NCAA reorg imminent

[a fan]

No, in the part that you cut, I expressly supported the athletes being able to fully and without limitation monetize their individual efforts. That's not the same as them being amateurs. Please read that again.

IF there's going to be full on pay for play organized and endorsed by the schools, then I AM asking for full transparency and I'm advocating for collective bargaining. And I'm expressing concern about what will happen with non-revenue sports.

Respectfully....you are indeed asking for limits. You want to limit scholarships still, do you not? Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Typical Lax Dad]

No, in the part that you cut, I expressly supported the athletes being able to fully and without limitation monetize their individual efforts. That's not the same as them being amateurs. Please read that again.

IF there's going to be full on pay for play organized and endorsed by the schools, then I AM asking for full transparency and I'm advocating for collective bargaining. And I'm expressing concern about what will happen with non-revenue sports.

Respectfully....you are indeed asking for limits. You want to limit scholarships still, do you not? Correct me if I'm wrong.

I do. These are recruiting inducements. Not pay for services. Name, Image, Likeness for kids nobody knows or recognizes. The NFL should fund a farm system. You don’t have to go to college to pursue a pro career in virtually every other sport. You want to be paid a market rate to be an athlete? Turn pro……BTW, we have been asked twice in three months to give so that athletes can be paid….

[a fan]

No, in the part that you cut, I expressly supported the athletes being able to fully and without limitation monetize their individual efforts. That's not the same as them being amateurs. Please read that again.

IF there's going to be full on pay for play organized and endorsed by the schools, then I AM asking for full transparency and I'm advocating for collective bargaining. And I'm expressing concern about what will happen with non-revenue sports.

Respectfully....you are indeed asking for limits. You want to limit scholarships still, do you not? Correct me if I'm wrong.

I do. These are recruiting inducements. Not pay for services.

Scholarships? Don't they lose them if they quit the team?

[Typical Lax Dad]

No, in the part that you cut, I expressly supported the athletes being able to fully and without limitation monetize their individual efforts. That's not the same as them being amateurs. Please read that again.

IF there's going to be full on pay for play organized and endorsed by the schools, then I AM asking for full transparency and I'm advocating for collective bargaining. And I'm expressing concern about what will happen with non-revenue sports.

Respectfully....you are indeed asking for limits. You want to limit scholarships still, do you not? Correct me if I'm wrong.

I do. These are recruiting inducements. Not pay for services.

Scholarships? Don't they lose them if they quit the team?

In the old days yes and in the old days it could be pulled but things have changed. Not everyone on a team is on scholarship….as an aside, you sending money from your company to Coach Prime so that he can pay his players?

[a fan]

No, in the part that you cut, I expressly supported the athletes being able to fully and without limitation monetize their individual efforts. That's not the same as them being amateurs. Please read that again.

IF there's going to be full on pay for play organized and endorsed by the schools, then I AM asking for full transparency and I'm advocating for collective bargaining. And I'm expressing concern about what will happen with non-revenue sports.

Respectfully....you are indeed asking for limits. You want to limit scholarships still, do you not? Correct me if I'm wrong.

I do. These are recruiting inducements. Not pay for services.

Scholarships? Don't they lose them if they quit the team?

In the old days yes and in the old days it could be pulled but things have changed. Not everyone on a team is on scholarship….as an aside, you sending money from your company to Coach Prime so that he can pay his players?

Pretty sure Prime is all over that already, thanks for asking.

[Typical Lax Dad]

No, in the part that you cut, I expressly supported the athletes being able to fully and without limitation monetize their individual efforts. That's not the same as them being amateurs. Please read that again.

IF there's going to be full on pay for play organized and endorsed by the schools, then I AM asking for full transparency and I'm advocating for collective bargaining. And I'm expressing concern about what will happen with non-revenue sports.

Respectfully....you are indeed asking for limits. You want to limit scholarships still, do you not? Correct me if I'm wrong.

I do. These are recruiting inducements. Not pay for services.

Scholarships? Don't they lose them if they quit the team?

In the old days yes and in the old days it could be pulled but things have changed. Not everyone on a team is on scholarship….as an aside, you sending money from your company to Coach Prime so that he can pay his players?

Pretty sure Prime is all over that already, thanks for asking.

Just wondering. Would you give if asked? Not out of your pocket but the company’s? I have been surveying people.

[MDlaxfan76]

No, in the part that you cut, I expressly supported the athletes being able to fully and without limitation monetize their individual efforts. That's not the same as them being amateurs. Please read that again.

IF there's going to be full on pay for play organized and endorsed by the schools, then I AM asking for full transparency and I'm advocating for collective bargaining. And I'm expressing concern about what will happen with non-revenue sports.

Respectfully....you are indeed asking for limits. You want to limit scholarships still, do you not? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Respectfully, you said "You're asking for the players to be amateurs, and everyone else involved is professional."

Patently false.

I'm advocating for individual pay for individual work. I'm cool with unlimited revenue generation by the individual.

