NCAA Revenue Sharing Update

[HuskyWarrior611]

Hopefully this will start the process of moving away from this NIL free for all.

 

[Fishy]

This isn’t good news.

Basically, it will be an eight figure hit to our yearly athletic budget.

 

[upstater]

This is a disaster for UConn.

The NIL booster stuff is still going to go on regardless. Nothing to stop it.

But now schools are going to pay $20m on top of that?

Where is UConn going to find an extra $20m per year?

And how is all that backpay going to happen? Where is it going to come from?

It's a weird concept too. The NLRB has ruled against colleges when it comes to unionization of TAs. No doubt it found exploitation. Are they going to pay every former TA some money into perpetuity?

 

[ConnHuskBask]

There going to need to axe a ton of sports up in Storrs eventually if this passes.

Incredibly bizarre how much we've invested in sports that don't ever stand a chance to make the school real money (hockey, baseball, soccer) but let FBS football languish.

 

[storrsroars]

.

 

[Fishy]

As I read it, there's revenue sharing involved where "top end" schools could get $15-$20 million paid out by the NCAA. Whether we're a top end school or not, who knows, but we'd likely be getting 8 figures.

No one is getting money…that’s outgoing cash.

The money would go to players. We’re going to share revenue and retroactive revenue that we’re not receiving and have never received.

 

[storrsroars]

No one is getting money…that’s outgoing cash.

The money would go to players. We’re going to share revenue and retroactive revenue that we’re not receiving and have never received.

I deleted the original post so I could go back and read the article a third time. I misinterpreted some of what I read.

Still, I don't know if it's as cut and dried as nothing in/$20 million out. Does conference NIL include football? If so, we may not have a lot to worry about. Texas, tOSU and LSU are pretty much already at the proposed NIL cap. Can't imagine that's all NCAA sports - has to include football. There would seem an argument that football NIL may not be the NCAA's problem and would defer to the individual schools. And a case could be made for individual schools like UConn that certainly wouldn't/shouldn't have a liability placed on them equal to a P4 school. Who was really denied - or more importantly, deserved NIL from our collectives.

Also, IIRC, while the NCAA made about $1.3 bill this year, expenses were $1.17 bill, so they only net $130 million. A suit seeking $4 billion is ludicrous to pay out to the limited numbers of players included in the suit. Subtracting $1B-$1.3B for the lawyers, that close to $3B to be shared among what, 1000 players tops? $3 million per more or less? That seems ludicrous to me, coming at the expense of breaking the back of 100-200 athletic programs.

I'll defer to the expert legal minds here.

 

[upstater]

No one is getting money…that’s outgoing cash.

The money would go to players. We’re going to share revenue and retroactive revenue that we’re not receiving and have never received.

The retroactive stuff is just bizarre.

Are they going to take even more of the NCAA's $1.1b in NCAA tourney money for this retroactive stuff?

Might as well get rid of the NCAA at that point

 

[Fishy]

I deleted the original post so I could go back and read the article a third time. I misinterpreted some of what I read.

Still, I don't know if it's as cut and dried as nothing in/$20 million out. Does conference NIL include football? If so, we may not have a lot to worry about. Texas, tOSU and LSU are pretty much already at the proposed NIL cap. Can't imagine that's all NCAA sports - has to include football. There would seem an argument that football NIL may not be the NCAA's problem and would defer to the individual schools. And a case could be made for individual schools like UConn that certainly wouldn't/shouldn't have a liability placed on them equal to a P4 school. Who was really denied - or more importantly, deserved NIL from our collectives.

Also, IIRC, while the NCAA made about $1.3 bill this year, expenses were $1.17 bill, so they only net $130 million. A suit seeking $4 billion is ludicrous to pay out to the limited numbers of players included in the suit. Subtracting $1B-$1.3B for the lawyers, that close to $3B to be shared among what, 1000 players tops? $3 million per more or less? That seems ludicrous to me, coming at the expense of breaking the back of 100-200 athletic programs.

I'll defer to the expert legal minds here.

Okay. There’s two components - the lawsuit from athletes suing for lost NIL opportunities they suffered before the NCAA allowed NIL. That lawsuit will involve retroactive payment to 15,000 athletes across a broad spectrum of sports. (House vs NCAA….Graham House was a swimmer at Arizona State, so you can see how broad the beneficiaries will be.)

