How is the NCAA settlement going to affect non-P4 leagues long term?

[shizzle787]

Part of the NCAA agreement is that schools can spend up to $22 million per year on revenue sharing with student athletes. I don't expect UConn to spend that kind of money on revenue sharing, but I do expect us to spend some.

A couple sub points of this question:

1. Which non-P4 conferences and schools if any will revenue share to some extent with their players in at least some sports?

2. Will schools will drop sports?

3. Will certain sports see mass drops?


Here are my answers:

I do believe that some schools in the G5 will revenue share to some extent with their football players. We are probably talking in the 2-3 million range. I expect most of the MW, UConn, Liberty, and the top two-thirds of the AAC to revenue share in this vicinity.

I do believe that certain conferences and programs will revenue share in M/W basketball at a level consistent with that of the P4. Namely, I believe the entire Big East, Gonzaga, SDSU, Oregon State, Washington State, Memphis, and Dayton will revenue share in basketball at a level consistent with that of the P4.

I do believe there will be a lesser level of revenue sharing in basketball among the rest of the MW, AAC, A-10, and some of the WCC and MVC schools.

How will the Big East schools and others afford the extra 3-5 million per year? I expect the cutting of multiple sports at these schools and as well as the cutting of a lot of staff. It can be done.

I believe most schools outside of the power conference level will drop sports to at or near the NCAA Division 1 minimum.

Certain sports such as men's soccer could see a significant reduction in programs.

 

[UConnTrumbull]

Pretty much agree on everything you said. I think UConn can afford to keep basketball very competitive especially since the power conferences will likely spend the majority of their money on football. I do think UConn is the best positioned of the non-power schools to handle these changes. Arguably better than Oregon St and WSU who will be starting non-power ball next year. Bad timing for them who are used to spending far heavier.

 

[CL82]

Part of the NCAA agreement is that schools can spend up to $22 million per year on revenue sharing with student athletes. I don't expect UConn to spend that kind of money on revenue sharing, but I do expect us to spend some.



A couple sub points of this question:

1. Which non-P4 conferences and schools if any will revenue share to some extent with their players in at least some sports?

2. Will schools will drop sports?

3. Will certain sports see mass drops?



Here are my answers:

I do believe that some schools in the G5 will revenue share to some extent with their football players. We are probably talking in the 2-3 million range. I expect most of the MW, UConn, Liberty, and the top two-thirds of the AAC to revenue share in this vicinity.

I do believe that certain conferences and programs will revenue share in M/W basketball at a level consistent with that of the P4. Namely, I believe the entire Big East, Gonzaga, SDSU, Oregon State, Washington State, Memphis, and Dayton will revenue share in basketball at a level consistent with that of the P4.

I do believe there will be a lesser level of revenue sharing in basketball among the rest of the MW, AAC, A-10, and some of the WCC and MVC schools.

How will the Big East schools and others afford the extra 3-5 million per year? I expect the cutting of multiple sports at these schools and as well as the cutting of a lot of staff. It can be done.

I believe most schools outside of the power conference level will drop sports to at or near the NCAA Division 1 minimum.

Certain sports such as men's soccer could see a significant reduction in programs.

The better question is how will the non-P* leagues handle the issue? Do they let every individual member decide the extent that they are willing to participate, or do they put caps in place? The latter might be problematic for us were the big east to choose to do that. What do we do if the P* conferences are paying X and the Big East caps at 50% of X?

 

[shizzle787]

On this note, we are required to have at least 16 sports teams (with at least six being men's). It's time to drop men's track. I know a lot of major schools have the program, but our basketball programs and football program are more important.

Men's sports (# of allowable scholarships/# of scholarships we should use):

Basketball (13/12)
Football (85/85)
Baseball (11.7/11.7)
Soccer (9.9/9.9)
Ice Hockey (18/18)
Golf (4.5/0)

Used scholarships: 136.6

Women's sports (# of allowable scholarships/# of scholarships we should use):

Basketball (15/15)
Volleyball (12/12)
Softball (12/12)
Soccer (14/14)
Ice hockey (18/18)
Field hockey (12/12)
Lacrosse (12/12)
Swimming and diving (14/14)
Rowing (20/20)
Tennis (8/8)

Used scholarships: 137

 

[shizzle787]

The better question is how will the non-P* leagues handle the issue? Do they let every individual member decide the extent that they are willing to participate, or do they put caps in place? The latter might be problematic for us were the big east to choose to do that. What do we do if the P* conferences are paying X and the Big East caps at 50% of X?

