March Madness and then media always cooks up stories about the Ivy competing with the big schools, etc. Good PR It’s not like it costs them any more to be DI than DIII. They operate their athletic depts exactly the same way in either case. Same costs. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jun 20, 2024 14:42:41 GMT -5
Would also be interested to know the exact number that Ivy Recieves from the NCAA as opposed to say the UAA conf. It may not be the millions you’re claiming. Or if it’s a couple million, does $250k mean that much to the eight Ivy athletic depts? It depends on whether the Ivy representative team wins a game or not. They are guaranteed to get at least 1 unit every year. Conferences that earned the very minimum number of units (5 units over the past 5 years) received about $1.7M in 2024. The Ivy League actually received about $2.1M (because Princeton won two games in 2023). |
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Jun 20, 2024 14:45:23 GMT -5
Running down the Ivy League Rabbit Hole - it looks like Harvard will lose $885k from the NCAA according to this article. www.thecrimson.com/article/2024/6/12/NCAA-settlement-harvard-representation/D3 schools receive grants, and their championships are supported, but I don't know of any direct funding/sharing mechanism so let's say that is $0. Another interesting tidbit in the article that I had not heard reported elsewhere... Richard Kent, a lawyer who consults for a group running NIL collectives, called the settlement “taxation without representation” in an interview with The Crimson, noting that conferences that refuse to accept the terms of the deal would be unable to participate in NCAA championships...Still, he said he expects the smaller conferences to object to the settlement and Judge Claudia Wilken — who ultimately has the authority to approve or deny the settlement — to change the terms.
“I fully expect them to oppose the settlement and to argue directly to Judge Wilken that it is an unfair distribution of costs,” (Michael H. LeRoy, a law professor at the University of Illinois) LeRoy said. “So I would anticipate that this will undergo some revision.”
|
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jun 20, 2024 15:10:57 GMT -5
The difference is significant. It's why you see a handful of schools nobody has ever heard of move up to D1 each year. They want a piece of that D1 pie. My guess is the $250k or whatever it ends up being is NOT significant to an Ivy athletic dept with their 40 varsity sports. The NCAA payment for one unit (usually, because they usually don’t win games) per year goes to the conf who then chops it eight ways. My guess for why they’ve stayed DI is that they still get a kick out of their auto-qualifier going to March Madness and then media always cooks up stories about the Ivy competing with the big schools, etc. Good PR It’s not like it costs them any more to be DI than DIII. They operate their athletic depts exactly the same way in either case. Same costs. The basketball performance fund is only a quarter of the NCAA’s D1 payouts. ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/ncaa/finance/d1/2023D1Fin_RevenueDistributionPlan.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Jun 21, 2024 7:51:38 GMT -5
I find it a bit difficult to believe that the NCAA has been writing $8M checks to the Ivy League each year, based off one MM unit per year. (They might’ve won a game here and there?)
Obviously $1M per school per year is not nothing.
The point is like I said it: they lose almost nothing by just continuing to sit in DI but operating exactly equivalent to a DIII conference. That’s what they do. Sit back, collect DI/MM money, and don’t spend like a DI conf.
The thing they sacrifice is that they’ll never win national championships in any non-obscure sport in DI. They’d win them in DIII. That’s what it is. So they convince themselves that winning the conf is all that really matters.
When I say obscure I mean sports where only 40 schools in the country sponsor it at the DI level. Sports like men’s ice hockey and men’s volleyball fall into that, even though I don’t mean those are obscure sports in general of course.
|
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Jun 21, 2024 8:20:09 GMT -5
Back to the thread title topic.
I suppose after the Big East public restructure plea and rejection, it was a foregone conclusion that some school or conf would attempt legal action:
|
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Jun 21, 2024 9:30:59 GMT -5
HCU’s claim, if I’m reading it right, is the NCAA is going to take money from our students to pay for the P5 former athletes.
If a couple of schools sign on to this (and I cannot imagine a school of HCU’s positing doing this alone) I think it is a compelling argument to hear out.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jun 21, 2024 11:35:01 GMT -5
HCU’s claim, if I’m reading it right, is the NCAA is going to take money from our students to pay for the P5 former athletes. The reason they are claiming this is because that is exactly what is proposed. |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jun 21, 2024 12:45:48 GMT -5
HCU’s claim, if I’m reading it right, is the NCAA is going to take money from our students to pay for the P5 former athletes. The reason they are claiming this is because that is exactly what is proposed. The equally fair counterargument is that the bottom half of the NCAA gets millions of dollars distributed to them each year because of the revenue generated by the top 10%. |
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Jun 21, 2024 12:53:43 GMT -5
The NCAA was a named defendant because they technically had the biggest TV contract in college sports. The suit went after the six big TV contracts.
The NCAA has to pay its piece of the settlement, and as they equally distribute that money then so too should the withholdings be equal, they would say.
|
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jun 21, 2024 13:02:22 GMT -5
The NCAA was a named defendant because they technically had the biggest TV contract in college sports. The suit went after the six big TV contracts. The NCAA has to pay its piece of the settlement, and as they equally distribute that money then so too should the withholdings be equal, they would say. But “equal” can mean different things. Each school gets the same dollar amount deducted from their payout? Or each school gets their payout reduced by the same percentage? Or something in between? |
|
