|
|
Post by pepperbrooks on May 15, 2024 9:50:11 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. Not sure it's as dramatic as that. Schools will have to further tier sports that they were already tiering. People I've talked with have said that this is an effort to at least pump the brakes on certain issues so that others can be addressed. |
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on May 15, 2024 10:04:49 GMT -5
A) as you read the articles, be careful to note that direct NIL (from schools), indirect NIL (from companies or collectives), and revenue sharing are likely going to be handled differently, as are scholarships and cost of attendance payments. Paying athletes isn't just paying athletes, there are going to be many ways to compensate athletes.
B) Each sport is going to get a number. Football rosters are going to come down to 85 which is the current scholarship limit. The up-to-35 walk-ons will trickle down to other schools. I haven't seen a number for Baseball but it sounds like rosters may shrink a bit, while scholarships potentially increase 3x. If these were the only changes a school made, for title IX, you now can provide 35 fewer playing opportunities for women (assuming a 50-50 gender split for arguments sake), but you are going to have to come up with ~23 more scholarships for women to balance the increase in baseball. I imagine a lot of these decisions will take place at the conference level instead of each school doing it on their own, but every school is going to need to find a new balance that works for them to meet this agreement, their budget, title IX, and their competitive needs. And this is supposed to take effect in 2025 so hold on to your butts!
C) I haven't seen a number for volleyball either but the travel limit for NCAAs is 17, right? So if the whole Big 10 (just to name one) gets 5 new scholarships for the class of 25 the portal is going to go wild next offseason. If you are an all-conference player in the WCC or AAC and Michigan State has a full ride and $30,000 check (to use the number from Baker's plan) I'd think most kids would take it. Transfers, recruits, everybody is fair game.
D) I haven't seen if they've found a way to pay foreign student athletes. This may be the way a mid-major can compete - if a school recruits mid-west kids, they could go to the Big 10 after a year or two. If they recruit kids from Europe, and who only cost a scholarship, or at least less than the American kids, and you could expect to keep them for 4 years? That would be an interesting way to challenge the P4 schools.
One article said the next two weeks are the most important in the history of college sports. IDK if that is the truth or that's just trying to put pressure on the people in the room, but I'm interested to see where we are when June begins.
|
|
|
|
Post by Not Me on May 15, 2024 13:07:55 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. Exactly. This is revenue sharing. The lower level schools don’t have the revenue so there is little to share. Without a tv contract for football, those schools will have the exact same revenue they have now. Which is very little. |
|
|
|
Post by Not Me on May 15, 2024 13:12:38 GMT -5
The title ix issue will get lots of lawyers rich, as this whole thing has.
The problem non football and basketball sports have is that they have been having their expenses paid for by those sports for years.
What if the final settlement is worded that the revenue for each sport is shared with players from that sport?
Football revenue goes to football players. Basketball revenue goes to basketball players.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on May 15, 2024 13:21:51 GMT -5
This was all brought about by a lawsuit with the lead plaintiff an NCAA swimmer. If we're talking "revenue" sports getting all the revenue sharing, I doubt that is going to include swimming.
|
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on May 15, 2024 15:10:31 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. I agree that football and, to some degree, men's basketball are the problem. Drop them as NCAA sports and license/franchise school/mascot names, colors, songs, etc. and rent facilities to independent "developmental" football and basketball super-leagues which would then turn around and employ the players under one-time four to five-year contracts, with the proviso that they be enrolled in the respective schools, and managers, coaches, trainers, and other personnel under longer-term contracts. That could solve both the NIL and Title-IX predicaments in one fell-swoop (rubber-stamped by the current Supreme Court). Note: Hanging over this is potential multi-billion dollar liability for ignoring the threat of CTE for decades. See: www.king5.com/article/sports/ncaa/ncaaf/uw-football-charlie-mitchell-cte/281-c6ce36a6-5175-4872-93bb-c43c03bb7b88 |
|
|
|
Post by noreaster on May 15, 2024 15:41:52 GMT -5
I don't see any reason that mid- and low-majors won't continue to operate almost exactly as they are now. Exactly. This is revenue sharing. The lower level schools don’t have the revenue so there is little to share. Without a tv contract for football, those schools will have the exact same revenue they have now. Which is very little. The NCAA will pay $277 million a year for 10 years toward the settlement, and if I'm reading this, 60% will come from the NCAA tournament distributions, which is a pretty important sum to the mid majors. I wonder how much St. Peters is going to lose over the next few years despite not being named in the suit? And how do the mid-majors swallow that pill? One more thing to think about. |
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on May 17, 2024 8:08:04 GMT -5
It reads like they still would. And a school can offer unlimited scholarships based on roster size. However, if they get classified as employees, then I wonder if those can possibly be taxed. Part of the agreement is that they are not employees. Which is why it would be great if new legislation carves out a very narrow space for student-athletes to be able to have the full and exactly equivalent legal authority to collectively bargain *without* being employees. |
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on May 17, 2024 8:13:58 GMT -5
If you are an all-conference player in the WCC or AAC and Michigan State has a full ride and $30,000 check (to use the number from Baker's plan) I'd think most kids would take it. Even to be the #14 best player on the team and ride the bench the whole season, to be on a middling to lower Big Ten team in a conference that doesn’t have a conf tourny and then you have probably no shot at the NCAA tourny? Maybe being at a “big time” program with the perks of that are enough. |
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on May 17, 2024 8:29:47 GMT -5
It's another thing for schools to jeopardize the BILLIONS of dollars they get from Federal funding by breaking Federal law. We as a society would allow funding to be taken away from brilliant PI’s who are researching how to cure cancer …… because of … sports? I heartily disagree that’s a real risk. I sure hope not |
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on May 17, 2024 9:56:16 GMT -5