We will be on the hook to pay football, basketball and women’s basketball players going back to 2016. Whether we would have to pay swimmers, soccer players, track athletes, hockey players….I don’t know. How big the hit will be to UConn? I don’t know. In any event, I don’t think this is the main source our troubles. Read on…

In the settlement of that case, there is expected to be a framework in place to pay athletes going forward - basically, NIL will come in house. The article theorizes a $20M top end per year with schools able to opt in and decide how much they’re going to share with their athletes. Opting out means oblivion; we’re likely going to have to match our ACC/Big 10/B12 peers or suffer the consequences.

In addition, you still have the Charlie Baker proposal out there that would create a subset of schools that would obligate themselves to pay something like $30,000 a year into a fund for every eligible athlete on campus. We have 600 athletes.

With the school proposing 15% across the board cuts to departments to cover the (poorly planned for) budget gaps over the next few years, one department that already loses $35,000,000 a year is going to need to either start losing $50,000,000 a year or sacrifice nearly everything other than our three revenue programs or try to compete while offering much less to student athletes.

Do you see the issue?

 

[Drew]

This is very very bad news for UConn. We do not remotely have the money to do this.

This is not going to replace NIL, this will be happening in conjunction with it. And I would expect eventually the $20M school revenue sharing number gets litigated higher until there is no cap (just like NIL) unless there is some sort of collective bargaining agreement in place for it

I would strongly advise in actually spending LARGE amounts of money to support our football program. Long term not being in the P4 will be absolutely detrimental to this athletic department and anyone else’s outside of it. Anyone pretending that to not be the case at this point is a lost cause.

 

[superjohn]

Okay. There’s two components - the lawsuit from athletes suing for lost NIL opportunities they suffered before the NCAA allowed NIL. That lawsuit will involve retroactive payment to 15,000 athletes across a broad spectrum of sports. (House vs NCAA….Graham House was a swimmer at Arizona State, so you can see how broad the beneficiaries will be.)

We will be on the hook to pay football, basketball and women’s basketball players going back to 2016. Whether we would have to pay swimmers, soccer players, track athletes, hockey players….I don’t know. How big the hit will be to UConn? I don’t know. In any event, I don’t think this is the main source our troubles. Read on…

In the settlement of that case, there is expected to be a framework in place to pay athletes going forward - basically, NIL will come in house. The article theorizes a $20M top end per year with schools able to opt in and decide how much they’re going to share with their athletes. Opting out means oblivion; we’re likely going to have to match our ACC/Big 10/B12 peers or suffer the consequences.

In addition, you still have the Charlie Baker proposal out there that would create a subset of schools that would obligate themselves to pay something like $30,000 a year into a fund for every eligible athlete on campus. We have 600 athletes.

With the school proposing 15% across the board cuts to departments to cover the (poorly planned for) budget gaps over the next few years, one department that already loses $35,000,000 a year is going to need to either start losing $50,000,000 a year or sacrifice nearly everything other than our three revenue programs or try to compete while offering much less to student athletes.

Do you see the issue?

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.

 

[speckle]

Okay. There’s two components - the lawsuit from athletes suing for lost NIL opportunities they suffered before the NCAA allowed NIL. That lawsuit will involve retroactive payment to 15,000 athletes across a broad spectrum of sports. (House vs NCAA….Graham House was a swimmer at Arizona State, so you can see how broad the beneficiaries will be.)

We will be on the hook to pay football, basketball and women’s basketball players going back to 2016. Whether we would have to pay swimmers, soccer players, track athletes, hockey players….I don’t know. How big the hit will be to UConn? I don’t know. In any event, I don’t think this is the main source our troubles. Read on…

In the settlement of that case, there is expected to be a framework in place to pay athletes going forward - basically, NIL will come in house. The article theorizes a $20M top end per year with schools able to opt in and decide how much they’re going to share with their athletes. Opting out means oblivion; we’re likely going to have to match our ACC/Big 10/B12 peers or suffer the consequences.

In addition, you still have the Charlie Baker proposal out there that would create a subset of schools that would obligate themselves to pay something like $30,000 a year into a fund for every eligible athlete on campus. We have 600 athletes.

With the school proposing 15% across the board cuts to departments to cover the (poorly planned for) budget gaps over the next few years, one department that already loses $35,000,000 a year is going to need to either start losing $50,000,000 a year or sacrifice nearly everything other than our three revenue programs or try to compete while offering much less to student athletes.

