NCAA reorg imminent

[Big Dog]

it may be sooner than you think. The current Chancellor is retiring next June. New Prez will commission a study -- of course, its academia -- with the results due 6-9 months later.

Cal faces a significant rebuild of the on-campus Edwards stadium, used by track and field and baseball. Easier and cheaper to just cut the teams.

To get back on topic, this will be the new financial reality of any relegated teams, and non-diverse men's lax will be an easy target.

Specifically though the target is smaller but upper level football schools. depending on final outcomes this might include UVA, UNC, Duke (not this year though it appears), Syracuse, Utah, Air Force, Army, Navy & Rutgers. The FCS and Big East schools should be fine as well as UMass and some or many still want the cohort these days.

So realistically who’s at risk. The middle market could see a squeeze but that would be more Administrations taking advantage of the opportunity to do it more than pure fiscal.

Maybe 1/3 - 1/2 that list. Maybe-those are a lot of programs with long history and deep financially viable alumnus bases. Then a few others here or there. It’s still a revenue generator.

The other risk? Mid sized state schools. The whole SUNY system is a mess, no idea how UMass is but if some get in trouble then they could be cut. A SUNY Binghamton or UMass Lowell.

Maybe we lose 10 over 10yrs or so.

Agree, but that will also affect conference memberships for lax. The BiG could lose its automatic qualifier if one team drops. The ACC lax conf could implode if a team or two gets relegated.

[a fan]

this is patently false. D3 athletic opportunities represent a multiple of D1, do they not? Colleges make choices every day about how they want to allocate scholarships to athletes.

And the NCAA ruled that colleges and anyone else can pay these kids what the market will bear.

DIII is gone. Schools are welcome to do as they like, and if the NCAA tries to stop them or penalize them, a College can sue.

All that's holding it together is that the first college hasn't fired the first shot.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.espn.com/mens-college-baske ... g-unionize

I may have missed this earlier…

[Farfromgeneva]

https://www.espn.com/mens-college-baske ... g-unionize

I may have missed this earlier…

I mean does a 15 person squad have to be in SEIU? I’m expecting collective bargaining comes eventually, seems early but will be tested numerous times, but this feels like the Union pushing it on the kids (not to take their agency away but college kids can be sold on ideals thisquick).

Somehow the Northwestern one seemed more organic or student athlete driven rather than outside but this is will a non stop test of the limits. And broke through eventually.

[Farfromgeneva]

it may be sooner than you think. The current Chancellor is retiring next June. New Prez will commission a study -- of course, its academia -- with the results due 6-9 months later.

Cal faces a significant rebuild of the on-campus Edwards stadium, used by track and field and baseball. Easier and cheaper to just cut the teams.

To get back on topic, this will be the new financial reality of any relegated teams, and non-diverse men's lax will be an easy target.

Specifically though the target is smaller but upper level football schools. depending on final outcomes this might include UVA, UNC, Duke (not this year though it appears), Syracuse, Utah, Air Force, Army, Navy & Rutgers. The FCS and Big East schools should be fine as well as UMass and some or many still want the cohort these days.

So realistically who’s at risk. The middle market could see a squeeze but that would be more Administrations taking advantage of the opportunity to do it more than pure fiscal.

Maybe 1/3 - 1/2 that list. Maybe-those are a lot of programs with long history and deep financially viable alumnus bases. Then a few others here or there. It’s still a revenue generator.

The other risk? Mid sized state schools. The whole SUNY system is a mess, no idea how UMass is but if some get in trouble then they could be cut. A SUNY Binghamton or UMass Lowell.

Maybe we lose 10 over 10yrs or so.

Agree, but that will also affect conference memberships for lax. The BiG could lose its automatic qualifier if one team drops. The ACC lax conf could implode if a team or two gets relegated.

Who knows what the conferences will be or mean, they could all be set up as loose federations like ND in the ACC down the road or not exist at all. There’s a redundancy and inefficiency of having too many organizing bodies collectively negotiating and too much slippage for it to last.

Bigger issue is for smaller school or legacy folks who wrap their identity in any way in their schools lacrosse program as the sport potentially gets marginalized in the big money mess. We see it all the time where guys who didn’t play, didn’t go to a school etc want to be considered a major national sport and national profile but keep their small sport advantage.

