|
|
Post by vbnerd on Aug 28, 2024 12:30:07 GMT -5
The idea of a minimum would be interesting. Requiring a school to go whole hog, means fewer school opt in and fewer athletes get paid. A school like USF is opting in, if they have $15 million and they HAD to pay $20+ then they can't opt in and that's $15 million that doesn't go to players. But if you let teams opt in for $5 million that would have opted in for more if they had to, you'd also be costing the athletes money. What is the right balance? Who decides? and how do you enforce that?
|
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Aug 28, 2024 14:51:39 GMT -5
The idea of a minimum would be interesting. Requiring a school to go whole hog, means fewer school opt in and fewer athletes get paid. A school like USF is opting in, if they have $15 million and they HAD to pay $20+ then they can't opt in and that's $15 million that doesn't go to players. But if you let teams opt in for $5 million that would have opted in for more if they had to, you'd also be costing the athletes money. What is the right balance? Who decides? and how do you enforce that? I think the only bodies that might implement a minimum are specific conferences. It wouldn’t surprise me if the SEC required their schools to max out revenue sharing to remain in good standing in the conference just like conferences have scholarship minimums for certain sports. But I find it highly unlikely the NCAA itself will impose any sort of minimum. The antitrust issues involve colluding to not pay athletes. That’s very different from telling a school they MUST share revenues with their athletes. |
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Aug 28, 2024 20:14:29 GMT -5
The NCAA had (has) a minimum number of total scholarship equivalencies that must be awarded over all varsity sports, in order to be DI, if I recall correctly.
|
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Aug 29, 2024 11:32:24 GMT -5
National College Players Association objects and is recruiting athletes to fight the settlement.
Final decision expected by the court in January, or as late as March, to be implemented next fall.
|
|
|
|
Post by dodger on Aug 29, 2024 11:43:56 GMT -5
The NCAA had (has) a minimum number of total scholarship equivalencies that must be awarded over all varsity sports, in order to be DI, if I recall correctly. Ncaa has max. Number of scholarships a school/sport can give. NCAA has rules about minimum number of sports you must sponsor to be D1. But there is no rule that says you must give min. # of scholarships. Ivy League is D1. They give no athletic scholarship's as example! |
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on Aug 29, 2024 12:19:41 GMT -5
The idea of a minimum would be interesting. Requiring a school to go whole hog, means fewer school opt in and fewer athletes get paid. A school like USF is opting in, if they have $15 million and they HAD to pay $20+ then they can't opt in and that's $15 million that doesn't go to players. But if you let teams opt in for $5 million that would have opted in for more if they had to, you'd also be costing the athletes money. What is the right balance? Who decides? and how do you enforce that? I think the only bodies that might implement a minimum are specific conferences. It wouldn’t surprise me if the SEC required their schools to max out revenue sharing to remain in good standing in the conference just like conferences have scholarship minimums for certain sports. But I find it highly unlikely the NCAA itself will impose any sort of minimum. The antitrust issues involve colluding to not pay athletes. That’s very different from telling a school they MUST share revenues with their athletes. For at least myself, I'm talking minimums (whether expectations or actual limits) that would come out of the legal settlement, not something implemented by the NCAA. None of this would be happening if it were up to the NCAA. |
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on Aug 29, 2024 12:21:02 GMT -5
National College Players Association objects and with recruiting athletes to fight the settlement. Final decision expected by the court in January, or as late as March, to be implemented next fall. Are you quoting something? I suspect your first sentence is misworded (or missing words). |
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Aug 29, 2024 16:06:11 GMT -5
National College Players Association objects and with recruiting athletes to fight the settlement. Final decision expected by the court in January, or as late as March, to be implemented next fall. Are you quoting something? I suspect your first sentence is misworded (or missing words). Highlight points from reading a few articles about the NCPA. And yes, with should have been is. |
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on Aug 29, 2024 16:14:10 GMT -5
Are you quoting something? I suspect your first sentence is misworded (or missing words). Highlight points from reading a few articles about the NCPA. And yes, with should have been is. What are some of the objections by the players? Does the NCPA have significant membership from the players on the top teams. I cannot recall one Texas player speaking about it nor a player on the other teams that are our primary competition. The decision timeline is later than what was reported when the settlement was submitted. If its toward March when the judge rules and doesn't accept a lot of the proposal, I suspect it won't be implemented in the 25-26 academic year. |