If you're asking me what I'm "asking for" with regard to scholarships, I have no objection to every athlete getting a full scholarship (except for the likely cutting of the # of sports and athletes that will get support with an intercollegiate sports experience!). Indeed, that's what they get in the revenue sports. And I'm ok with pay to play on top for the revenue sports...sharing that massive revenue generation with them.

I'd prefer, if that's the case, for there to be collective bargaining with at least one objective being some degree of parity of pay across schools.

And if any pay to play is involved, as opposed to an individual truly doing individual work, individual tiktoks, individual endorsements, etc, then it should be 100% transparent. No reason to hide it if not shady.

But yeah, an arms race is going to drive a whole lot of schools to cut athlete opportunities. And that'd be a heck of a shame IMO.

[a fan]

No, in the part that you cut, I expressly supported the athletes being able to fully and without limitation monetize their individual efforts. That's not the same as them being amateurs. Please read that again.

IF there's going to be full on pay for play organized and endorsed by the schools, then I AM asking for full transparency and I'm advocating for collective bargaining. And I'm expressing concern about what will happen with non-revenue sports.

Respectfully....you are indeed asking for limits. You want to limit scholarships still, do you not? Correct me if I'm wrong.

I do. These are recruiting inducements. Not pay for services.

Scholarships? Don't they lose them if they quit the team?

In the old days yes and in the old days it could be pulled but things have changed. Not everyone on a team is on scholarship….as an aside, you sending money from your company to Coach Prime so that he can pay his players?

Pretty sure Prime is all over that already, thanks for asking.

Just wondering. Would you give if asked? Not out of your pocket but the company’s? I have been surveying people.

My business sector would keep me from giving to college students. Not a good look.

[a fan]

But yeah, an arms race is going to drive a whole lot of schools to cut athlete opportunities. And that'd be a heck of a shame IMO.

Id be shocked if this didn’t happen. And yes, thats a horrible outcome.

[Typical Lax Dad]

No, in the part that you cut, I expressly supported the athletes being able to fully and without limitation monetize their individual efforts. That's not the same as them being amateurs. Please read that again.

IF there's going to be full on pay for play organized and endorsed by the schools, then I AM asking for full transparency and I'm advocating for collective bargaining. And I'm expressing concern about what will happen with non-revenue sports.

Respectfully....you are indeed asking for limits. You want to limit scholarships still, do you not? Correct me if I'm wrong.

I do. These are recruiting inducements. Not pay for services.

Scholarships? Don't they lose them if they quit the team?

In the old days yes and in the old days it could be pulled but things have changed. Not everyone on a team is on scholarship….as an aside, you sending money from your company to Coach Prime so that he can pay his players?

Pretty sure Prime is all over that already, thanks for asking.

Just wondering. Would you give if asked? Not out of your pocket but the company’s? I have been surveying people.

My business sector would keep me from giving to college students. Not a good look.

Thanks. I forgot about the alcohol aspect.

[HooDat]

But yeah, an arms race is going to drive a whole lot of schools to cut athlete opportunities. And that'd be a heck of a shame IMO.

Id be shocked if this didn’t happen. And yes, thats a horrible outcome.

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.Money is fungible. The AD's can "spend" mythical tuition money anyway they want. One more kid in a class that didn't pay for the seat is not real money to the school. When it becomes an issue is when you have schools like Stanford and the Ivy's where a material percentage of the student body is an athlete. If every one of those kids were on full rides the math wouldn't work. Another way to think about it is those administrations have made the same choice a lot of D3 schools make - the non-scholarship kids are going to pay 2x to 3x the actual cost of delivering the education with the endowment will cover the rest; in order to build a student body that has a high percentage of student athletes. Why? Because those schools have determined that that profile is what they want - either because of the inherent work ethic or (more likely) because as alumni those students remain more engaged with the school and end up giving more money after graduation, perpetuating the endowment cycle.

There were scholarship athletes in every sport before the money became stupid, but perhaps not as many and not as deep within each team. Title IX made women's athletic scholarships something of a grift, as the AD's had to come up with some excuse to pay women the same as men ... I know that sounds sexist, but ping pong scholarships anyone???

The schools will adapt.

I for one would like to see the whole thing blow up, thereby forcing the hands of the schools to quit hiding behind the "amateur" designation in order to avoid disability liability exposure. The schools went "pro" a long time ago - and they did so on the backs of the students they were supposed to be entrusted to care for....

[Farfromgeneva]

But yeah, an arms race is going to drive a whole lot of schools to cut athlete opportunities. And that'd be a heck of a shame IMO.

Id be shocked if this didn’t happen. And yes, thats a horrible outcome.

