NIL, Title IX, Power 5, future of Lax et al

[Dip&Dunk]

Last Thursday, the NCAA and the so-called "power five" athletic conferences reached an agreement to end the tradition of amateurism in college sports by allowing athletes to receive pay directly from the colleges and universities they play for.

The agreement, part of a class-action lawsuit known as House v. NCAA, must be approved by a federal judge overseeing the case, a decision that could be months away.

The proposed settlement has two parts. First, it would distribute some $2.75 billion to athletes who competed before July 2021, when the NCAA first allowed athletes to earn money from their name, image and likeness rights. Second, it would create a future revenue-sharing model in which schools could each distribute around $20 million per year directly to athletes.

What is not specified is who gets what. Is the $20M split $10M to men and $10M to women? Does it go the sports based on their revenue? I am sure courts will play a roll in this.

What about the non-power 5? (BTW are JHU and ND considered part of a power 5 conference IAW House vs NCAA?)

If college sports are now a business (and can unionize) is the basis for Title IX removed or weakened? (Picture a start up company that receives federal funding or a federal tax break being told because they have used this funding, 50 % of their product line must be to each gender (and for the sake of argument lets leave the number of genders at 2) (and I know Title IX has much more in it then just sports equity in it).

[wgdsr]

Last Thursday, the NCAA and the so-called "power five" athletic conferences reached an agreement to end the tradition of amateurism in college sports by allowing athletes to receive pay directly from the colleges and universities they play for.

The agreement, part of a class-action lawsuit known as House v. NCAA, must be approved by a federal judge overseeing the case, a decision that could be months away.

The proposed settlement has two parts. First, it would distribute some $2.75 billion to athletes who competed before July 2021, when the NCAA first allowed athletes to earn money from their name, image and likeness rights. Second, it would create a future revenue-sharing model in which schools could each distribute around $20 million per year directly to athletes.

What is not specified is who gets what. Is the $20M split $10M to men and $10M to women? Does it go the sports based on their revenue? I am sure courts will play a roll in this.

What about the non-power 5? (BTW are JHU and ND considered part of a power 5 conference IAW House vs NCAA?)

If college sports are now a business (and can unionize) is the basis for Title IX removed or weakened? (Picture a start up company that receives federal funding or a federal tax break being told because they have used this funding, 50 % of their product line must be to each gender (and for the sake of argument lets leave the number of genders at 2) (and I know Title IX has much more in it then just sports equity in it).

how it plays out will be fascinating. many including myself think it's going to take the form of a breakaway. whether that's football and hoops vs olympic, or the big 2 vs everyone else. and then... collective bargaining for that group. alston reiterated the blueprint. lot of lawyers will be and have been getting paid in the meantime, to find the best workarounds.

as far as title ix, almost nobody is using the 50%/proportionate option. actually, probably is nobody. because they are using door #2, ath departments could be adding men's sports including lax without any change in their women's expansion efforts over time. but with a day like this coming, as well as other factors (non-revenue, more work), there is no incentive or let's say want to.

i can see olympic programs surviving if they become self-funded (or more self-funded). so checkbooks, please.

[44WeWantMore]

Last Thursday, the NCAA and the so-called "power five" athletic conferences reached an agreement to end the tradition of amateurism in college sports by allowing athletes to receive pay directly from the colleges and universities they play for.

The agreement, part of a class-action lawsuit known as House v. NCAA, must be approved by a federal judge overseeing the case, a decision that could be months away.

The proposed settlement has two parts. First, it would distribute some $2.75 billion to athletes who competed before July 2021, when the NCAA first allowed athletes to earn money from their name, image and likeness rights. Second, it would create a future revenue-sharing model in which schools could each distribute around $20 million per year directly to athletes.

What is not specified is who gets what. Is the $20M split $10M to men and $10M to women? Does it go the sports based on their revenue? I am sure courts will play a roll in this.

What about the non-power 5? (BTW are JHU and ND considered part of a power 5 conference IAW House vs NCAA?)

If college sports are now a business (and can unionize) is the basis for Title IX removed or weakened? (Picture a start up company that receives federal funding or a federal tax break being told because they have used this funding, 50 % of their product line must be to each gender (and for the sake of argument lets leave the number of genders at 2) (and I know Title IX has much more in it then just sports equity in it).

how it plays out will be fascinating. many including myself think it's going to take the form of a breakaway. whether that's football and hoops vs olympic, or the big 2 vs everyone else. and then... collective bargaining for that group. alston reiterated the blueprint. lot of lawyers will be and have been getting paid in the meantime, to find the best workarounds.

as far as title ix, almost nobody is using the 50%/proportionate option. actually, probably is nobody. because they are using door #2, ath departments could be adding men's sports including lax without any change in their women's expansion efforts over time. but with a day like this coming, as well as other factors (non-revenue, more work), there is no incentive or let's say want to.

i can see olympic programs surviving if they become self-funded (or more self-funded). so checkbooks, please.

That might be a necessary condition, but not a sufficient condition. Remember that the hate group at Stanford initially stated that no amount of dedicated funding would save the olympic sports they wanted to cut.

