NCAA proposing new college athletics subdivision rooted in direct athlete compensation

[Drew]

 

[Drew]

 

[shizzle787]

My guess:
P4
Notre Dame
Big East
OSU/WSU/MW
AAC
Gonzaga

I could see the service academies opting out.

 

[shizzle787]

Yeah, but is it worth it to spend all that money when you won't be able to come close to competing with SEC and B1G schools in every sport because they'll be spending way more?

Absolutely. Even if we spend 100k per basketball player and 30k on half the remaining athletes.

 

[Drew]

Absolutely. Even if we spend 100k per basketball player and 30k on half the remaining athletes.

100k per basketball player = $1.3M

466 scholarship athletes at UConn, at least half of which have to have $ set aside for them to participate in the new sub-division

466/2 = 233

Subtract the 13 basketball players = 220

Set aside the minimum for these athletes (220*30000) = $6.6M

Add the $1.3M in for the men’s hoops team = $8M total we‘d need per year to participate in this following what you just laid out.

Hope we have some generous donors ready to foot that bill annually. The last time we needed to pay someone $10M in a year we had to file a lawsuit to try to bring the amount owed down.

 

[shizzle787]

100k per basketball player = $1.3M

466 scholarship athletes at UConn, at least half of which have to have $ set aside for them to participate in the new sub-division

466/2 = 233

Subtract the 13 basketball players = 220

Set aside the minimum for these athletes (220*30000) = $6.6M

Add the $1.3M in for the men’s hoops team = $8M total we‘d need per year to participate in this following what you just laid out.

Hope we have some generous donors ready to foot that bill annually. The last time we needed to pay someone $10M in a year we had to file a lawsuit to try to bring the amount owed down.

An extra 8 million to play major college sports is a worthwhile investment.

 

[Greedo]

100k per basketball player = $1.3M

466 scholarship athletes at UConn, at least half of which have to have $ set aside for them to participate in the new sub-division

466/2 = 233

Subtract the 13 basketball players = 220

Set aside the minimum for these athletes (220*30000) = $6.6M

Add the $1.3M in for the men’s hoops team = $8M total we‘d need per year to participate in this following what you just laid out.

Hope we have some generous donors ready to foot that bill annually. The last time we needed to pay someone $10M in a year we had to file a lawsuit to try to bring the amount owed down.

Wouldn't it be even higher because the women's teams need to collectively be making the same amount as the men's teams collectively? So an additional $1.3M would need to be distributed among women's teams as well? I could be misunderstanding this.

 

[Greedo]

An extra 8 million to play major college sports is a worthwhile investment.

Right, but if every SEC and B1G school is dropping $20M on their basketball teams compared to our $1.3M, where does that leave us? Not competing for championships.

 

[Drew]

An extra 8 million to play major college sports is a worthwhile investment.

You and I don’t disagree on that but that doesn’t answer the question of how we’re going to find it annually to participate.

 

[shizzle787]

You and I don’t disagree on that but that doesn’t answer the question of how we’re going to find it annually to participate.

The school will eat it.

 

[Drew]

Wouldn't it be even higher because the women's teams need to collectively be making the same amount as the men's teams collectively? So an additional $1.3M would need to be distributed among women's teams as well? I could be misunderstanding this.

No because the total of $4M needs to match on both sides so that means of the remaining 220 athletes’ $6.7M (excluding the 13 basketball players making $1.3M), $2.7M would be allocated to men and $4M would be allocated to women

 

[Drew]

Right, but if every SEC and B1G school is dropping $20M on their basketball teams compared to our $1.3M, where does that leave us? Not competing for championships.

This is the winning question that nobody wants to address

 

[hoopsfan22]

Since the Big 10 can't win championships, get rid of all the competition...

You know what they say: if you can't beat 'em... kick 'em out.

 

[businesslawyer]

Right, but if every SEC and B1G school is dropping $20M on their basketball teams compared to our $1.3M, where does that leave us? Not competing for championships.

It's going to be more of an issue with women's hoops then men's hoops. In men's hoops, every dollar above the minimum you pay a player is a dollar less you have to spend on football. As much money as the P-whatever is generating, it is being almost all plowed back into football and we haven't been dominated in hoops spending. However, if you pay $200k a year to your QB, that's $200k you have to pay above the minimum to women athletes. And most of that is going to go into women's hoops. If this passes, it's hard to see how anyone will be able to compete with traditional football powers in women's hoops (as bizarre a conclusion as that is).

 

[superjohn]

It's pathetic how all this has played out with the Big 10 and SEC doing everything to destroy college sports. Now a bunch of athletes playing sports nobody cares about, while generating zero dollars and actually losing money for their schools are going to get paid a ton of money in addition to their free college.

 

[CL82]

Hope we have some generous donors ready to foot that bill annually. The last time we needed to pay someone $10M in a year we had to file a lawsuit to try to bring the amount owed down.