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.Money is fungible. The AD's can "spend" mythical tuition money anyway they want. One more kid in a class that didn't pay for the seat is not real money to the school. When it becomes an issue is when you have schools like Stanford and the Ivy's where a material percentage of the student body is an athlete. If every one of those kids were on full rides the math wouldn't work. Another way to think about it is those administrations have made the same choice a lot of D3 schools make - the non-scholarship kids are going to pay 2x to 3x the actual cost of delivering the education with the endowment will cover the rest; in order to build a student body that has a high percentage of student athletes. Why? Because those schools have determined that that profile is what they want - either because of the inherent work ethic or (more likely) because as alumni those students remain more engaged with the school and end up giving more money after graduation, perpetuating the endowment cycle.

There were scholarship athletes in every sport before the money became stupid, but perhaps not as many and not as deep within each team. Title IX made women's athletic scholarships something of a grift, as the AD's had to come up with some excuse to pay women the same as men ... I know that sounds sexist, but ping pong scholarships anyone???

The schools will adapt.

I for one would like to see the whole thing blow up, thereby forcing the hands of the schools to quit hiding behind the "amateur" designation in order to avoid disability liability exposure. The schools went "pro" a long time ago - and they did so on the backs of the students they were supposed to be entrusted to care for....

Your last paragraph is how I’ve felt about the system for most of the FBS and into BCS days.

Earlier I agree that we have to look at a cash and “accrued” sources of revenue as different if related channels with “revenue synergies”.

[MDlaxfan76]

But yeah, an arms race is going to drive a whole lot of schools to cut athlete opportunities. And that'd be a heck of a shame IMO.

Id be shocked if this didn’t happen. And yes, thats a horrible outcome.

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.Money is fungible. The AD's can "spend" mythical tuition money anyway they want. One more kid in a class that didn't pay for the seat is not real money to the school. When it becomes an issue is when you have schools like Stanford and the Ivy's where a material percentage of the student body is an athlete. If every one of those kids were on full rides the math wouldn't work. Another way to think about it is those administrations have made the same choice a lot of D3 schools make - the non-scholarship kids are going to pay 2x to 3x the actual cost of delivering the education with the endowment will cover the rest; in order to build a student body that has a high percentage of student athletes. Why? Because those schools have determined that that profile is what they want - either because of the inherent work ethic or (more likely) because as alumni those students remain more engaged with the school and end up giving more money after graduation, perpetuating the endowment cycle.

There were scholarship athletes in every sport before the money became stupid, but perhaps not as many and not as deep within each team. Title IX made women's athletic scholarships something of a grift, as the AD's had to come up with some excuse to pay women the same as men ... I know that sounds sexist, but ping pong scholarships anyone???

The schools will adapt.

I for one would like to see the whole thing blow up, thereby forcing the hands of the schools to quit hiding behind the "amateur" designation in order to avoid disability liability exposure. The schools went "pro" a long time ago - and they did so on the backs of the students they were supposed to be entrusted to care for....

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

So, let's just focus on D1 lacrosse...and any other D1 non-revenue sport...how many programs will be able to be remotely competitive if a few ACC schools and Big 10 schools decide to pay an unlimited amount to their lax players in an arms race between them?

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

And what happens to the other sports at those high spending schools/boosters without such in that particular sport? Get cut? go club?

Do smaller schools without mega endowments decide they can only support a few sports or drop sports altogether as there just isn't an ability to compete? DII ?

And who says that this dynamic won't invade DIII ? Isn't there a handful of DIII's that have alumni bodies that could out pay their athletes versus others?

What does that mean for the other sports?

I don't know how this will necessarily play out, and I agree that different schools will "adapt" in different ways, but this arms race seems to me to inevitably drive towards fewer athletes being involved at all unless it's at a club level where the athletes pay to play.

BTW, I agree about the hiding behind amateur status stuff...these monies, if they're going to be allowed, should be entirely transparent.

I happen to have an Ivy interest and it will be interesting to see what transpires with our league. I asked a dad of nicely recruited player who just got offers from multiple Ivy and ACC schools...Ivies didn't talk NIL at all, perception not doing the pay the athlete alumni pool concept that the ACC and Big 10 are doing. I think he's going to go Ivy anyway, but that's going to be an increasingly way overweight question for a recruit and their family if these monies get out of control as it appears is happening.

You're right, the Ivies think there's real benefit in supporting so many sports and such a high percentage of student body. And yes, a piece of that is alumni support is higher from high socially engaged students which athletes tend to be. But I think it's also because there's a real concern about educating leaders and the reality that socially engaged students tend to populate that leadership, generation after generation...along of course with the extraordinarily brilliant and creative...it's the mix they're going for, the exposure to one another, learning beyond the classroom.

Not sure what will happen...

Down at UVA, I recall my dad being concerned about whether the school could afford to support the team at a competitive level, that the alumni giving needed to be better...I have no idea how that ranks now, but what happens when there's an arms race on how much money can be raised to pay the athletes? Across sports? Would the University be able to do it with each program having a mega donor? Again, I don't know but feels to me like either the program won't be as competitive or the number of total athlete opportunities will shrink.