I fully expect the Big East to require all 11 members to fund M basketball at a level that is commiserate with at least the median of the P4 programs (my guess is 3-4 million). Technically, Title IX is not enforced when it comes to revenue sharing because it is NIL money and no money is coming from the schools. I also expect W basketball to fund at the top of the sport (around 2 million).

I expect between 12-15 million of the 22 million the big boys are spend to go to football (leaving 7-10 for Olympic sports).

I think our total additional expenditures (M/W basketball + football) will be in the 8-10 million range. We will rearrange the athletic department to cut a men's sport (saves probably 500k- 1 million), cut many positions in the AD and reduce funding to sports outside of M/W basketball, football, baseball, soccer, and hockey.

 

[CL82]

I fully expect the Big East to require all 11 members to fund M basketball at a level that is commiserate with at least the median of the P4 programs (my guess is 3-4 million). Technically, Title IX is not enforced when it comes to revenue sharing because it is NIL money and no money is coming from the schools. I also expect W basketball to fund at the top of the sport (around 2 million).

I expect between 12-15 million of the 22 million the big boys are spend to go to football (leaving 7-10 for Olympic sports).

I think our total additional expenditures (M/W basketball + football) will be in the 8-10 million range. We will rearrange the athletic department to cut a men's sport (saves probably 500k- 1 million), cut many positions in the AD and reduce funding to sports outside of M/W basketball, football, baseball, soccer, and hockey.

Revenue sharing isn't NIL. It's compensation.

 

[shizzle787]

Revenue sharing isn't NIL. It's compensation.

If that's the case (I don't believe it is because the schools aren't paying directly), it actually benefits us directly in M basketball. This would mean that big schools could spend a max of 11 million on men's sports. I would expect at least 8 million of that to be spent on football if not a little more. If we only need to spend 2-3 on men's basketball, that is not bad at all. Of course, we would need to spend the same on women's basketball. If we spent 5 million between the two and 2 million on football and 2 million more on women's equivalents, our bill would be 9 million.

 

[CL82]

If that's the case (I don't believe it is because the schools aren't paying directly), it actually benefits us directly in M basketball. This would mean that big schools could spend a max of 11 million on men's sports. I would expect at least 8 million of that to be spent on football if not a little more. If we only need to spend 2-3 on men's basketball, that is not bad at all. Of course, we would need to spend the same on women's basketball. If we spent 5 million between the two and 2 million on football and 2 million more on women's equivalents, our bill would be 9 million.

The payments are coming directly from the schools and the NCAA, not independent 3rd parties, right?

 

[shizzle787]

The payments are coming directly from the schools and the NCAA, not independent 3rd parties, right?

No. It's not pay for play. Technically. Hence, why Title IX is still up in the air. Kessler, the attorney in this case, believes the Title IX issue of compensation will eventually end up in court too as well.

 

[CL82]

No. It's not pay for play. Technically. Hence, why Title IX is still up in the air. Kessler, the attorney in this case, believes the Title IX issue of compensation will eventually end up in court too as well.

So, who, exactly, do you think will be paying the players? I will tell you it would be extraordinarily unlikely for someone who was not a party to a suit to be making multimillion dollar payments and settlement of it, unless they were an insurance company.

 

[shizzle787]

So, who, exactly, do you think will be paying the players? I will tell you it would be extraordinarily unlikely for someone who was not a party to a suit to be making multimillion dollar payments and settlement of it, unless they were an insurance company.

The schools are paying a fee in back taxes so to speak to previous athletes, but Alabama is not directly paying its former players, they are paying into a fund that goes to former players from all P5 schools. As far as the revenue sharing, it is coming out of school AD revenue coffers and NIL funds but somehow they have avoided the term compensation in legal terms. Also, Alston payments (not considered compensation) can make up to 5-6 million of the 22 million. To put it mildly, it is a mess.

The monies previous athletes are receiving are only going to M/W basketball players and football players. Obviously, the men's players are going to making more, thereby not keeping in compliance with Title IX, which is why I don't think it applies here as of now.

 

[auror]

The revenue sharing is separate from the past player NIL settlement money, which is coming directly from NCAA to former athletes.

The revenue sharing money is not "compensation" but is also not coming from NIL funds. It'll come from school budgets (which NIL $ cannot come from). In business, you can have revenue sharing agreements with all sorts of people, including non-employees like investors and partners. The courts will have to rule whether Title IX affects these payments and eventually will likely rule whether it does in fact make the student athletes employees (taken in concert with the school controlling their work hours, schedule, etc.)

 

[upstater]

I fully expect the Big East to require all 11 members to fund M basketball at a level that is commiserate with at least the median of the P4 programs (my guess is 3-4 million). Technically, Title IX is not enforced when it comes to revenue sharing because it is NIL money and no money is coming from the schools. I also expect W basketball to fund at the top of the sport (around 2 million).

