NCAA, Power 5 agree to let schools pay players

#51      

BashCtIllini

BashCtIllini
BashCtIllini
BBallGuy said:
TV revenue will be the number one place money comes from. Ticket sales will compliment, not support, basketball and football programs.
Click to expand...
Why would television networks offer up this money? Because you changed your rules, now I need to pay you? Where else are you going to go? Also, all the major conferences have their own networks already. I'm sure there will be some type of agreement made, but the national networks only play games on the weekends. Most of the games are aired on ESPN or Fox Sports, which I believe are both ultimately owned by Disney, who is going broke.

Where my mind keeps going is not non-revenue sports, but small programs. As conferences merge into mega conferences, that is going to leave mid and low majors even further outside. When the top 60-80 programs are paying every player $100k+ through a mix of direct payments and NIL, with top guys making well over $1 million, how in the world does anyone outside those top conferences, who get by far the most revenue, keep up?
 
#53      

Battle89

Battle89
Battle89
Mr. Tibbs said:
traditional college athletics are now dead, especially in the revenue sports

P5 football will leave the NCAA, and there will be a new governing body , which is good. Most of this mess is the NCAA's fault
The NCAA will be for all the other schools in DI, DII and DIII
Click to expand...
That was my biggest laugh in the original tweet / post here..."the NCAA and its leagues"...those leagues (at least two of them) will be off doing their own thing sooner rather than later.
 
#54      

Illini09

I
Illini09
sdiver68 said:
I don't believe independent contractor status would ever fly in court. There are rules and legal tests for which classification applies.

Although 1099 v W2 can be abused at times, any IRS or court challenge to an improperly classified role will often result in reclassification with back pay and benefits. Just ask Microsoft.

Taking a step back, I believe collective bargaining to be the answer as it is for other pro sports.
Click to expand...
Agree - zero chance college athletes will be independent contractors. To make that work you'd have to have them paying for all their own expenses - jersey's, travel, coaches/trainers, rental of facilities, etc.. In addition, the school could not direct the athletes in their "duties" in any way, meaning the school would have to basically say "we'll pay you X dollars to play the sport" and that's all the involvement the school could have. The athletes would have to be responsible for organizing their own practices, training sessions, tape sessions and getting to/from games. There might even be an issue with having the coach, who is a university employee, directing the athletes in doing their "jobs" a certain way... I don't think this is remotely possible, especially given these are a bunch of 18-22 yr old kids lol
 
#57      

Calvin

C
Calvin
illini80 said:
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1793999190852247634
Click to expand...

The comments in his post are IMHO, spot on, perhaps the biggest one being:
"Every pro league has robust cost containment provisions to make them sustainable. History shows that without them the pressure to spend is too great. The irony is college athletics, run by nonprofit institutions, has minimal rules. And thus schools, funded by tuition and student fees, blow their brains out trying to compete."
 
#58      

OrangeKrush1981

OrangeKrush1981
OrangeKrush1981
Rinses?

Am I wrong, or is the actual profit of ownership of professional sports teams in fact achieved upon sale of the team. Or do team owners net (after paying staff salaries, travel, etc.) substantial money annually? I sure don't think they lose money, but how much do they clear as profit each year?
 
#59      

OrangeKrush1981

OrangeKrush1981
OrangeKrush1981
Yep.

A lot of university professors have a negative view about college athletics in part because of the financial losses incurred by almost all colleges and universities in the country as a result of the costs of running athletics programs.
 
#60      

Epsilon

Epsilon
M tipping over
Pdx
Epsilon
ChiefGritty said:
Private money becomes state money once it enters the state coffers.
Click to expand...
Yes and no really. Private money goes into a fund that the school controls, and restrictions can be placed on those donations, so you can ask that your donation not be applied to the general fund, for example. But the fund doesn’t employ anyone directly. That space belongs (rightfully so) with the school.
 
#62      

Fan Since '70

Fan Since '70
OBS, Florida
Fan Since '70
illini80 said:
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1793999190852247634
Click to expand...
https://www.illinoisloyalty.com/post/nil-thread-name-image-likeness-rule.34582/post-2087330

Can college athletics as we knew it survive as we know it. Probably not. If schools start paying players from revenue sharing (BNIL), many to most schools won't have enough left over to fund less popular, non-revenue sports which will be terminated. Title IX adherence means sports will be cut equally across men's and women's sports.

Many schools are already underwater (even Covid sunk some programs, which have already cut back on sports offered) and more will go deeply into the red as well. Changes will occur fairly quickly. If the amount schools can pay their athletes varies greatly, the best athletes will flock to those schools in high revenue sports.