[Farfromgeneva]

But yeah, an arms race is going to drive a whole lot of schools to cut athlete opportunities. And that'd be a heck of a shame IMO.

Id be shocked if this didn’t happen. And yes, thats a horrible outcome.

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.Money is fungible. The AD's can "spend" mythical tuition money anyway they want. One more kid in a class that didn't pay for the seat is not real money to the school. When it becomes an issue is when you have schools like Stanford and the Ivy's where a material percentage of the student body is an athlete. If every one of those kids were on full rides the math wouldn't work. Another way to think about it is those administrations have made the same choice a lot of D3 schools make - the non-scholarship kids are going to pay 2x to 3x the actual cost of delivering the education with the endowment will cover the rest; in order to build a student body that has a high percentage of student athletes. Why? Because those schools have determined that that profile is what they want - either because of the inherent work ethic or (more likely) because as alumni those students remain more engaged with the school and end up giving more money after graduation, perpetuating the endowment cycle.

There were scholarship athletes in every sport before the money became stupid, but perhaps not as many and not as deep within each team. Title IX made women's athletic scholarships something of a grift, as the AD's had to come up with some excuse to pay women the same as men ... I know that sounds sexist, but ping pong scholarships anyone???

The schools will adapt.

I for one would like to see the whole thing blow up, thereby forcing the hands of the schools to quit hiding behind the "amateur" designation in order to avoid disability liability exposure. The schools went "pro" a long time ago - and they did so on the backs of the students they were supposed to be entrusted to care for....

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

So, let's just focus on D1 lacrosse...and any other D1 non-revenue sport...how many programs will be able to be remotely competitive if a few ACC schools and Big 10 schools decide to pay an unlimited amount to their lax players in an arms race between them?

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

And what happens to the other sports at those high spending schools/boosters without such in that particular sport? Get cut? go club?

Do smaller schools without mega endowments decide they can only support a few sports or drop sports altogether as there just isn't an ability to compete? DII ?

And who says that this dynamic won't invade DIII ? Isn't there a handful of DIII's that have alumni bodies that could out pay their athletes versus others?

What does that mean for the other sports?

I don't know how this will necessarily play out, and I agree that different schools will "adapt" in different ways, but this arms race seems to me to inevitably drive towards fewer athletes being involved at all unless it's at a club level where the athletes pay to play.

BTW, I agree about the hiding behind amateur status stuff...these monies, if they're going to be allowed, should be entirely transparent.

I happen to have an Ivy interest and it will be interesting to see what transpires with our league. I asked a dad of nicely recruited player who just got offers from multiple Ivy and ACC schools...Ivies didn't talk NIL at all, perception not doing the pay the athlete alumni pool concept that the ACC and Big 10 are doing. I think he's going to go Ivy anyway, but that's going to be an increasingly way overweight question for a recruit and their family if these monies get out of control as it appears is happening.

You're right, the Ivies think there's real benefit in supporting so many sports and such a high percentage of student body. And yes, a piece of that is alumni support is higher from high socially engaged students which athletes tend to be. But I think it's also because there's a real concern about educating leaders and the reality that socially engaged students tend to populate that leadership, generation after generation...along of course with the extraordinarily brilliant and creative...it's the mix they're going for, the exposure to one another, learning beyond the classroom.

Not sure what will happen...

Down at UVA, I recall my dad being concerned about whether the school could afford to support the team at a competitive level, that the alumni giving needed to be better...I have no idea how that ranks now, but what happens when there's an arms race on how much money can be raised to pay the athletes? Across sports? Would the University be able to do it with each program having a mega donor? Again, I don't know but feels to me like either the program won't be as competitive or the number of total athlete opportunities will shrink.

There’s really nothing at this stage from some wealthy alums at a NESCAC, UAA (or what that was w CMU, Wash U, Mellon, NYU and Rochester), MIT or a few others from getting the dough to buy a D1 caliber kid for football theoretically. If a certain path to NFL could be established anyways. I don’t expect it to happen but yes I’ve heard of D3 football players making some minor dollar already. But we’re talking less than $20k cumulative.

[MDlaxfan76]

But yeah, an arms race is going to drive a whole lot of schools to cut athlete opportunities. And that'd be a heck of a shame IMO.

Id be shocked if this didn’t happen. And yes, thats a horrible outcome.

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.Money is fungible. The AD's can "spend" mythical tuition money anyway they want. One more kid in a class that didn't pay for the seat is not real money to the school. When it becomes an issue is when you have schools like Stanford and the Ivy's where a material percentage of the student body is an athlete. If every one of those kids were on full rides the math wouldn't work. Another way to think about it is those administrations have made the same choice a lot of D3 schools make - the non-scholarship kids are going to pay 2x to 3x the actual cost of delivering the education with the endowment will cover the rest; in order to build a student body that has a high percentage of student athletes. Why? Because those schools have determined that that profile is what they want - either because of the inherent work ethic or (more likely) because as alumni those students remain more engaged with the school and end up giving more money after graduation, perpetuating the endowment cycle.