[steel_hop]

What about the non-power 5? (BTW are JHU and ND considered part of a power 5 conference IAW House vs NCAA?)

ND is almost assuredly a P5 conference team as that really just relates to football. And really it is only the P4 now with the PAC 12 imploding.

Hopkins isn't even on the same planet as those guys.

[steel_hop]

Last Thursday, the NCAA and the so-called "power five" athletic conferences reached an agreement to end the tradition of amateurism in college sports by allowing athletes to receive pay directly from the colleges and universities they play for.

The agreement, part of a class-action lawsuit known as House v. NCAA, must be approved by a federal judge overseeing the case, a decision that could be months away.

The proposed settlement has two parts. First, it would distribute some $2.75 billion to athletes who competed before July 2021, when the NCAA first allowed athletes to earn money from their name, image and likeness rights. Second, it would create a future revenue-sharing model in which schools could each distribute around $20 million per year directly to athletes.

What is not specified is who gets what. Is the $20M split $10M to men and $10M to women? Does it go the sports based on their revenue? I am sure courts will play a roll in this.

What about the non-power 5? (BTW are JHU and ND considered part of a power 5 conference IAW House vs NCAA?)

If college sports are now a business (and can unionize) is the basis for Title IX removed or weakened? (Picture a start up company that receives federal funding or a federal tax break being told because they have used this funding, 50 % of their product line must be to each gender (and for the sake of argument lets leave the number of genders at 2) (and I know Title IX has much more in it then just sports equity in it).

how it plays out will be fascinating. many including myself think it's going to take the form of a breakaway. whether that's football and hoops vs olympic, or the big 2 vs everyone else. and then... collective bargaining for that group. alston reiterated the blueprint. lot of lawyers will be and have been getting paid in the meantime, to find the best workarounds.

as far as title ix, almost nobody is using the 50%/proportionate option. actually, probably is nobody. because they are using door #2, ath departments could be adding men's sports including lax without any change in their women's expansion efforts over time. but with a day like this coming, as well as other factors (non-revenue, more work), there is no incentive or let's say want to.

i can see olympic programs surviving if they become self-funded (or more self-funded). so checkbooks, please.

That might be a necessary condition, but not a sufficient condition. Remember that the hate group at Stanford initially stated that no amount of dedicated funding would save the olympic sports they wanted to cut.

Correct. Unless there is some splitting off of football and basketball from the rest of the sports (whether that includes a union or not), there is almost no way non-revenue sports can survive at their current funding level and offerings. Money is fungible. If my budget is only X and I need to dedicate more money to something, then money needs to come from somewhere. More than likely it is going to come from the number of sports teams a school offers - there is almost assuredly going to be a drop in the number of scholarships programs offer. This is more for those schools lower down the ladder in prestige. But, it also means the same for P5 teams. UCLA jumped over to the B1G because it was facing huge deficits. So P5 teams (mostly in the non-revenue area) will be feeling the pinch, as well.

Honestly, I was a huge college football and basketball fan but my interest has certainly waned as "paying the athletes" issue has risen.

[ICGrad]

Honestly, I was a huge college football and basketball fan but my interest has certainly waned as "paying the athletes" issue has risen.

Just out of curiosity: Why is that?

The money generated by these sports has been huge for decades now, and a number of people related to the largest revenue-generators have been making a killing for years, too...starting with the coaches, who make millions.

I mean, there are a lot of genies I'd love to shove back into a lot of bottles, but I have zero issue with the athletes who are central to these enormous windfalls finally getting a piece of the pie.

[laxpert]

Last Thursday, the NCAA and the so-called "power five" athletic conferences reached an agreement to end the tradition of amateurism in college sports by allowing athletes to receive pay directly from the colleges and universities they play for.

The agreement, part of a class-action lawsuit known as House v. NCAA, must be approved by a federal judge overseeing the case, a decision that could be months away.

The proposed settlement has two parts. First, it would distribute some $2.75 billion to athletes who competed before July 2021, when the NCAA first allowed athletes to earn money from their name, image and likeness rights. Second, it would create a future revenue-sharing model in which schools could each distribute around $20 million per year directly to athletes.

What is not specified is who gets what. Is the $20M split $10M to men and $10M to women? Does it go the sports based on their revenue? I am sure courts will play a roll in this.

What about the non-power 5? (BTW are JHU and ND considered part of a power 5 conference IAW House vs NCAA?)

If college sports are now a business (and can unionize) is the basis for Title IX removed or weakened? (Picture a start up company that receives federal funding or a federal tax break being told because they have used this funding, 50 % of their product line must be to each gender (and for the sake of argument lets leave the number of genders at 2) (and I know Title IX has much more in it then just sports equity in it).

how it plays out will be fascinating. many including myself think it's going to take the form of a breakaway. whether that's football and hoops vs olympic, or the big 2 vs everyone else. and then... collective bargaining for that group. alston reiterated the blueprint. lot of lawyers will be and have been getting paid in the meantime, to find the best workarounds.

as far as title ix, almost nobody is using the 50%/proportionate option. actually, probably is nobody. because they are using door #2, ath departments could be adding men's sports including lax without any change in their women's expansion efforts over time. but with a day like this coming, as well as other factors (non-revenue, more work), there is no incentive or let's say want to.

i can see olympic programs surviving if they become self-funded (or more self-funded). so checkbooks, please.