Athletes and their lawyers may not be satisfied with 20% revenue sharing and will quickly sue for more to move towards 50% pro sports athletes receive. College athletics will never be the same, as schools athletic departments go into the red, non-revenue sports are reduced or terminated and some schools may even drop all sports, just unable to compete anymore with schools having greater revenue and donor funding.
 
#63      

Goillinikobd

Goillinikobd
Southeastern US
Goillinikobd
GatorMcKlusky said:
Could college baseball come out of this the big winner? Instead of toiling in the minors, would the best young players prefer a guaranteed four-year college salary?
Click to expand...
Might delay their promo to the majors by a few years at 500k per year. It’s a gamble, a sure salary or a two year career in the minors for peanuts. I forget the odds of making the Show, but they are slim.
 
#64      

1970 John

1970 John
1970 John
If the players will be paid like professionals, then you are what you eat. Let them be professionals. Professionals don't have to take college courses, don't get college degrees, and they don't get "scholarships." And they don't play for state-run agencies. The time has come for what I have proposed tongue in cheek, whole scale professional teams, privately owned and reaching agreements with the athletics department ("host") for rental of facilities, use of school trademarks, etc. The team ownership would be freet to move from one university to another, which ever gives them the most favorable deal, and could be "fired" by the host school, all subject to whatever contract can be reached between owner and host. Fans? Fans are fans of pro teams. If one moves out of a city and another moves in, the teams will start following the new team.

Membership in the new collegiate league would be optional. Schools could remain in the traditional relationships. Those who want to have traditional student-athletes could set up their own leagues, or they could go the University of Chicago format.

So everyone is happy, the fans who think colleges have been enslaving their players will have free-agent players to cheer for, and traditional sports fans will have the opportunities to cheer for traditional teams, maybe just not at the school they formerly were loyal to. Any Division II school near you than needs fans on Saturday?
 
#66      

Epsilon

Epsilon
M tipping over
Pdx
Epsilon
ChiefGritty said:
I do find the "this is the end of college athletics" stuff pretty amusing given that this settlement is essentially just ratifying the status quo we entered 2-3 years ago.

The question is what is Congress' appetite for putting Humpty Dumpty back together again.
Click to expand...
While these reactions seem a bit over the top there will undoubtedly be unintended consequences.

As far as status quo, the pay scale is going to be hugely imbalanced like it is now for NIL - it’s not like non-revenue sports athletes will all of the sudden be making six figure incomes. It’s probably just going to be a bit of a shell game in terms of how the money flows instead of how bad it will be for school programs. In fact, it could even add some transparency to how much athletes receive, although this doesn’t mean NIL is gone. I’ll be curious to see how this all shakes out.

And let’s not forget (not directed at you Gritty) - student athletes have been taken advantage of for decades. It’s about time the economics of the sport start to reflect who’s really earning money for the schools. There might be some growing pains, but that is not an acceptable excuse for continuing to exploit student athletes.
 
#68      

AutoPoster 3000

AutoPoster 3000
AutoPoster 3000
It’s time we abandon this defunct conception of “college sports” as some kind of cohesive institution that encompasses every program at every school. Revenue-generating major college football and basketball have morphed their own thing and need to be spun off, restructured, and regulated as such, for better or worse. “College athletics”—e.g, gymnastics or wrestling or a lowly FCS football program that generates no income from broadcast rights—there is no reason these can’t continue. Most universities don’t have even one true revenue generating team and yet they maintain vibrant programs for their “student-athletes” (as historically defined). Now, major college football and basketball as we once knew it—that is dead. What replaces it may or not appeal to a large number of fans. But why continue to link those fortunes to university athletic departments that are not equipped to operate professional sports franchises on this new scale. Little that works for Alabama Crimson Tide Football (TM) is going to make sense for a women’s lacrosse player at the University of Denver. So let’s just separate them completely.
 
Last edited:
#69      

Mr. Tibbs

Mr. Tibbs
southeast DuPage
Mr. Tibbs
AutoPoster 3000 said:
It’s time we abandon this defunct conception of “college sports” as some kind of cohesive institution that encompasses every program at every school. Revenue-generating major college football and basketball have morphed their own thing and need to be spun off, restructured, and regulated as such, for better or worse. “College athletics”—e.g, gymnastics or wrestling or a lowly FCS football program that generates no income from broadcast rights—there is no reason these can’t continue. Most universities don’t have even one true revenue generating team and yet they maintain vibrant programs for their “student-athletes” (as historically defined). Now, major college football and basketball as we once knew it—that is dead. What replaces it may or not appeal to a large number of fans. But why continue to link those fortunes to university athletic departments that are not equipped to operate professional sports franchises on this new scale. Little that works for Alabama Crimson Tide Football (TM) is going to make sense for a women’s lacrosse player at the University of Denver. So let’s just separate them completely.
Click to expand...
Im with you for the most part

but how do you imagine ownership or control and governing body of the Power 4 football teams ? its a hard concept to imagine how thats done fairly
 
#72      

jacekpardol

jacekpardol
jacekpardol
AirNeazy said:
Yeah, I agree since of course colleges haven't been paying players for the last 70 years or anything like that.

