NCAA Revenue Sharing Update

[Rowdy831]

When it comes to money and paying people the masses have math issues that prevent them from realizing just how much money is needed to even pay a little to every athlete. This model and any other is eventually going to kill the smaller universities where money is already a major problem.

Take UConn for an example. They are arguably the top program right now in Men's and Women's basketball and they don't make money in their athletic department. How does a school that isn't the top of their sport expected to even come close to having money to pay athletes? Most decisions made by governments have unintended consequences and this one will have some very big ones.

 

[Hurleyman216]

I'm not sure how something like this would pass if ALL division 1 universities have a vote or a say in the matter. Seems like the beginning of the end of the NCAA to me. If they push something down that benefits the top 25 programs while killing the other 300, then it's the end of the NCAA. It's essentially the same as the Big/SEC just splitting off and making their own organization. The only thing we have going for us is we're a state school and this line item loss for athletics would likely just get soaked up by the state of CT if we decide we still want to be involved in major college/"pro" sports.

I also think NIL is at least a semi-fair way to compensate players. For most sports outside of basketball and football the athletes have an NIL value of $0. No one knows or cares who they are and they get paid via a free tuition. This whole concept of having to compensate some 3rd string field hockey player from 2016 for NIL that they didn’t get is nonsense. If these other non-revenue sports athletes want to be “fairly compensated” then they’ll have to start paying most of their tuition themselves, because that’s their real value.

 

[king conn]

If UConn decides to pay the 20 million that's one thing. And how do you get top recruits if you don't.

But will these small private schools in the Big East be able to afford to? Seton Hall? Providence? This league that everyone says we need will be picking up scraps for recruits. What would that do to us? We'd be playing in a localized AAC. What then?

 

[hoopsfan22]

Title IX says hello.

Not if the student-athletes are no longer student-athletes which is where this is ultimately heading.

 

[Scrutiner]

I don’t think that we make enough profits to have any to share with the our 600+ athletes. We aren’t required to spend $20M. That’s just the cap.

The big schools have upwards of 1000+ athletes. They won’t be able to get away with paying only football and basketball. They will get on by the women in the courts if they try. A cap of $20 million will result in peanuts for 1000 athletes. I don’t see how them paying $33k on top of NIL is going to kill us based on the fact that we are clearly competing with the big boys on NIL.

Change happens. In the end, we’ll probably survive just like we always do.

As to the women's issue, my guess is that's why the B1G and SEC have made it about "revenue" sharing. Separation of sources allows the sharing of revenue to be focused on those competing in the sport from which it was generated.

For example, if there's only $10,000 in annual ticket sales and $15,000 in revenue from selling jerseys and hats for women's hockey, they'll get a percentage of that revenue, not the $60,000,000 from football.

 

[shizzle787]

UConn going to one bowl game in 8 years and winning the NCAA Tournament The last two years has zero bearing on what is coming in the future of college athletics. You are conflating results of on field competition with legal litigation and future financial requirements. They are two completely separate things- Everyone has been talking for multiple years now about the new financial realities that will be required in order to compete at the highest level. That is now coming to light.

You claim that the Big East teams will all pay this money. $20M added costs annually is going to be an increase of anywhere from 40-60% of these schools’ existing budgets. You can’t just pull that out of a hat and good luck essentially taxing students through added fees who are taking out loans to pay for college so that the schools can eventually try to pay that money directly to their classmates. Surely that would go over great.

“Revenue sharing isn’t going to happen” - absolutely no idea how you can read anything in the article linked and come to that conclusion. The entire article is about how that is expected to happen.

”Schools will be forced to pay players directly within 5 years”. So…….. sharing the revenue they generate with the players then. And how do you think it will go when schools bringing in $100M+ annually are paying athletes directly on top of collective compensation and other NIL opportunities?

This is a massive problem for the university. They have no money. Zero. Pretending like adding more liabilities to UConn’s balance sheet without increasing revenues somehow isn’t an issue for us is laughable. And if you somehow think the state legislature is going to randomly vote to allot $20M annually to UConn’s athletic department to do this while we have been asked to cut our overall budget over the last 3 years, then you’re even dumber than I thought.

BE schools don’t have football so they won’t be paying $20 million. It will be closer to $10 million.

 

[auror]

Yeah if athletes become employees, it would likely drastically alter how Title IX affects them, if at all (other than being responsible reports and the like).

 

[upstater]

Anyone who knows me in person knows I am ruthless with money. I’m better with money than 99% on the board.

You are like the boy who cries wolf. Every change in college athletics you hide under the covers thinking UConn is done. Yet we just won two more basketball titles, made a bowl game in 2022, and outbid Kentucky for a couple huge recruits. Broke schools don’t outbid SEC schools.