If you are an all-conference player in the WCC or AAC and Michigan State has a full ride and $30,000 check (to use the number from Baker's plan) I'd think most kids would take it. Even to be the #14 best player on the team and ride the bench the whole season, to be on a middling to lower Big Ten team in a conference that doesn’t have a conf tourny and then you have probably no shot at the NCAA tourny? Maybe being at a “big time” program with the perks of that are enough. There are players in non-power 4 conferences who could start for P4 programs. The P4 doesn't just get every player they want out of high school. But with a couple of years maturity, maybe a season or two of D1 experience, and a sizeable cash offer, I imagine there are a number of them that could be convinced to take another look at the P4 schools. |
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on May 17, 2024 10:01:23 GMT -5
It's another thing for schools to jeopardize the BILLIONS of dollars they get from Federal funding by breaking Federal law. We as a society would allow funding to be taken away from brilliant PI’s who are researching how to cure cancer …… because of … sports? I heartily disagree that’s a real risk. I sure hope not That's been the law for 50 years. However there has not been a real enforcement mechanism. I know Hillsdale College has made the decision not to accept the money (research grants, student loans, etc), so they are exempt from the law. There may be a couple of others. But if you take the money, and most do, Title IX is a promise you are expected to keep. |
|
|
|
Post by beavervball23 on May 17, 2024 10:08:21 GMT -5
Even to be the #14 best player on the team and ride the bench the whole season, to be on a middling to lower Big Ten team in a conference that doesn’t have a conf tourny and then you have probably no shot at the NCAA tourny? Maybe being at a “big time” program with the perks of that are enough. There are players in non-power 4 conferences who could start for P4 programs. The P4 doesn't just get every player they want out of high school. But with a couple of years maturity, maybe a season or two of D1 experience, and a sizeable cash offer, I imagine there are a number of them that could be convinced to take another look at the P4 schools. It would all depend on how the possible athlete looks at what they want out of their volleyball experience. If they want to get the playing time and mature a bit and want to continue to be a starter that makes sense. Or they play a couple years, build their stock even more and try to go to a P4 school for more money. The alternative would be take the money right away and enjoy whatever experience you get while cashing in from being a really good HS player. |
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on May 18, 2024 9:38:11 GMT -5
We as a society would allow funding to be taken away from brilliant PI’s who are researching how to cure cancer …… because of … sports? I heartily disagree that’s a real risk. I sure hope not That's been the law for 50 years. However there has not been a real enforcement mechanism. I know Hillsdale College has made the decision not to accept the money (research grants, student loans, etc), so they are exempt from the law. There may be a couple of others. But if you take the money, and most do, Title IX is a promise you are expected to keep. Couple things:
1) I am not advocating that schools who violate the law should go unpunished. They should be punished. Fines, settlements to the injured parties, and corrective actions, for sure.
2) Title IX applies to the whole school, as far as I know, and so extends well beyond just sports. For example, if a particular department of college was found to have discriminated against female graduate assistants by covering up several cases of harassment by a specific PI, I believe that would be a Title IX violation.
What I'm saying is: if some PI has an R01 grant worth millions from the NIH to study a new way to cure cancer, and this person has never even attending a sporting event at the university let alone played sports themselves .... it would be abhorrent and frankly despicable to suggest that it would be appropriate to rescind that grant because of a T9 violation in the athletics department. That seemed to be what mikegarrison was suggesting could happen.
That would be just wrong. And hence why I don't believe we've ever seen such a thing even when terrible things happened (Penn State, Michigan State) or when academic scandals occurred (North Carolina ... even the U of Minnesota in the 90's with MBB) or when there was an admissions scandal (USC). |
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on May 18, 2024 12:02:10 GMT -5
That's been the law for 50 years. However there has not been a real enforcement mechanism. I know Hillsdale College has made the decision not to accept the money (research grants, student loans, etc), so they are exempt from the law. There may be a couple of others. But if you take the money, and most do, Title IX is a promise you are expected to keep. Couple things: 1) I am not advocating that schools who violate the law should go unpunished. They should be punished. Fines, settlements to the injured parties, and corrective actions, for sure.
2) Title IX applies to the whole school, as far as I know, and so extends well beyond just sports. For example, if a particular department of college was found to have discriminated against female graduate assistants by covering up several cases of harassment by a specific PI, I believe that would be a Title IX violation. What I'm saying is: if some PI has an R01 grant worth millions from the NIH to study a new way to cure cancer, and this person has never even attending a sporting event at the university let alone played sports themselves .... it would be abhorrent and frankly despicable to suggest that it would be appropriate to rescind that grant because of a T9 violation in the athletics department. That seemed to be what mikegarrison was suggesting could happen.
That would be just wrong. And hence why I don't believe we've ever seen such a thing even when terrible things happened (Penn State, Michigan State) or when academic scandals occurred (North Carolina ... even the U of Minnesota in the 90's with MBB) or when there was an admissions scandal (USC). Agreed, but it's not on the government to pull their punches, it's on the school not to break the law. The government should be protecting the rights of all citizens as the law provides, even athletes. FWIW, Michigan State was the rare case where the Dept of Education initiated a Title IX investigation, and the Trump administration didn't even really like Title IX, and even it found it necessary to fine Michigan State $4.6 million for Title IX and Cleary Act violations (a major state university in a swing state). Compared to $236 million in financial aid and $800 million in research (not sure how much of that is federally funded, $4.6 million isn't much but that on top of the $510 million in legal losses and $62 million in legal bills they already paid, which I assume was a consideration. It sold bonds for most of the Nassar debt so I don't know how much that impacted research budgets or staffing, but it wouldn't shock me if there was some impact. |
|
