|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Jun 21, 2024 14:32:16 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? I thought the Big East proposal seemed fair. Will be interesting to see what Wilkins says/does. |
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Jun 21, 2024 15:09:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Jun 21, 2024 15:11:22 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. They've talked about how much more time Baker is spending with the big schools... I think the intention is that everybody takes a hit in their athletics budget. I wonder if the NCAA brass ever thought about the fact that a lot of those athletic expenses are fixed - coaches and vendors have contracts. Athletes are on 4 year scholarships, etc - and the smaller schools with smaller budgets cannot just cut expenses overnight, so the academic side of the school is going to have to pitch in and maybe not replace a couple professors who retire, or charge a higher student activity fee, etc. Suzie Sophomore from Houston who attends a school not directly named in the suit, needs to take on a couple extra shifts so athletes who went to school for free can get a check because they sold their athletic services too low. We'll find out what Wilkins thinks about that. May be something, may be nothing. |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jun 21, 2024 15:54:26 GMT -5
The reason they are claiming this is because that is exactly what is proposed. They've talked about how much more time Baker is spending with the big schools... I think the intention is that everybody takes a hit in their athletics budget. I wonder if the NCAA brass ever thought about the fact that a lot of those athletic expenses are fixed - coaches and vendors have contracts. Athletes are on 4 year scholarships, etc - and the smaller schools with smaller budgets cannot just cut expenses overnight, so the academic side of the school is going to have to pitch in and maybe not replace a couple professors who retire, or charge a higher student activity fee, etc. Suzie Sophomore from Houston who attends a school not directly named in the suit, needs to take on a couple extra shifts so athletes who went to school for free can get a check because they sold their athletic services too low. We'll find out what Wilkins thinks about that. May be something, may be nothing. Gotta make sure Texas can afford all those Lamborghinis for their football recruits. |
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Jun 21, 2024 20:26:39 GMT -5
The reason they are claiming this is because that is exactly what is proposed. They've talked about how much more time Baker is spending with the big schools... I think the intention is that everybody takes a hit in their athletics budget. I wonder if the NCAA brass ever thought about the fact that a lot of those athletic expenses are fixed - coaches and vendors have contracts. Athletes are on 4 year scholarships, etc - and the smaller schools with smaller budgets cannot just cut expenses overnight, so the academic side of the school is going to have to pitch in and maybe not replace a couple professors who retire, or charge a higher student activity fee, etc. Suzie Sophomore from Houston who attends a school not directly named in the suit, needs to take on a couple extra shifts so athletes who went to school for free can get a check because they sold their athletic services too low. We'll find out what Wilkins thinks about that. May be something, may be nothing. I think it would be higher fees. And/or perhaps cut some sports, if they're above the minimum required. |
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Jun 23, 2024 9:33:55 GMT -5
Don’t think it’s a surprise to anyone that unions support union efforts.
|
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Jun 23, 2024 13:32:05 GMT -5
They've talked about how much more time Baker is spending with the big schools... I think the intention is that everybody takes a hit in their athletics budget. I wonder if the NCAA brass ever thought about the fact that a lot of those athletic expenses are fixed - coaches and vendors have contracts. Athletes are on 4 year scholarships, etc - and the smaller schools with smaller budgets cannot just cut expenses overnight, so the academic side of the school is going to have to pitch in and maybe not replace a couple professors who retire, or charge a higher student activity fee, etc. Suzie Sophomore from Houston who attends a school not directly named in the suit, needs to take on a couple extra shifts so athletes who went to school for free can get a check because they sold their athletic services too low. We'll find out what Wilkins thinks about that. May be something, may be nothing. I think it would be higher fees. And/or perhaps cut some sports, if they're above the minimum required. Houston Christian has 2780 students, so it's $36 each for every $100,000 in lost revenue. I don't know the Southland's number but I saw another conference report it would cost about $500,000 per school, so using that number, every student at HCU would need to come up with $180 more, and HCU reports 90% of it's students are on need based aid, so for most we are talking about loans, or pell grants. So here's another angle I hadn't considered. How much of this $2.8 billion is going to be paid by financial aid, I.E. taxpayers? I assume that is something Wilkins has to consider. |
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Jun 24, 2024 8:13:44 GMT -5
Obviously, this would be a massive development, even if it's not particularly surprising. One question I have is what happens to the schools that are serious about football and basketball but not currently part of the P5. Thinking mostly of the very top of the G5 and 1/3 of the Big East. The top three or four Big East programs are spending a pretty hefty amount on basketball, pretty comparable to the rest of the elite programs.
|
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Jun 24, 2024 9:10:53 GMT -5
Wild guess:
New sub-division for football only. Members can do NIL payments in all sports. They have additional requirements about must do X, Y, Z that won’t apply outside the sub-division.