Do you see the issue?

Thanks for the write up. It appears that the big football schools are one again using the the NCAA the install price cap and floor measures to solidify their standings. While they will likely be accountable for the vast majority of retroactive NIL out, their large TV contracts easily cover the $20mil NIL/salary opt in. I don't think we necessarily see a straight $20mil loss however since I would imagine the school would be able to resell the NIL rights it would automatically acquire through this framework, potentially matching or exceeding current NIL fundraising. Ironically I kind of see this as the NCAA negotiating against the majority of its members which could indeed lead to it's own destruction. Seems like a tough deal for any non top 40 football school, including all private schools. Juice ain't worth the squeeze here imo

 

[Drew]

 

[speckle]

This is very very bad news for UConn. We do not remotely have the money to do this.

This is not going to replace NIL, this will be happening in conjunction with it. And I would expect eventually the $20M school revenue sharing number gets litigated higher until there is no cap (just like NIL) unless there is some sort of collective bargaining agreement in place for it

I would strongly advise in actually spending LARGE amounts of money to support our football program. Long term not being in the P4 will be absolutely detrimental to this athletic department and anyone else’s outside of it. Anyone pretending that to not be the case at this point is a lost cause.

I interpreted the article differently although I could be mistaken. I believe the big football schools want to inhouse NIL with a cap at $20mil. Otherwise how would their retroactive payout be calculated?

 

[JungleLobo]

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.

Good idea. Get rid of non-revenue generating band, cheerleaders, student managers (even future NBA coaches of the year) and philosophy majors too.

 

[MilliniumPrince]

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.

You would have to completely kill football to stay in compliance with Title IX.

Or someone uses this to challenge Title IX, and good luck with that.

 

[superjohn]

You would have to completely kill football to stay in compliance with Title IX.

Or someone uses this to challenge Title IX, and good luck with that.

Our football was killed like 15 years ago, if this goes through I think a lot of football programs will be killed.

 

[storrsroars]

Okay. There’s two components - the lawsuit from athletes suing for lost NIL opportunities they suffered before the NCAA allowed NIL. That lawsuit will involve retroactive payment to 15,000 athletes across a broad spectrum of sports. (House vs NCAA….Graham House was a swimmer at Arizona State, so you can see how broad the beneficiaries will be.)

We will be on the hook to pay football, basketball and women’s basketball players going back to 2016. Whether we would have to pay swimmers, soccer players, track athletes, hockey players….I don’t know. How big the hit will be to UConn? I don’t know. In any event, I don’t think this is the main source our troubles. Read on…

In the settlement of that case, there is expected to be a framework in place to pay athletes going forward - basically, NIL will come in house. The article theorizes a $20M top end per year with schools able to opt in and decide how much they’re going to share with their athletes. Opting out means oblivion; we’re likely going to have to match our ACC/Big 10/B12 peers or suffer the consequences.

In addition, you still have the Charlie Baker proposal out there that would create a subset of schools that would obligate themselves to pay something like $30,000 a year into a fund for every eligible athlete on campus. We have 600 athletes.

With the school proposing 15% across the board cuts to departments to cover the (poorly planned for) budget gaps over the next few years, one department that already loses $35,000,000 a year is going to need to either start losing $50,000,000 a year or sacrifice nearly everything other than our three revenue programs or try to compete while offering much less to student athletes.

This is not going to replace NIL, this will be happening in conjunction with it. And I would expect eventually the $20M school revenue sharing number gets litigated higher until there is no cap (just like NIL) unless there is some sort of collective bargaining agreement in place for it

I would strongly advise in actually spending LARGE amounts of money to support our football program. Long term not being in the P4 will be absolutely detrimental to this athletic department and anyone else’s outside of it. Anyone pretending that to not be the case at this point is a lost cause.

I read the article as Fishy did, that NIL basically comes in house.

That said, using the limited amount of info out there that's been cobbled together, we're like 51st in terms of what the collectives have raised, over $3 mill. Which is more than 5 other P4s, and pretty much every G5. While we're a long way away from Texas, tOSU and LSU (all over $20 mill), there are a ton of schools in the $5-$6 mill range with competitive football that will also be hurt by this, even some from the SEC and B1G (i.e., we get more NIL than Maryland). I would think, using SJ's comment above, that schools would start to look at whether Title IX could be overturned, given the current makeup of SCOTUS, as there are likely enough teams that would be financially hobbled to the point of considering such a drastic outcome. And if it looks like SCOTUS would be willing to hear such case, well, everyone probably goes back to the negotiating table.