I’m well aware of our on paper deficit.

This revenue sharing thing isn’t going to happen. Schools will be forced to pay players directly within 5 years.

If it's a paper deficit, then why are they degrading the educational mission? That makes no sense.

 

[upstater]

Not all scholarships are full rides though, plenty (almost all) of our non-revenue athletes pay some amount of tuition to go to school at UConn

The value of the scholarships has to be equal though. If you get a half scholarship, it doesn't count as a full one for Title IX purposes.

 

[Hurleyman216]

As to the women's issue, my guess is that's why the B1G and SEC have made it about "revenue" sharing. Separation of sources allows the sharing of revenue to be focused on those competing in the sport from which it was generated.

For example, if there's only $10,000 in annual ticket sales and $15,000 in revenue from selling jerseys and hats for women's hockey, they'll get a percentage of that revenue, not the $60,000,000 from football.

Sure, but if there are 20 players on the women’s hockey team each getting $35-40K/year in tuition and room and board compensated for them then the school is spending $800,000 to field that team which only brings in $25,000 in your scenario. So, they’re losing the University $775K/year and now the players think they need a share in the $25K of revenue the university recoups? It’s total nonsense. It’s the exact equivalent of a company that generates $1 billion in revenue having their 20,000 employees come to them and say “we want our split of the $1 billion of revenue”. The answer is also the same: Get lost!

 

[gtcam]

Nope, we would just drop football and other sports and basketball would still be a Big East powerhouse. We are full steam ahead for a legendary 3peat and the women are winning a title next year too.

Basketball is a great spectator sport and very important at UConn but simply doesn't generate top money. UConn screwed up years ago when they were in the AAC, a decent football conference, and kept hiring the inept football HCs that created the post OBE UConn football collapse. Drop football and UConn looks like a huge Gtown/Seton Hall/PC. No thanks.
The SEC, B1G and NIL is ruining amateur college sports. Not only do the athletes get a free education but ridiculous money for NIL. Take the cost of education out of the NIL - they are earning an income so they should be paying for a product/service - like the rest of us. Receiving student loans on top of that and who pays for that when idiots decide its a good thing to forgive the balances?
Work/study programs - are they still around?
The folks in charge of the NCAA, the university presidents and decision makers are all a reflection of the philosophies that are chewing up everything in this country.
Simply dropping sports besides basketball is not the answer. Baseball, soccer, field hockey, polo, ice hockey, track and field and yes, even football have experienced success at UConn and have been full of 4 year dedicated student athletes.

State income tax $10/year surcharge for each of the state’s 2 million taxpayers.
Sounds simple and easy. $10 here $10 there - yeah we don't pay enough in this state. It's not the amount, it's the principle. Once a tax like this is shoveled at the people the bigger the shovel becomes for those in the state legislature.

 

[3rdbass]

Basketball is a great spectator sport and very important at UConn but simply doesn't generate top money. UConn screwed up years ago when they were in the AAC, a decent football conference, and kept hiring the inept football HCs that created the post OBE UConn football collapse. Drop football and UConn looks like a huge Gtown/Seton Hall/PC. No thanks.
The SEC, B1G and NIL is ruining amateur college sports. Not only do the athletes get a free education but ridiculous money for NIL. Take the cost of education out of the NIL - they are earning an income so they should be paying for a product/service - like the rest of us. Receiving student loans on top of that and who pays for that when idiots decide its a good thing to forgive the balances?
Work/study programs - are they still around?
The folks in charge of the NCAA, the university presidents and decision makers are all a reflection of the philosophies that are chewing up everything in this country.
Simply dropping sports besides basketball is not the answer. Baseball, soccer, field hockey, polo, ice hockey, track and field and yes, even football have experienced success at UConn and have been full of 4 year dedicated student athletes.

State income tax $10/year surcharge for each of the state’s 2 million taxpayers.
Sounds simple and easy. $10 here $10 there - yeah we don't pay enough in this state. It's not the amount, it's the principle. Once a tax like this is shoveled at the people the bigger the shovel becomes for those in the state legislature.

Football was dead once we couldn't get into the ACC a long time ago. It is just on life support now.

 

[gtcam]

Football was dead once we couldn't get into the ACC a long time ago. It is just on life support now.

It could have survived in the AAC if there was adequate leadership in the coaching ranks. Not saying at all that UConn should have remained in the AAC but being competitive in football has paid dividends to some of the AAC schools.

 

[MilliniumPrince]

It will soon come to a head whether athletic programs exist to augment the educational experience of university students, or whether they exist to make money.

Good luck with that.