True, but that lawsuit had nothing to do with ability to pay.

I haven't looked at the proposal extensively but it appears that the requirement is merely that $30 K per athlete be set aside in trust and how that money is distributed is up to the school. So, in theory, a school could set aside 30,000 per year per student but require that students complete their degree in order to get paid. That would result in forfeitures that would increase the amount of money in this fund. Keep in mind that this 30,000 is a negligible amount of money compared to what high major athletes in revenue sports will receive via NIL. They may not be particularly concerned about a prospective forfeiture if they say leave early to become pros.

 

[CL82]

It's pathetic how all this has played with the Big 10 and SEC doing everything to destroy college sports. Now a bunch of athletes playing sports nobody cares about, while generating zero dollars and actually losing money for their schools are going to get paid a ton of money in addition to their free college.

There isn't a lot of logic to it. The former NCAA president lost control of the thing and now it's spiraling out of control, being largely driven by the P-Star schools looking to phase out the have-nots.

 

[shizzle787]

This is the winning question that nobody wants to address

They are not going to be dropping that on their basketball teams. They aren’t going to pay 1 million per basketball scholarship. That’s ridiculous and it’s not sustainable even for them.

 

[CL82]

It's going to be more of an issue with women's hoops then men's hoops. In men's hoops, every dollar above the minimum you pay a player is a dollar less you have to spend on football. As much money as the P-whatever is generating, it is being almost all plowed back into football and we haven't been dominated in hoops spending. However, if you pay $200k a year to your QB, that's $200k you have to pay above the minimum to women athletes. And most of that is going to go into women's hoops. If this passes, it's hard to see how anyone will be able to compete with traditional football powers in women's hoops (as bizarre a conclusion as that is).

There's a lot of guesses in this, but they aren't unreasonable. Basically every school that participates, which in all likelihood are basically the schools that are successful at revenue sports, will now be able to incentivize athletes in non-revenue sports away from non-participating schools which will in time cause a gap in the level of play between the participating schools in non-participating schools.

Does that sound like a recipe for laying the groundwork for a complete split off to anyone else?

 

[Chin Diesel]

It's pathetic how all this has played out with the Big 10 and SEC doing everything to destroy college sports. Now a bunch of athletes playing sports nobody cares about, while generating zero dollars and actually losing money for their schools are going to get paid a ton of money in addition to their free college.

'Murica!!!!

 

[Drew]

They are not going to be dropping that on their basketball teams. They aren’t going to pay 1 million per basketball scholarship. That’s ridiculous and it’s not sustainable even for them.

A million is not happening (yet). But when the B1G is making $100M in TV money if they allocate 30% of it to players ($30M) you could start saying upwards of $300k+ per hoops player isn’t crazy. Especially if title IX compliance means # of athletes compensated and not $ (today it is # of scholarships not $ of those scholarships).

 

[Drew]

And also… every school determines their own $ allocations. Entire leagues don’t have to allocate money the same way. I bet you the way say Ohio State and Kansas allocate their $ will look drastically different

Plus, you still have the “current” NIL opportunities that will exist on top of this payment from the schools

 

[shizzle787]

A million is not happening (yet). But when the B1G is making $100M in TV money if they allocate 30% of it to players ($30M) you could start saying upwards of $300k+ per hoops player isn’t crazy. Especially if title IX compliance means # of athletes compensated and not $ (today it is # of scholarships not $ of those scholarships).

The more they spend on men’s sports, the more they have to spend on women’s. They will only spend so much. What that number is is anyone’s guess. I expect the Big East schools and Gonzaga, Memphis, etc. to pay their basketball players in line with what P4 schools will spend. The rest of the sports, not so much.

 

[upstater]

This is idiotic in the extreme.

And all the people arguing about giving people their market value have ceased talking about markets.

I might be reading things incorrectly but the $30k athlete minimums are solely for NIL or compensation. This isn't investment per athlete, but payout per athlete.

The vast vast majority of schools can't afford this. We're not talking about cutting coaches pay here anymore. This is $20+m a year. It far outstrips what a cut in coach's pay will save you.

 

[Scrutineer]

If they don't require schools to keep football, and schools start dropping football & women's sports, it's going to be a political nightmare.

Requiring that some athletes get paid when they don't bring any money to the school is so stupid. This whole thing has jumped the shark.

The 'ole dreaded "law of unintended consequences" is front and center with this type of "solution". Jim Thorpe surely must be rolling over in his grave.

This "solution" will do nothing except accelerate the arms race among the top 20 or 30 schools (who believe if they spend enough money they can win a NC), but do nothing for the average athlete, student, fan, and school administration. On the contrary, if this goes through your prediction about chaos and the impact on women's sports will come true.

As the timeshare expert advertises, "this has to end".