There were scholarship athletes in every sport before the money became stupid, but perhaps not as many and not as deep within each team. Title IX made women's athletic scholarships something of a grift, as the AD's had to come up with some excuse to pay women the same as men ... I know that sounds sexist, but ping pong scholarships anyone???

The schools will adapt.

I for one would like to see the whole thing blow up, thereby forcing the hands of the schools to quit hiding behind the "amateur" designation in order to avoid disability liability exposure. The schools went "pro" a long time ago - and they did so on the backs of the students they were supposed to be entrusted to care for....

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

So, let's just focus on D1 lacrosse...and any other D1 non-revenue sport...how many programs will be able to be remotely competitive if a few ACC schools and Big 10 schools decide to pay an unlimited amount to their lax players in an arms race between them?

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

And what happens to the other sports at those high spending schools/boosters without such in that particular sport? Get cut? go club?

Do smaller schools without mega endowments decide they can only support a few sports or drop sports altogether as there just isn't an ability to compete? DII ?

And who says that this dynamic won't invade DIII ? Isn't there a handful of DIII's that have alumni bodies that could out pay their athletes versus others?

What does that mean for the other sports?

I don't know how this will necessarily play out, and I agree that different schools will "adapt" in different ways, but this arms race seems to me to inevitably drive towards fewer athletes being involved at all unless it's at a club level where the athletes pay to play.

BTW, I agree about the hiding behind amateur status stuff...these monies, if they're going to be allowed, should be entirely transparent.

I happen to have an Ivy interest and it will be interesting to see what transpires with our league. I asked a dad of nicely recruited player who just got offers from multiple Ivy and ACC schools...Ivies didn't talk NIL at all, perception not doing the pay the athlete alumni pool concept that the ACC and Big 10 are doing. I think he's going to go Ivy anyway, but that's going to be an increasingly way overweight question for a recruit and their family if these monies get out of control as it appears is happening.

You're right, the Ivies think there's real benefit in supporting so many sports and such a high percentage of student body. And yes, a piece of that is alumni support is higher from high socially engaged students which athletes tend to be. But I think it's also because there's a real concern about educating leaders and the reality that socially engaged students tend to populate that leadership, generation after generation...along of course with the extraordinarily brilliant and creative...it's the mix they're going for, the exposure to one another, learning beyond the classroom.

Not sure what will happen...

Down at UVA, I recall my dad being concerned about whether the school could afford to support the team at a competitive level, that the alumni giving needed to be better...I have no idea how that ranks now, but what happens when there's an arms race on how much money can be raised to pay the athletes? Across sports? Would the University be able to do it with each program having a mega donor? Again, I don't know but feels to me like either the program won't be as competitive or the number of total athlete opportunities will shrink.

There’s really nothing at this stage from some wealthy alums at a NESCAC, UAA (or what that was w CMU, Wash U, Mellon, NYU and Rochester), MIT or a few others from getting the dough to buy a D1 caliber kid for football theoretically. If a certain path to NFL could be established anyways. I don’t expect it to happen but yes I’ve heard of D3 football players making some minor dollar already. But we’re talking less than $20k cumulative.

Put aside the money sports, as this is a lax forum, seems to me this can happen in our sport...absolutely not the spirit of DIII but...really just takes one mega wealthy alum with a desire to support a specific sport...booster...

[Farfromgeneva]

But yeah, an arms race is going to drive a whole lot of schools to cut athlete opportunities. And that'd be a heck of a shame IMO.

Id be shocked if this didn’t happen. And yes, thats a horrible outcome.

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.Money is fungible. The AD's can "spend" mythical tuition money anyway they want. One more kid in a class that didn't pay for the seat is not real money to the school. When it becomes an issue is when you have schools like Stanford and the Ivy's where a material percentage of the student body is an athlete. If every one of those kids were on full rides the math wouldn't work. Another way to think about it is those administrations have made the same choice a lot of D3 schools make - the non-scholarship kids are going to pay 2x to 3x the actual cost of delivering the education with the endowment will cover the rest; in order to build a student body that has a high percentage of student athletes. Why? Because those schools have determined that that profile is what they want - either because of the inherent work ethic or (more likely) because as alumni those students remain more engaged with the school and end up giving more money after graduation, perpetuating the endowment cycle.

There were scholarship athletes in every sport before the money became stupid, but perhaps not as many and not as deep within each team. Title IX made women's athletic scholarships something of a grift, as the AD's had to come up with some excuse to pay women the same as men ... I know that sounds sexist, but ping pong scholarships anyone???

The schools will adapt.

I for one would like to see the whole thing blow up, thereby forcing the hands of the schools to quit hiding behind the "amateur" designation in order to avoid disability liability exposure. The schools went "pro" a long time ago - and they did so on the backs of the students they were supposed to be entrusted to care for....