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Aug 29, 2024 18:54:09 GMT -5
Highlight points from reading a few articles about the NCPA. And yes, with should have been is. What are some of the objections by the players? Does the NCPA have significant membership from the players on the top teams. I cannot recall one Texas player speaking about it nor a player on the other teams that are our primary competition. The decision timeline is later than what was reported when the settlement was submitted. If its toward March when the judge rules and doesn't accept a lot of the proposal, I suspect it won't be implemented in the 25-26 academic year. The one that stood out was that the NCAA is attempting to move money from the collectives back under NCAA rules and that is bad for athletes. There's more... sports.yahoo.com/national-college-players-association-says-it-opposes-28-billion-ncaa-house-settlement-155659024.html |
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on Aug 29, 2024 21:23:48 GMT -5
What are some of the objections by the players? Does the NCPA have significant membership from the players on the top teams. I cannot recall one Texas player speaking about it nor a player on the other teams that are our primary competition. The decision timeline is later than what was reported when the settlement was submitted. If its toward March when the judge rules and doesn't accept a lot of the proposal, I suspect it won't be implemented in the 25-26 academic year. The one that stood out was that the NCAA is attempting to move money from the collectives back under NCAA rules and that is bad for athletes. There's more... sports.yahoo.com/national-college-players-association-says-it-opposes-28-billion-ncaa-house-settlement-155659024.htmlI have the suspicion that the NCPA represents relatively few of the athletes that will be the significant beneficiaries of the revenue sharing. As I said previously, I can't recall a single athlete talking about the NCPA and/or being a member. I suspect it's still a very minor player and trying to gain influence. Notice that it is not involved in any of the 3 lawsuits. The NIL payments (the ones that are really pay for play which is the majority at the P5 level) will likely be the sticky point. I wonder if it will come up in the arguments that a lot of the funding for the collectives is likely to disappear with revenue sharing. The vast majority of collective funding comes from donor donations. A lot of the money from revenue sharing will almost certainly come from the same source. Based on following feedback as collective donations have ramped up, I feel certain the major of donors will feel more comfortable giving to the school than the collectives and will likely reduce or eliminate their collective donations. |
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Aug 30, 2024 10:19:03 GMT -5
The NCAA had (has) a minimum number of total scholarship equivalencies that must be awarded over all varsity sports, in order to be DI, if I recall correctly. Ncaa has max. Number of scholarships a school/sport can give. NCAA has rules about minimum number of sports you must sponsor to be D1. But there is no rule that says you must give min. # of scholarships. Ivy League is D1. They give no athletic scholarship's as example! Ivy's and any current DI member that weren't awarding any athletic related financial aid in any sport as of Jan 11, 1991 have a hardcoded exemption from the minimum requirement.
But there is indeed a minimum requirement. It is detailed in section 20.10.3.2 of the DI Manual (the version I have is Aug 2022). The most straightforward provision for meeting the requirement says:
(a) A minimum of 50 percent of the maximum allowable grants in 14 sports, at least seven of which must be women's
sports. If an institution uses indoor track and field, outdoor track and field and cross country to meet the financial aid
criterion, it must award the equivalent of at least 80 percent of the full grants for men and 80 percent of the full grants
for women in those sports. If the institution counts two of those three sports to meet the financial aid criterion, it must
award the equivalent of at least 70 percent of the full grants for men and 70 percent of the full grants for women. If the
institution counts indoor and outdoor track and field as one sport, it must award the equivalent of at least 50 percent
of the full grants for men and 50 percent of the full grants for women;
|
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Aug 30, 2024 10:28:30 GMT -5
I feel certain the major of donors will feel more comfortable giving to the school than the collectives and will likely reduce or eliminate their collective donations. As it should be! Collectives should be shut down and all donations should be given to the schools, for the schools to then run the revenue sharing program with the players. |
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Sept 1, 2024 11:27:18 GMT -5
|
|
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 Sept 1, 2024 11:53:37 GMT -5
I like the 5th year redshirt for VB (I guess Football already has this). Play 5 matches in VB - and could be eligible for redshirt. I don't understand what eliminating the National Letter of Intent and replacing with 'financial aid/scholarship agreement' does? Sounds like the same thing - but that it will have more teeth than the NLI? Will the date this can happen (~ 2nd week in November of their senior year in HS) - will it be the same? If so, I just don't see what is the wild change. |
|