I expect between 12-15 million of the 22 million the big boys are spend to go to football (leaving 7-10 for Olympic sports).

I think our total additional expenditures (M/W basketball + football) will be in the 8-10 million range. We will rearrange the athletic department to cut a men's sport (saves probably 500k- 1 million), cut many positions in the AD and reduce funding to sports outside of M/W basketball, football, baseball, soccer, and hockey.

Require? They're down $700k a year from the agreement and they're now going to find an additional $4m in their budget to pay players? They heavily subsidize their sports with student fees. Why are students effectively paying athletes?

 

[shizzle787]

Require? They're down $700k a year from the agreement and they're now going to find an additional $4m in their budget to pay players? They heavily subsidize their sports with student fees. Why are students effectively paying athletes?

Most will cut sports and staff. It’s 10% of the average BE budget.

 

[upstater]

The schools are paying a fee in back taxes so to speak to previous athletes, but Alabama is not directly paying its former players, they are paying into a fund that goes to former players from all P5 schools. As far as the revenue sharing, it is coming out of school AD revenue coffers and NIL funds but somehow they have avoided the term compensation in legal terms. Also, Alston payments (not considered compensation) can make up to 5-6 million of the 22 million. To put it mildly, it is a mess.

The monies previous athletes are receiving are only going to M/W basketball players and football players. Obviously, the men's players are going to making more, thereby not keeping in compliance with Title IX, which is why I don't think it applies here as of now.

AD revenue doesn't cover these costs.

 

[upstater]

Most will cut sports and staff. It’s 10% of the average BE budget.

You'd think a school that loses $20m a year on this stuff has already cut staff and costs to the bone. If they haven't, why are they cool with losing $20m a year before all this?

 

[shizzle787]

You'd think a school that loses $20m a year on this stuff has already cut staff and costs to the bone. If they haven't, why are they cool with losing $20m a year before all this?

Because they need to keep up appearaces that they are spending. UConn could drop $20 million from the AD tomorrow. They don’t want to because they want to have the largest G5 budget. That shows commitment the next time the P4 comes calling.

 

[upstater]

Because they need to keep up appearaces that they are spending. UConn could drop $20 million from the AD tomorrow. They don’t want to because they want to have the largest G5 budget. That shows commitment the next time the P4 comes calling.

UConn is the only state school in the Big East. The others don't have state subsidies

 

[kobe]

long term? big east teams will be playing heated basketball games on sunday afternoon after church service lets out in gyms that hold a couple hundred people. just as the good lord intended.

 

[HooperScooper]

How historic House v. NCAA settlement will impact college athletics on and off the field for years to come

The historic legal case will transform every aspect of college sports as we know it currently

www.cbssports.com

 

[superjohn]

long term? big east teams will be playing heated basketball games on sunday afternoon after church service lets out in gyms that hold a couple hundred people. just as the good lord intended.

And Xavier will still use Cincinnati as their foot stool.

 

[Fishy]

long term? big east teams will be playing heated basketball games on sunday afternoon after church service lets out in gyms that hold a couple hundred people. just as the good lord intended.

Cincy will still be a mid-major.

 

[Tiamat7]

So, who, exactly, do you think will be paying the players? I will tell you it would be extraordinarily unlikely for someone who was not a party to a suit to be making multimillion dollar payments and settlement of it, unless they were an insurance company.

With this landmark settlement, there will be two complementary sources of payment for select athletes: directly from the school and the collectives. There may be some crowding out (instead of hefty NIL, the donor model returns to the school because the school will pay student athletes).

 

[Tiamat7]

If that's the case (I don't believe it is because the schools aren't paying directly), it actually benefits us directly in M basketball. This would mean that big schools could spend a max of 11 million on men's sports. I would expect at least 8 million of that to be spent on football if not a little more. If we only need to spend 2-3 on men's basketball, that is not bad at all. Of course, we would need to spend the same on women's basketball. If we spent 5 million between the two and 2 million on football and 2 million more on women's equivalents, our bill would be 9 million.

UConn basketball (men and women) should be okay short and medium term -- but still likely need a new media deal (Big East + ACC or Big 12) for revenue generation long term.

However, I don't see how UConn football can compete in this environment (again, unless we join P4).

 

[CL82]

UConn basketball (men and women) should be okay short and medium term -- but still likely need a new media deal (Big East + ACC or Big 12) for revenue generation long term.

However, I don't see how UConn football can compete in this environment (again, unless we join P4).

UConn football did well in the portal particularly at positions of need. This season may surprise people.