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

So, let's just focus on D1 lacrosse...and any other D1 non-revenue sport...how many programs will be able to be remotely competitive if a few ACC schools and Big 10 schools decide to pay an unlimited amount to their lax players in an arms race between them?

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

And what happens to the other sports at those high spending schools/boosters without such in that particular sport? Get cut? go club?

Do smaller schools without mega endowments decide they can only support a few sports or drop sports altogether as there just isn't an ability to compete? DII ?

And who says that this dynamic won't invade DIII ? Isn't there a handful of DIII's that have alumni bodies that could out pay their athletes versus others?

What does that mean for the other sports?

I don't know how this will necessarily play out, and I agree that different schools will "adapt" in different ways, but this arms race seems to me to inevitably drive towards fewer athletes being involved at all unless it's at a club level where the athletes pay to play.

BTW, I agree about the hiding behind amateur status stuff...these monies, if they're going to be allowed, should be entirely transparent.

I happen to have an Ivy interest and it will be interesting to see what transpires with our league. I asked a dad of nicely recruited player who just got offers from multiple Ivy and ACC schools...Ivies didn't talk NIL at all, perception not doing the pay the athlete alumni pool concept that the ACC and Big 10 are doing. I think he's going to go Ivy anyway, but that's going to be an increasingly way overweight question for a recruit and their family if these monies get out of control as it appears is happening.

You're right, the Ivies think there's real benefit in supporting so many sports and such a high percentage of student body. And yes, a piece of that is alumni support is higher from high socially engaged students which athletes tend to be. But I think it's also because there's a real concern about educating leaders and the reality that socially engaged students tend to populate that leadership, generation after generation...along of course with the extraordinarily brilliant and creative...it's the mix they're going for, the exposure to one another, learning beyond the classroom.

Not sure what will happen...

Down at UVA, I recall my dad being concerned about whether the school could afford to support the team at a competitive level, that the alumni giving needed to be better...I have no idea how that ranks now, but what happens when there's an arms race on how much money can be raised to pay the athletes? Across sports? Would the University be able to do it with each program having a mega donor? Again, I don't know but feels to me like either the program won't be as competitive or the number of total athlete opportunities will shrink.

There’s really nothing at this stage from some wealthy alums at a NESCAC, UAA (or what that was w CMU, Wash U, Mellon, NYU and Rochester), MIT or a few others from getting the dough to buy a D1 caliber kid for football theoretically. If a certain path to NFL could be established anyways. I don’t expect it to happen but yes I’ve heard of D3 football players making some minor dollar already. But we’re talking less than $20k cumulative.

Put aside the money sports, as this is a lax forum, seems to me this can happen in our sport...absolutely not the spirit of DIII but...really just takes one mega wealthy alum with a desire to support a specific sport...booster...

Maybe that’s when our wealthiest but not that generous to date alum will show up for her time to shine! (My understanding is she’s barley scratched 8 figures cumulative over 25yrs which seems like she’s telling the colleges to pound sand at this stage but one can hope)

https://www.bloomberg.com/billionaires/ ... p-johnson/

I fully expect this to happen. Throw $100k at a kid like a Ben Reeves form a small area where there’s not much going on. $250k. Even if it alters the future of the kid post lacrosse there are numbers that aren’t even that big that would be too hard for a struggling kid from CNY/LI to pas on.

There’s too much money tied to egos that have some relationship to the sport to not see it happen.

[Big Dog]

But yeah, an arms race is going to drive a whole lot of schools to cut athlete opportunities. And that'd be a heck of a shame IMO.

Id be shocked if this didn’t happen. And yes, thats a horrible outcome.

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.Money is fungible. The AD's can "spend" mythical tuition money anyway they want. One more kid in a class that didn't pay for the seat is not real money to the school. When it becomes an issue is when you have schools like Stanford and the Ivy's where a material percentage of the student body is an athlete. If every one of those kids were on full rides the math wouldn't work. Another way to think about it is those administrations have made the same choice a lot of D3 schools make - the non-scholarship kids are going to pay 2x to 3x the actual cost of delivering the education with the endowment will cover the rest; in order to build a student body that has a high percentage of student athletes. Why? Because those schools have determined that that profile is what they want - either because of the inherent work ethic or (more likely) because as alumni those students remain more engaged with the school and end up giving more money after graduation, perpetuating the endowment cycle.

There were scholarship athletes in every sport before the money became stupid, but perhaps not as many and not as deep within each team. Title IX made women's athletic scholarships something of a grift, as the AD's had to come up with some excuse to pay women the same as men ... I know that sounds sexist, but ping pong scholarships anyone???

The schools will adapt.

I for one would like to see the whole thing blow up, thereby forcing the hands of the schools to quit hiding behind the "amateur" designation in order to avoid disability liability exposure. The schools went "pro" a long time ago - and they did so on the backs of the students they were supposed to be entrusted to care for....