[runrussellrun]

Bigger issue is for smaller school or legacy folks who wrap their identity in any way in their schools lacrosse program as the sport potentially gets marginalized in the big money mess. We see it all the time where guys who didn’t play, didn’t go to a school etc want to be considered a major national sport and national profile but keep their small sport advantage.

We see what , all the time? What is this sentence referencing ? Whom?

[HooDat]

Not sure that an opinion can be "patently false", but removing that hyperbole, you make a sound argument.

fair

Will that not shrink D1 competition to just those schools and the specific sports with alumni bases that have relatively unlimited deep pockets?

to an extent - yes, I think this is the future of "big money" college sports. Schools like UVA, Duke, Stanford and Cal have decisions to make. It seems like Michigan has already decided. Ultimately is there room for an "Ivy +" league? One where relatively competitive sports is part of the offering, but school is the real goal.... I hope so, but not sure. See afan's comments re D3 below. They could get really whacked if some of those schools decide to offer money.

What does that mean for the other sports?

this is the million dollar question. Because as you say, one school dedicating a small (relative to football or basketball) amount of money could dominate a non-revenue sport. AD's are going to be forced to make all sorts of decisions and it will make Hop's angst about D1 lacrosse and D3 everything else look like a 3 piece jigsaw puzzle.

this is patently false. D3 athletic opportunities represent a multiple of D1, do they not? Colleges make choices every day about how they want to allocate scholarships to athletes.

And the NCAA ruled that colleges and anyone else can pay these kids what the market will bear.

DIII is gone. Schools are welcome to do as they like, and if the NCAA tries to stop them or penalize them, a College can sue.

All that's holding it together is that the first college hasn't fired the first shot.

The mess will be huge. But I think the way sports are organized is going to have to completely change, and schools will have to decide what level or support they want to live with.

Legal question is that if a league decides they are going to be pure amateur - can they prohibit players who have received money from competing in their particular league?

[Farfromgeneva]

Not sure that an opinion can be "patently false", but removing that hyperbole, you make a sound argument.

fair

Will that not shrink D1 competition to just those schools and the specific sports with alumni bases that have relatively unlimited deep pockets?

to an extent - yes, I think this is the future of "big money" college sports. Schools like UVA, Duke, Stanford and Cal have decisions to make. It seems like Michigan has already decided. Ultimately is there room for an "Ivy +" league? One where relatively competitive sports is part of the offering, but school is the real goal.... I hope so, but not sure. See afan's comments re D3 below. They could get really whacked if some of those schools decide to offer money.

What does that mean for the other sports?

this is the million dollar question. Because as you say, one school dedicating a small (relative to football or basketball) amount of money could dominate a non-revenue sport. AD's are going to be forced to make all sorts of decisions and it will make Hop's angst about D1 lacrosse and D3 everything else look like a 3 piece jigsaw puzzle.

this is patently false. D3 athletic opportunities represent a multiple of D1, do they not? Colleges make choices every day about how they want to allocate scholarships to athletes.

And the NCAA ruled that colleges and anyone else can pay these kids what the market will bear.

DIII is gone. Schools are welcome to do as they like, and if the NCAA tries to stop them or penalize them, a College can sue.

All that's holding it together is that the first college hasn't fired the first shot.

The mess will be huge. But I think the way sports are organized is going to have to completely change, and schools will have to decide what level or support they want to live with.

Legal question is that if a league decides they are going to be pure amateur - can they prohibit players who have received money from competing in their particular league?

Don’t forget Hobarts been living with that for a while too without the ability to offer scholarships until last year as well. So we’ve dealt with this for 40yrs now. Being in the middle and trying to remain competitive.

Supposedly NCAA says you can’t scholarship for lacrosse and play D3 football which we’ve had success with. But for our weak administration in Geneva and historical basis relationship with the NCAA is love to test it soon.

We’ve had some greats who played two sports over the years. It’s been gone for a couple of years now because of NCAAs which is dumb.

[ggait]

Legal question is that if a league decides they are going to be pure amateur - can they prohibit players who have received money from competing in their particular league?