Coincidentally for some reason I keep finding sand in my ears and hair........
Click to expand...
SO many during the Weber and Groce era were in complete denial that kids were getting paid before NIL.
 
#73      

grue2

G
grue2
A consequence of this seems to be that women players in non-revenue sports will be paid about the same as men in revenue sports. Those in sports without male equivalents will benefit the most.

My reasoning follows.

BASELINES:

Title IX: "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."

Court ruling: This shall apply to any institution receiving any federal aid directly or indirectly.
NCAA: The test shall be a proportional numbers of males and females participating.

I do not see anything about equal pay distribution between the sexes. I'd guess that if there was not, there would be a lawsuit rather quickly.

IMPLICATIONS:
If you have to have the same number M/F athletes, and you have to pay them the same, then the average pay must be the same.
If there are sports with both M/F teams, then the players need to be paid the same. (So lets assume M/F BB roughly washes.)
Thus to pay the FB players more, equal money must then go to women's sports without male equivalents.
 
#74      

Illinifrank67

Illinifrank67
Illinifrank67
AutoPoster 3000 said:
It’s time we abandon this defunct conception of “college sports” as some kind of cohesive institution that encompasses every program at every school. Revenue-generating major college football and basketball have morphed their own thing and need to be spun off, restructured, and regulated as such, for better or worse. “College athletics”—e.g, gymnastics or wrestling or a lowly FCS football program that generates no income from broadcast rights—there is no reason these can’t continue. Most universities don’t have even one true revenue generating team and yet they maintain vibrant programs for their “student-athletes” (as historically defined). Now, major college football and basketball as we once knew it—that is dead. What replaces it may or not appeal to a large number of fans. But why continue to link those fortunes to university athletic departments that are not equipped to operate professional sports franchises on this new scale. Little that works for Alabama Crimson Tide Football (TM) is going to make sense for a women’s lacrosse player at the University of Denver. So let’s just separate them completely.
Click to expand...
Maybe we eventually see a franchise system, where the university licenses a private company to use its brand for a fee. So for example the University of Illinois basketball team will be a company owned by a consortium that pays for the right to use the University of Illinois Brand. There might be other operational ties, but the arrangement will be similar to how a McDonald’s franchise relationship works. I think the only role of the NCAA is irrelevant anymore. Hopefully a Tier 1 tournament of some kind emerges to replace the NCAA tourney because I will be very sad if March Madness is a casually of war.
 
#75      

Snoopy

S
Snoopy
grue2 said:
A consequence of this seems to be that women players in non-revenue sports will be paid about the same as men in revenue sports. Those in sports without male equivalents will benefit the most.

My reasoning follows.

BASELINES:

Title IX: "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."

Court ruling: This shall apply to any institution receiving any federal aid directly or indirectly.
NCAA: The test shall be a proportional numbers of males and females participating.

I do not see anything about equal pay distribution between the sexes. I'd guess that if there was not, there would be a lawsuit rather quickly.

IMPLICATIONS:
If you have to have the same number M/F athletes, and you have to pay them the same, then the average pay must be the same.
If there are sports with both M/F teams, then the players need to be paid the same. (So lets assume M/F BB roughly washes.)
Thus to pay the FB players more, equal money must then go to women's sports without male equivalents.
Click to expand...
If they are smart they provide every athlete with a base stipend that increases for the number of years on the team. Provide bonuses for how the team finishes in the B1G, how far they go in the end of year tournaments, maybe all conference, all American, or other somewhat nonobjective criteria of success that would be difficult for Title IX suits to be filed on. Then let NIL deals create any larger spread between players of different talents and sports.

Otherwise they have to pay mens football players the same as womens gymnastic players, and decreasing the women's pay to make that work would be unfair.

businessofcollegesports.com

Female Gymnasts Are Proving to be Particularly Successful in NIL

Some of the top-performing female gymnasts in college athletics are also at the top of their game when it comes to NIL.
businessofcollegesports.com businessofcollegesports.com