But all non-football sports continue to have a single division I championship. Those outside the sub-division can also do the same payments in non-football sports, but no requirements.
|
|
|
|
Post by noblesol on Jun 24, 2024 11:34:42 GMT -5
Wild guess: New sub-division for football only. Members can do NIL payments in all sports. They have additional requirements about must do X, Y, Z that won’t apply outside the sub-division. But all non-football sports continue to have a single division I championship. Those outside the sub-division can also do the same payments in non-football sports, but no requirements. In language that follows the NCAA vison, a Tier-1 that has its own governance, its own recruiting and player compensation rules. Which requires establishing admittance benchmarks. Admittance might require a multi-year baseline level of athletic budget expenditures, a minimum level of FBS 'Football Business School' expenditures, and a budget in the black most years. About sixty FBS schools spend north of $100 million/year on their total athletic budget. That level of spending stands out. Somewhere around there looks like a Tier-1 that grabs enough schools to reflect current P5/4 conferences. A Tier-1 FBS might not reflect all of the current P5/4 conference members, and might include some of the G5. One way to address that is with new Tier-1 FBS 'leagues'. Marginal programs left out and schools forced into settlements that see no proportional benefit will object. Some will want to fight it. And private equity and union lobbyists will be engaging, including with congress, to $benefit$ from the $professional athletics$ leagues in the making. Many will go to their congressional representatives when the judicial route isn't working for them. At some point reality sinks in with recognition that non-profit schools running for-profit professional athletics businesses and leagues is nonsensical. New legal fights, new court settlements, or new law is contemplated to address it. Perhaps by action at State level — AGs or congressional. Or perhaps by action at Federal level — by regulatory bodies, DOJ, or Congressional. However it pans out, lawyers and lobbyists will gain. |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jun 24, 2024 14:22:07 GMT -5
Obviously, this would be a massive development, even if it's not particularly surprising. One question I have is what happens to the schools that are serious about football and basketball but not currently part of the P5. Thinking mostly of the very top of the G5 and 1/3 of the Big East. The top three or four Big East programs are spending a pretty hefty amount on basketball, pretty comparable to the rest of the elite programs. Is it a massive development? These conferences are already referred to as the autonomy conferences in the actual Division 1 Manual because they’ve been creating their own rules for years. I don’t really see that is new or groundbreaking about this. They’ll set rules about how revenue distribution works and schools/conferences from other conferences can choose to implement those rules if they want. It’s literally what’s already happening, just not with regards to paying athletes because that’s new. I don’t see this as a significant change. At least not based on what is being written in these articles. Maybe there is something that’s very different that I haven’t seen. |
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Jun 25, 2024 7:52:39 GMT -5
Obviously, this would be a massive development, even if it's not particularly surprising. One question I have is what happens to the schools that are serious about football and basketball but not currently part of the P5. Thinking mostly of the very top of the G5 and 1/3 of the Big East. The top three or four Big East programs are spending a pretty hefty amount on basketball, pretty comparable to the rest of the elite programs. Is it a massive development? These conferences are already referred to as the autonomy conferences in the actual Division 1 Manual because they’ve been creating their own rules for years. I don’t really see that is new or groundbreaking about this. They’ll set rules about how revenue distribution works and schools/conferences from other conferences can choose to implement those rules if they want. It’s literally what’s already happening, just not with regards to paying athletes because that’s new. I don’t see this as a significant change. At least not based on what is being written in these articles. Maybe there is something that’s very different that I haven’t seen. I think I agree. Say they make a new sub-division called FPS (football premier sub-division). You can’t prevent FBS (G5) from participating in the CFP (the G5 literally own it with the other confs) or in mid-tier bowls against FPS teams. Perhaps FPS teams can snap their fingers and come up with new rules/policy, which FBS schools can then optionally also implement. But not seeing how that’s significantly different than the autonomy group policy now. The only thing I can perhaps see is standing up new barriers to entry into this new FPS from the FBS. Like you have to spend this much or do that much etc. that might be out of reach for most remaining schools that won’t be in the big four confs starting next school year, Notre Dame, or WSU/OSU. |
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Jun 27, 2024 12:51:01 GMT -5
This is why we need new law. Then we can take care of this nonsense about college athletes being employees, all in one fell swoop.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2024 15:38:17 GMT -5
This is why we need new law. Then we can take care of this nonsense about college athletes being employees, all in one fell swoop. EXACTLY!! Unfortunately nothing will get done by congress until after the election and if the Republicans hold the majority. |
|
|
|
Post by rtael on Jun 27, 2024 21:41:12 GMT -5
They've talked about how much more time Baker is spending with the big schools... I think the intention is that everybody takes a hit in their athletics budget. I wonder if the NCAA brass ever thought about the fact that a lot of those athletic expenses are fixed - coaches and vendors have contracts. Athletes are on 4 year scholarships, etc - and the smaller schools with smaller budgets cannot just cut expenses overnight, so the academic side of the school is going to have to pitch in and maybe not replace a couple professors who retire, or charge a higher student activity fee, etc. Suzie Sophomore from Houston who attends a school not directly named in the suit, needs to take on a couple extra shifts so athletes who went to school for free can get a check because they sold their athletic services too low. We'll find out what Wilkins thinks about that. May be something, may be nothing. Gotta make sure Texas can afford all those Lamborghinis for their football recruits. Do you think they have cameras in the parking lot? I'll be there slashing tires.  |
|