Schools can likely do what they want so long as they are opting out of big business college sports.

And if you want to REALLY be pure amatuer, you would get rid of athletic schollies. Since athletic scholarships are obviously compensation and pay-for-play. Just do need based aid like the Ivies do. That is real amateurism.

Big money college sports where players are compensated, but their allowed compensation is limited by illegal collusive methods, is not amateurism. It is basically running a plantation.

[HooDat]

Legal question is that if a league decides they are going to be pure amateur - can they prohibit players who have received money from competing in their particular league?

Schools can likely do what they want so long as they are opting out of big business college sports.

And if you want to REALLY be pure amatuer, you would get rid of athletic schollies. Since athletic scholarships are obviously compensation and pay-for-play. Just do need based aid like the Ivies do. That is real amateurism.

Big money college sports where players are compensated, but their allowed compensation is limited by illegal collusive methods, is not amateurism. It is basically running a plantation.

yep - while the coaches make $5 to $10 million a year, and the schools bring in $100's of millions in tv money and donor money off of the backs of the players...

As I have said, and will continue to say. Time to blow it all up and just skip straight the have's and have-not's. Too many schools (like my alma mater) that are LARPing around pretending they have the stomach to compete - esp in football.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Legal question is that if a league decides they are going to be pure amateur - can they prohibit players who have received money from competing in their particular league?

Schools can likely do what they want so long as they are opting out of big business college sports.

And if you want to REALLY be pure amatuer, you would get rid of athletic schollies. Since athletic scholarships are obviously compensation and pay-for-play. Just do need based aid like the Ivies do. That is real amateurism.

Big money college sports where players are compensated, but their allowed compensation is limited by illegal collusive methods, is not amateurism. It is basically running a plantation.

yep - while the coaches make $5 to $10 million a year, and the schools bring in $100's of millions in tv money and donor money off of the backs of the players...

As I have said, and will continue to say. Time to blow it all up and just skip straight the have's and have-not's. Too many schools (like my alma mater) that are LARPing around pretending they have the stomach to compete - esp in football.

It is not going to happen, but if a scholarship and stipend aren’t enough, kids should just turn pro. College football will be fine with whomever suits up. NFL scab teams have proven that. Let the NFL set up a farm league. Basketball and all the other sports already offer an alternative to college….kids skip college and play NLL right now.

[HooDat]

Legal question is that if a league decides they are going to be pure amateur - can they prohibit players who have received money from competing in their particular league?

Schools can likely do what they want so long as they are opting out of big business college sports.

And if you want to REALLY be pure amatuer, you would get rid of athletic schollies. Since athletic scholarships are obviously compensation and pay-for-play. Just do need based aid like the Ivies do. That is real amateurism.

Big money college sports where players are compensated, but their allowed compensation is limited by illegal collusive methods, is not amateurism. It is basically running a plantation.

yep - while the coaches make $5 to $10 million a year, and the schools bring in $100's of millions in tv money and donor money off of the backs of the players...

As I have said, and will continue to say. Time to blow it all up and just skip straight the have's and have-not's. Too many schools (like my alma mater) that are LARPing around pretending they have the stomach to compete - esp in football.

It is not going to happen, but if a scholarship and stipend aren’t enough, kids should just turn pro. College football will be fine with whomever suits up. NFL scab teams have proven that. Let the NFL set up a farm league. Basketball and all the other sports already offer an alternative to college….kids skip college and play NLL right now.

You are correct - way too much money is on the table. The NFL farm league is never going to happen either - again because of money. And it isn't the salaries, I am pretty confident that the NFL would be more than happy to pay a NFL "G" League player $250,000-$1,000,000 if they got a similar revenue stream as college football. But there are two problems with that: (1) they are not at all confident a farm-league would replicate the college football revenue stream without the built-in fan base that colleges provide and (2) they are not willing to absorb the disability liability exposure for that huge farm system of players 90% of whom will not make it to the NFL.

They have a farm league - it is called College Football, and they are willing to let the colleges make that money in exchange for eliminating the liability burden and vetting literally 19,000 (+) players. Especially since they are not convinced that they could generate anywhere near the same amount of revenues....