I also don't know what kind of rationale would be used to suggest a ton of former UConn athletes missed out on tens of thousands of NIL dollars. There aren't many pulling down NIL now. I don't think anyone on the swim team is making anything. Why would they be entitled to retroactive pay?

In short, it'll hurt. But I wouldn't jump to a conclusion that it's a death sentence at this point.

 

[Scrutiner]

Here's another take on this:

SEC, Big Ten developing plan to share revenue with players in potential landmark change to college athletics

The model being discussed by college sports' top conferences could go a long way toward settling outstanding lawsuits

www.cbssports.com

I hate to focus on doom and dread, but it's been one thing or another that's kept us out of a league with serious revenue and it looks as if the B1G and SEC have identified the next step to take to finish us (and most others) off. No wonder none of them have invited UConn to join their leagues and make them respectable in basketball. In a few years we won't be around.

This fits with my response to Superjohn about Charlie Baker and the fact the only people that can probably stop the insanity are the university presidents.

There has to be concern about the escalation of costs and distraction from the original goals of their institutions, even among the presidents in the leagues with the massive revenue streams, regarding where this is all leading.

The B1G and SEC are the ones that pushed for NIL after "full cost of attendance" wasn't enough to kill off the "lesser" schools like UConn.

Now that they've seen NIL wasn't enough to finish us off they've come up with this plan. If this happens broader participation in collegiate athletics at a high level will die and a limited number of schools with large TV revenue streams will continue in their revised and enhanced roles as the minor leagues for pro sports. Of course, the big boys could offer a gratuity to the "lesser" schools each time they poach one of their players for the new system.

I laugh when I hear the SEC and B1G talk about rewarding the kids for their hard work while they push forward with draconian plans to kill off thousands of programs that provide a path to a college degree in 15 to 20 sports for tens of thousands of athletes nationwide.

We've had a great ride the past 35 years but we'd better get in a major league soon if this proposal is passed. Otherwise, we'd best enjoy the next few years before the implosion while figuring out how to spend a lot of soon to be freed up time.

 

[speckle]

Folks, no reason to catastrophize about other sports. This is almost entirely about 85 full ride fb scholarship players each year and how to limit their current, past, and future earnings in way that is most palpable to the biggest football schools. So that Michigan, Ohio State, Texas, Alabama, Georgia, etc don't just bail on the NCAA all together.

 

[metsfan2323]

We've had a great ride the past 35 years but we'd better get in a major league soon if this proposal is passed. Otherwise, we'd best enjoy the next few years before the implosion while figuring out how to spend a lot of soon to be freed up time.

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.

 

[upstater]

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.

Or, maybe go with the common sense solution. Professionalize the revenue sports and allow them to use the university brand so there's some (faux) affiliation. I'm not sure how content fans will be with such a setup but I'm sure it would go over very well in Alabama, Ohio, Michigan, Florida and Georgia.

 

[upstater]

The B1G and SEC are the ones that pushed for NIL after "full cost of attendance" wasn't enough to kill off the "lesser" schools like UConn.

Ironically schools suffered a double whammy when it came to full cost because the Obama administration insisted that full costs be made public. But these big schools wanted to maximize full cost payouts to athletes so they jacked up the full costs. It inflates costs with things that are not paid to universities and have nothing to do with attending a university (I'm surprised they didn't include underwear as a cost of attendance, as though a generation of young people would otherwise go commando if they didn't attend university).

So now we have parents looking at the true cost of attendance as being $6k over tuition, room & board, fees and books. As though an $85k bill wasn't already high enough.

 

[shizzle787]

This isn’t good news.

Basically, it will be an eight figure hit to our yearly athletic budget.

We will pay and so will the rest of the Big East.

 

[shizzle787]

This is a disaster for UConn.

The NIL booster stuff is still going to go on regardless. Nothing to stop it.

But now schools are going to pay $20m on top of that?

Where is UConn going to find an extra $20m per year?

And how is all that backpay going to happen? Where is it going to come from?

It's a weird concept too. The NLRB has ruled against colleges when it comes to unionization of TAs. No doubt it found exploitation. Are they going to pay every former TA some money into perpetuity?

State income tax $10/year surcharge for each of the state’s 2 million taxpayers.