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

So, let's just focus on D1 lacrosse...and any other D1 non-revenue sport...how many programs will be able to be remotely competitive if a few ACC schools and Big 10 schools decide to pay an unlimited amount to their lax players in an arms race between them?

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

And what happens to the other sports at those high spending schools/boosters without such in that particular sport? Get cut? go club?

Do smaller schools without mega endowments decide they can only support a few sports or drop sports altogether as there just isn't an ability to compete? DII ?

And who says that this dynamic won't invade DIII ? Isn't there a handful of DIII's that have alumni bodies that could out pay their athletes versus others?

What does that mean for the other sports?

I don't know how this will necessarily play out, and I agree that different schools will "adapt" in different ways, but this arms race seems to me to inevitably drive towards fewer athletes being involved at all unless it's at a club level where the athletes pay to play.

BTW, I agree about the hiding behind amateur status stuff...these monies, if they're going to be allowed, should be entirely transparent.

I happen to have an Ivy interest and it will be interesting to see what transpires with our league. I asked a dad of nicely recruited player who just got offers from multiple Ivy and ACC schools...Ivies didn't talk NIL at all, perception not doing the pay the athlete alumni pool concept that the ACC and Big 10 are doing. I think he's going to go Ivy anyway, but that's going to be an increasingly way overweight question for a recruit and their family if these monies get out of control as it appears is happening.

You're right, the Ivies think there's real benefit in supporting so many sports and such a high percentage of student body. And yes, a piece of that is alumni support is higher from high socially engaged students which athletes tend to be. But I think it's also because there's a real concern about educating leaders and the reality that socially engaged students tend to populate that leadership, generation after generation...along of course with the extraordinarily brilliant and creative...it's the mix they're going for, the exposure to one another, learning beyond the classroom.

Not sure what will happen...

Down at UVA, I recall my dad being concerned about whether the school could afford to support the team at a competitive level, that the alumni giving needed to be better...I have no idea how that ranks now, but what happens when there's an arms race on how much money can be raised to pay the athletes? Across sports? Would the University be able to do it with each program having a mega donor? Again, I don't know but feels to me like either the program won't be as competitive or the number of total athlete opportunities will shrink.

There’s really nothing at this stage from some wealthy alums at a NESCAC, UAA (or what that was w CMU, Wash U, Mellon, NYU and Rochester), MIT or a few others from getting the dough to buy a D1 caliber kid for football theoretically. If a certain path to NFL could be established anyways. I don’t expect it to happen but yes I’ve heard of D3 football players making some minor dollar already. But we’re talking less than $20k cumulative.

Put aside the money sports, as this is a lax forum, seems to me this can happen in our sport...absolutely not the spirit of DIII but...really just takes one mega wealthy alum with a desire to support a specific sport...booster...

Except the Rev sports will drive the non-rev sports at the next TV cycle, ~7 years from now. I expect that the new CFB league will be ~35 major schools who split off, all raking in the dough; the D1 others will be relegated. Eventually, tOSU and Michigan and Penn State FB will decide to keep more money instead of supporting Rutgers & Indiana. Ditto Alabama/Georgia supporting Vandy. We'll evolve into the haves and teh have nots. Athletic budgets will have to be cut and with them, teams. Men's non-rev sports will bear the brunt of the cuts, as schools are forced to move to Prong 1 for T9. And a men's team with ~55 players carries a big target.

Cal & Stanford got a lifeline from the ACC, but will still have to take a hard look at their athletic expenses. For example, Cal sponsors 30 sports, and I expect 6 (5 men's, 1 women's) of those to be cut in the next year or so. Stanford's President said he would continue to fund their teams. (they can afford it). But he's the outgoing President and who knows what the new Prez will budget for athletics. Oregon State and Washington State, will see thier Revenue cut nearly in half once they figure out how to join/merge with the MWC. Not sure the state's taxpayers of those two states are going to want to continue to fund all of those athletes.


https://kobi5.com/news/oregon-state-uni ... bt-212997/

[Farfromgeneva]

But yeah, an arms race is going to drive a whole lot of schools to cut athlete opportunities. And that'd be a heck of a shame IMO.

Id be shocked if this didn’t happen. And yes, thats a horrible outcome.

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.Money is fungible. The AD's can "spend" mythical tuition money anyway they want. One more kid in a class that didn't pay for the seat is not real money to the school. When it becomes an issue is when you have schools like Stanford and the Ivy's where a material percentage of the student body is an athlete. If every one of those kids were on full rides the math wouldn't work. Another way to think about it is those administrations have made the same choice a lot of D3 schools make - the non-scholarship kids are going to pay 2x to 3x the actual cost of delivering the education with the endowment will cover the rest; in order to build a student body that has a high percentage of student athletes. Why? Because those schools have determined that that profile is what they want - either because of the inherent work ethic or (more likely) because as alumni those students remain more engaged with the school and end up giving more money after graduation, perpetuating the endowment cycle.