[Farfromgeneva]

Could these two groups see the opportunity and execute better than FBS?

https://www.axios.com/2023/09/19/xfl-usfl-merger

[wgdsr]

surprised doc hasn't posted this yet from his *conferences blowing up* feed:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaafb ... 1gPDBs%7C1

long story short, the big 12 commish and some of his cronies buckled and basically let texas and okla out for free-ish. they'll lose some on not getting a full media payout for year 1 (only?) but will make back an undetermined amount thru other means including... an espn bridge payment. this is in lieu of as much as:
~ $80 million or so each in 1 year gor + exit
or
~ $100 million total for the 2, supposedly negotiated as their way out one year early to cut ties. which turns out isn't a payment but mostly a forfeiture of getting money from the b1g 12 when they're no longer in the league.

so... it's one year instead of 13 for a gor, but i'd have to think clemmy and fsu are salivating. and unc.

at least several ad's including ksu are dumbfounded it went down this way.. reportedly.

[Farfromgeneva]

surprised doc hasn't posted this yet from his *conferences blowing up* feed:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaafb ... 1gPDBs%7C1

long story short, the big 12 commish and some of his cronies buckled and basically let texas and okla out for free-ish. they'll lose some on not getting a full media payout for year 1 (only?) but will make back an undetermined amount thru other means including... an espn bridge payment. this is in lieu of as much as:
~ $80 million or so each in 1 year gor + exit
or
~ $100 million total for the 2, supposedly negotiated as their way out one year early to cut ties. which turns out isn't a payment but mostly a forfeiture of getting money from the b1g 12 when they're no longer in the league.

so... it's one year instead of 13 for a gor, but i'd have to think clemmy and fsu are salivating. and unc.

at least several ad's including ksu are dumbfounded it went down this way.. reportedly.

Been thinking the same thing but presume he’s busy with work. Never doubted he works hard. Just the grandiose statements with no skin in the game and eagerness to take gains for claims while shedding risk to his credibility for the vast plethora of statements and projections that end up grossly incorrect.

[DocBarrister]

surprised doc hasn't posted this yet from his *conferences blowing up* feed:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaafb ... 1gPDBs%7C1

long story short, the big 12 commish and some of his cronies buckled and basically let texas and okla out for free-ish. they'll lose some on not getting a full media payout for year 1 (only?) but will make back an undetermined amount thru other means including... an espn bridge payment. this is in lieu of as much as:
~ $80 million or so each in 1 year gor + exit
or
~ $100 million total for the 2, supposedly negotiated as their way out one year early to cut ties. which turns out isn't a payment but mostly a forfeiture of getting money from the b1g 12 when they're no longer in the league.

so... it's one year instead of 13 for a gor, but i'd have to think clemmy and fsu are salivating. and unc.

at least several ad's including ksu are dumbfounded it went down this way.. reportedly.

Been thinking the same thing but presume he’s busy with work. Never doubted he works hard. Just the grandiose statements with no skin in the game and eagerness to take gains for claims while shedding risk to his credibility for the vast plethora of statements and projections that end up grossly incorrect.

Have indeed been busy with work … including two cases headed to trial unless they settle. On Tuesday, drove into the office at 4:30 am.

Anyway, the latest rumors:

Now news is coming out of South Carolina that Clemson may be announcing its departure from the league later this month.

It has long been speculated Clemson has similar feelings as Florida State regarding the ACC’s current financial gap compared to the SEC and Big Ten — but there hadn’t been the kinds of public rumblings from Clemson that FSU administrators have been so freely airing.

That changed last week with two bombshell reports. Gene Sapakoff of the Post & Courier first reported that Clemson administrators were in talks with both the SEC and Big Ten while Larry Williams of Tigers Illustrated stated he expects Clemson to announce their departure from the ACC in October.

https://www.tomahawknation.com/platform ... ec-big-ten

DocBarrister

[pcowlax]

Hm. Well that article pretty much says nothing has changed. Clemson and a few other schools really want out. Some other conferences would take them, depending on which school. There is plenty of smoke to say that these schools are unhappy. It is a matter of when not if that they leave….and that there is a huge difference between having 1 and 13 years left in a contract and GOR, this makes it a completely difference situation than Texas and OU and it is unclear how they can get out of it. It does tuck that last fact at the bottom to try to keep you reading. Song remains the same. No way these schools are in through the full length of the contract. No way the other schools let them out this early without paying virtually all of the penalty (why on earth would they?) and no way FSU or Clemson can pay that much. If, as seems to have at least been explored, they got some investment firms to finance it by in effect buying part of the athletic departments by floating the debt, they would physically have enough money but that seems an impossible PR sell.

