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

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

shizzle787

shizzle787

King Shizzle DCCLXXXVII of the Cesspool
Joined
Oct 19, 2015
Messages
12,919
Reaction Score
22,714
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.
 
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.
 
shizzle787 said:
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.
Expand ...
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?
 
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
 
CL82 said:
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?
Expand ...
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.
 
shizzle787 said:
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.
Expand ...
Revenue sharing isn't NIL. It's compensation.
 
.-.
CL82 said:
Revenue sharing isn't NIL. It's compensation.
Expand ...
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.
 
shizzle787 said:
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.
Expand ...
The payments are coming directly from the schools and the NCAA, not independent 3rd parties, right?
 
CL82 said:
The payments are coming directly from the schools and the NCAA, not independent 3rd parties, right?
Expand ...
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.
 
shizzle787 said:
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.
Expand ...
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.
 
CL82 said:
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.
Expand ...
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.
 
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.)
 
.-.
shizzle787 said:
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.
Expand ...
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?
 
upstater said:
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?
Expand ...
Most will cut sports and staff. It’s 10% of the average BE budget.
 
shizzle787 said:
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.
Expand ...
AD revenue doesn't cover these costs.
 
shizzle787 said:
Most will cut sports and staff. It’s 10% of the average BE budget.
Expand ...
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?
 
upstater said:
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?
Expand ...
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.
 
shizzle787 said:
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.
Expand ...
UConn is the only state school in the Big East. The others don't have state subsidies
 
.-.
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.

Baby Hat GIF
 
CL82 said:
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.
Expand ...
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).
 
shizzle787 said:
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.
Expand ...
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).
 
.-.
Tiamat7 said:
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).
Expand ...
UConn football did well in the portal particularly at positions of need. This season may surprise people.
 
I'm still looking forward to the day someone has to reconcile the taxability of scholarships in the pay for play scenario. Here's your check for $X, and here's your bill for $2X. Thanks for playing, LOL!
 
UConn did very well in the portal - played the NIL game extremely well.

The new rules, at least in terms of football, will be hard to manage. The potential new subdivision is a concern across the board as is tying revenue sharing to revenue.

If, say, Syracuse or Rutgers is returning $20M a year to revenue athletes, are we permitted to do the same? If so....where's the money coming from?
 
As a Sate school we are fine. $22M is nothing in the grand scheme and I hope we spend up to the max. The Sate’s budget is like $22 Billion per year, the $22M would be 0.1% of the budget assuming the State funded it all which it wouldn’t have to do. We know how important UConn sports are to the Sate. The Governor and others have said so publicly. There will be no issue getting public and government support for this if needed in my opinion. As for the other Big East Schools, well they will be in trouble because there’s no way they can keep up with us. Another reason I think long-term we’re just not a fit for the conference.
 
Fishy said:
If, say, Syracuse or Rutgers is returning $20M a year to revenue athletes, are we permitted to do the same? If so....where's the money coming from?
Expand ...
My guess is that the Big Ten and SEC will agree to share a small percentage of their revenue with the other "power" leagues as a (obviously insincere) showing of good faith. An even smaller percentage of that will then likely trickle down to the G5 leagues, who will remain compensating their players the old-fashioned way.

Everything points towards an attempt to recreate the NFL. One league will become the de facto AFC, and the other the NFC. Even the network agreements - with ESPN locking in the SEC and FOX cornering the Big Ten - are mimicking those trendlines. It will be considered the new highest level of college football, with whatever concoction of ACC/Big 12 schools being considered tier two, and everyone else slotting in beneath that. All the P2 schools will spend roughly the same in the name of achieving parity. Players will be allowed to transfer up or down a level without sitting a year, but not within levels. They might invite a couple schools from the lower leagues to the playoff to preserve the pretense of tradition, but we all know how that will go.

The big winners will be schools like Rutgers, who suddenly find themselves on semi-equal footing with schools like Alabama and Ohio State. As for UConn, not much will change. We'll still be here debating whether to continue subsidizing the program in hopes of one day getting the call to the big leagues, or just close shop altogether. Syracuse will probably be in the same boat.
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,640
Messages
4,587,327
Members
10,497
Latest member
Orlando Fos


Top Bottom