That would seem to be an inevitable eventuality based on logic. Of course, logic gets tricky when this much money is involved.

 

[3rdbass]

It could have survived in the AAC if there was adequate leadership in the coaching ranks. Not saying at all that UConn should have remained in the AAC but being competitive in football has paid dividends to some of the AAC schools.

AAC was just a horrible fit culturally and geographically for UConn. I'm just glad we saved our basketball program. Sorry, I know you are a big football supporter.

 

[How Sway?!]

Sure, but if there are 20 players on the women’s hockey team each getting $35-40K/year in tuition and room and board compensated for them then the school is spending $800,000 to field that team which only brings in $25,000 in your scenario. So, they’re losing the University $775K/year and now the players think they need a share in the $25K of revenue the university recoups? It’s total nonsense. It’s the exact equivalent of a company that generates $1 billion in revenue having their 20,000 employees come to them and say “we want our split of the $1 billion of revenue”. The answer is also the same: Get lost!

That's just the cost of doing business. Also, regarding your example, wouldn't that just be the employees asking for a salary?

 

[Fishy]

So schools would be paying students who lose money for the schools. None of this makes any sense. At this point get rid of all non-revenue sports.

I think that is a very realistic possibility for hundreds of schools

 

[Hurleyman216]

That's just the cost of doing business. Also, regarding your example, wouldn't that just be the employees asking for a salary?

No, that’s exactly my point. These players “salaries” for non revenue sports are the $40K or more they get in education and living expenses. They don’t get to “share” the revenue because there is no profit, it’s negative. The business example I used is exactly the same. The employees make a salary, that doesn’t mean they get a share of the company revenue. And a company making $1 billion in revenue might have more than $1 billion in expenses the same year meaning they lose money. Revenue is only looking at the $$ coming in. If the players want a cut of the net profit then I’m fine with that. Just realize that profit is negative for every sport other than basketball in UConn’s case.

 

[upstater]

I really don't feel like I am ignored, nor do I take it personally that my post about making it pro is ignored, but I am wondering if people are purposely ignoring the topic of professionalizing the sport because they would lose interest in it if it were professionalized. Why not make the revenue programs self-contained professional entities using the university's brand?

 

[upstater]

I think that is a very realistic possibility for hundreds of schools

And yet everything I'm reading in the Chronicle of Education says that, in this coming era of low #s in student demographics (compounded by both post 2008 low birth rates and the high cost of attendance) colleges need to leverage sports in order to have viable classes at all.

Colleges are going to start investing in sports so that they can grab as many full payers as they possibly can. In order to survive.

So... the only way to square these 2 contradictions is for schools to drop a class and not compete at the highest levels. They need sports to draw students, but they can't afford to compete. NET RESULT: the vast majority go D2 or D3.

 

[ScottVib]

They need sports to draw students, but they can't afford to compete. NET RESULT: the vast majority go D2 or D3.

this was part of the argument UHart made in its downgrade. They were going to add sports when joining D3 in an effort to attract more tuition-paying students.

 

[Jaydumo20]

We are awful at predicting. I'm not saying any of these won't happen, but is it easier to be pessimistic than optimistic? Clearly.
Pessimism is fear based: it's what the media and the yard thrives on:
Let me predict the worse, if it's right at least I'm right as a consolation and I'm emotionally protected. If I'm wrong I'll just move the goal post of my prediction little by little. It's human nature and it doesn't count as logic until every single thing you've predicted comes true. Go ahead call me delusional but when is this gonna happen? 2 years? Next year? If it happens in 50 years were you still "right"?


Get a grip and wait to see.

 

[hoopsfan22]

I really don't feel like I am ignored, nor do I take it personally that my post about making it pro is ignored, but I am wondering if people are purposely ignoring the topic of professionalizing the sport because they would lose interest in it if it were professionalized. Why not make the revenue programs self-contained professional entities using the university's brand?

For football I think that makes the most sense. Just cut the 20-30 biggest brands loose and let them go do their own thing. We'll see how well their exclusive little league does competing with an actual professional one and we'll see how alumni interest holds up once teams used to going 10-2, 11-1 every year since forever are now more routinely .500 teams because there are no more Fleener States and South Central Louisiana States to beat up on.

 

[uconndogs]

Honestly, I've gone from an avid college sports fan to not really caring anymore. The last two basketball seasons have been fun, but it's been clear to me for a while where this has been going. Everyone has there hand out and the athletic departments with the best access to money will attract the most talent.

I'll watch the NFL. I can't watch the NBA, it's just too damn painful.

 

[TheShot1990]

I think that is a very realistic possibility for hundreds of schools

And maybe that's not a bad thing. Does the world really need say Bowdoin men's and women's cross country teams?