[DocBarrister]

Hm. Well that article pretty much says nothing has changed. Clemson and a few other schools really want out. Some other conferences would take them, depending on which school. There is plenty of smoke to say that these schools are unhappy. It is a matter of when not if that they leave….and that there is a huge difference between having 1 and 13 years left in a contract and GOR, this makes it a completely difference situation than Texas and OU and it is unclear how they can get out of it. It does tuck that last fact at the bottom to try to keep you reading. Song remains the same. No way these schools are in through the full length of the contract. No way the other schools let them out this early without paying virtually all of the penalty (why on earth would they?) and no way FSU or Clemson can pay that much. If, as seems to have at least been explored, they got some investment firms to finance it by in effect buying part of the athletic departments by floating the debt, they would physically have enough money but that seems an impossible PR sell.

You missed the most important tidbit … that ESPN is helping Texas and OK transition to the SEC with some $$$. Remember, the Big 12 once openly (and credibly) accused ESPN of trying to screw over the conference to help the SEC steal TX and OK.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/s ... atform=amp

Does ESPN really want to keep overpaying schools like Boston College, Syracuse, NC State, and Wake Forest when all they really want are the 5 million pairs of eyeballs that FSU draws every week? FSU was leading ACC viewership even when their fb team sucked. FSU now ranks 5th in the latest AP poll.

Anyone doubt that ESPN is up to some mischief?

Besides, ESPN has been looking for budget cuts. How about cutting the $30 million+ it pays annually to each of the viewership bottom dwellers of the ACC?

Ok, I gotta get back to work ….

DocBarrister

[wgdsr]

surprised doc hasn't posted this yet from his *conferences blowing up* feed:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaafb ... 1gPDBs%7C1

long story short, the big 12 commish and some of his cronies buckled and basically let texas and okla out for free-ish. they'll lose some on not getting a full media payout for year 1 (only?) but will make back an undetermined amount thru other means including... an espn bridge payment. this is in lieu of as much as:
~ $80 million or so each in 1 year gor + exit
or
~ $100 million total for the 2, supposedly negotiated as their way out one year early to cut ties. which turns out isn't a payment but mostly a forfeiture of getting money from the b1g 12 when they're no longer in the league.

so... it's one year instead of 13 for a gor, but i'd have to think clemmy and fsu are salivating. and unc.

at least several ad's including ksu are dumbfounded it went down this way.. reportedly.

Been thinking the same thing but presume he’s busy with work. Never doubted he works hard. Just the grandiose statements with no skin in the game and eagerness to take gains for claims while shedding risk to his credibility for the vast plethora of statements and projections that end up grossly incorrect.

Have indeed been busy with work … including two cases headed to trial unless they settle. On Tuesday, drove into the office at 4:30 am.

Anyway, the latest rumors:

Now news is coming out of South Carolina that Clemson may be announcing its departure from the league later this month.

It has long been speculated Clemson has similar feelings as Florida State regarding the ACC’s current financial gap compared to the SEC and Big Ten — but there hadn’t been the kinds of public rumblings from Clemson that FSU administrators have been so freely airing.

That changed last week with two bombshell reports. Gene Sapakoff of the Post & Courier first reported that Clemson administrators were in talks with both the SEC and Big Ten while Larry Williams of Tigers Illustrated stated he expects Clemson to announce their departure from the ACC in October.

https://www.tomahawknation.com/platform ... ec-big-ten

DocBarrister

had no idea larry williams expected clemson to announce their departure in october. this bombshell changes everything. thank you.

[ggait]

Wow.

I’ll check back in on 11/1.

OU and UT haggled a deal to get out one year early. Which means Clemson and FSU should have no problem ditching 13 years early.

Got it.