There were scholarship athletes in every sport before the money became stupid, but perhaps not as many and not as deep within each team. Title IX made women's athletic scholarships something of a grift, as the AD's had to come up with some excuse to pay women the same as men ... I know that sounds sexist, but ping pong scholarships anyone???

The schools will adapt.

I for one would like to see the whole thing blow up, thereby forcing the hands of the schools to quit hiding behind the "amateur" designation in order to avoid disability liability exposure. The schools went "pro" a long time ago - and they did so on the backs of the students they were supposed to be entrusted to care for....

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

So, let's just focus on D1 lacrosse...and any other D1 non-revenue sport...how many programs will be able to be remotely competitive if a few ACC schools and Big 10 schools decide to pay an unlimited amount to their lax players in an arms race between them?

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

And what happens to the other sports at those high spending schools/boosters without such in that particular sport? Get cut? go club?

Do smaller schools without mega endowments decide they can only support a few sports or drop sports altogether as there just isn't an ability to compete? DII ?

And who says that this dynamic won't invade DIII ? Isn't there a handful of DIII's that have alumni bodies that could out pay their athletes versus others?

What does that mean for the other sports?

I don't know how this will necessarily play out, and I agree that different schools will "adapt" in different ways, but this arms race seems to me to inevitably drive towards fewer athletes being involved at all unless it's at a club level where the athletes pay to play.

BTW, I agree about the hiding behind amateur status stuff...these monies, if they're going to be allowed, should be entirely transparent.

I happen to have an Ivy interest and it will be interesting to see what transpires with our league. I asked a dad of nicely recruited player who just got offers from multiple Ivy and ACC schools...Ivies didn't talk NIL at all, perception not doing the pay the athlete alumni pool concept that the ACC and Big 10 are doing. I think he's going to go Ivy anyway, but that's going to be an increasingly way overweight question for a recruit and their family if these monies get out of control as it appears is happening.

You're right, the Ivies think there's real benefit in supporting so many sports and such a high percentage of student body. And yes, a piece of that is alumni support is higher from high socially engaged students which athletes tend to be. But I think it's also because there's a real concern about educating leaders and the reality that socially engaged students tend to populate that leadership, generation after generation...along of course with the extraordinarily brilliant and creative...it's the mix they're going for, the exposure to one another, learning beyond the classroom.

Not sure what will happen...

Down at UVA, I recall my dad being concerned about whether the school could afford to support the team at a competitive level, that the alumni giving needed to be better...I have no idea how that ranks now, but what happens when there's an arms race on how much money can be raised to pay the athletes? Across sports? Would the University be able to do it with each program having a mega donor? Again, I don't know but feels to me like either the program won't be as competitive or the number of total athlete opportunities will shrink.

There’s really nothing at this stage from some wealthy alums at a NESCAC, UAA (or what that was w CMU, Wash U, Mellon, NYU and Rochester), MIT or a few others from getting the dough to buy a D1 caliber kid for football theoretically. If a certain path to NFL could be established anyways. I don’t expect it to happen but yes I’ve heard of D3 football players making some minor dollar already. But we’re talking less than $20k cumulative.

Put aside the money sports, as this is a lax forum, seems to me this can happen in our sport...absolutely not the spirit of DIII but...really just takes one mega wealthy alum with a desire to support a specific sport...booster...

Except the Rev sports will drive the non-rev sports at the next TV cycle, ~7 years from now. I expect that the new CFB league will be ~35 major schools who split off, all raking in the dough; the D1 others will be relegated. Eventually, tOSU and Michigan and Penn State FB will decide to keep more money instead of supporting Rutgers & Indiana. Ditto Alabama/Georgia supporting Vandy. We'll evolve into the haves and teh have nots. Athletic budgets will have to be cut and with them, teams. Men's non-rev sports will bear the brunt of the cuts, as schools are forced to move to Prong 1 for T9. And a men's team with ~55 players carries a big target.

Cal & Stanford got a lifeline from the ACC, but will still have to take a hard look at their athletic expenses. For example, Cal sponsors 30 sports, and I expect 6 (5 men's, 1 women's) of those to be cut in the next year or so. Stanford's President said he would continue to fund their teams. (they can afford it). But he's the outgoing President and who knows what the new Prez will budget for athletics. Oregon State and Washington State, will see thier Revenue cut nearly in half once they figure out how to join/merge with the MWC. Not sure the state's taxpayers of those two states are going to want to continue to fund all of those athletes.

I generally agree with this though I always figured it would be more like 60-65 programs rather than 35. Need more competition to have less round Robin for media.

On Cal, nephew work in Athletics Dept there now at least while finishing his masters at night. While they have budget issues and need to pay for prior renovations dating back a decade or so I hadn’t heard of anything immediate around cuts from him. It’s a mess there on many many levels (brother in law works in social sciences college as well) but it may take 3-5yrs before they rationalize their Athletics Dept.

[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.

[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.