That might be a necessary condition, but not a sufficient condition. Remember that the hate group at Stanford initially stated that no amount of dedicated funding would save the olympic sports they wanted to cut.

Correct. Unless there is some splitting off of football and basketball from the rest of the sports (whether that includes a union or not), there is almost no way non-revenue sports can survive at their current funding level and offerings. Money is fungible. If my budget is only X and I need to dedicate more money to something, then money needs to come from somewhere. More than likely it is going to come from the number of sports teams a school offers - there is almost assuredly going to be a drop in the number of scholarships programs offer. This is more for those schools lower down the ladder in prestige. But, it also means the same for P5 teams. UCLA jumped over to the B1G because it was facing huge deficits. So P5 teams (mostly in the non-revenue area) will be feeling the pinch, as well.

Honestly, I was a huge college football and basketball fan but my interest has certainly waned as "paying the athletes" issue has risen.

The USSC decision in NCAA v Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma was the first chink in the NCAA's armor. Attorney Andy Coats successfully argued for the Board of Regents. It is said that Justice White told Coats “You won the case but I think you’ll be sorry you did.”
Those empowered by Title IX are not going to give ground easily when it comes to keeping Football in the proportionality equation. Agree a reduction in offerings is highly likely or possibly more of a DIII or Ivy League approach when it comes to non revenue sports.

This article written a few years ago but is extremely relevant today.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/marcedelma ... a59fb928eb

[Essexfenwick]

There’s going to have to be a draft and contracts with the players at some point. The combination of constant player movement, annual reshuffling of lineups, one year players and the loss of amateur charm makes for a poor product. The familiarity of the players both on your team and opponents is lost along with a lower quality of play.

[Farfromgeneva]

What about the non-power 5? (BTW are JHU and ND considered part of a power 5 conference IAW House vs NCAA?)

ND is almost assuredly a P5 conference team as that really just relates to football. And really it is only the P4 now with the PAC 12 imploding.

Hopkins isn't even on the same planet as those guys.

Correct

[wgdsr]

Last Thursday, the NCAA and the so-called "power five" athletic conferences reached an agreement to end the tradition of amateurism in college sports by allowing athletes to receive pay directly from the colleges and universities they play for.

The agreement, part of a class-action lawsuit known as House v. NCAA, must be approved by a federal judge overseeing the case, a decision that could be months away.

The proposed settlement has two parts. First, it would distribute some $2.75 billion to athletes who competed before July 2021, when the NCAA first allowed athletes to earn money from their name, image and likeness rights. Second, it would create a future revenue-sharing model in which schools could each distribute around $20 million per year directly to athletes.

What is not specified is who gets what. Is the $20M split $10M to men and $10M to women? Does it go the sports based on their revenue? I am sure courts will play a roll in this.

What about the non-power 5? (BTW are JHU and ND considered part of a power 5 conference IAW House vs NCAA?)

If college sports are now a business (and can unionize) is the basis for Title IX removed or weakened? (Picture a start up company that receives federal funding or a federal tax break being told because they have used this funding, 50 % of their product line must be to each gender (and for the sake of argument lets leave the number of genders at 2) (and I know Title IX has much more in it then just sports equity in it).

how it plays out will be fascinating. many including myself think it's going to take the form of a breakaway. whether that's football and hoops vs olympic, or the big 2 vs everyone else. and then... collective bargaining for that group. alston reiterated the blueprint. lot of lawyers will be and have been getting paid in the meantime, to find the best workarounds.

as far as title ix, almost nobody is using the 50%/proportionate option. actually, probably is nobody. because they are using door #2, ath departments could be adding men's sports including lax without any change in their women's expansion efforts over time. but with a day like this coming, as well as other factors (non-revenue, more work), there is no incentive or let's say want to.

i can see olympic programs surviving if they become self-funded (or more self-funded). so checkbooks, please.

That might be a necessary condition, but not a sufficient condition. Remember that the hate group at Stanford initially stated that no amount of dedicated funding would save the olympic sports they wanted to cut.

Correct. Unless there is some splitting off of football and basketball from the rest of the sports (whether that includes a union or not), there is almost no way non-revenue sports can survive at their current funding level and offerings. Money is fungible. If my budget is only X and I need to dedicate more money to something, then money needs to come from somewhere. More than likely it is going to come from the number of sports teams a school offers - there is almost assuredly going to be a drop in the number of scholarships programs offer. This is more for those schools lower down the ladder in prestige. But, it also means the same for P5 teams. UCLA jumped over to the B1G because it was facing huge deficits. So P5 teams (mostly in the non-revenue area) will be feeling the pinch, as well.

Honestly, I was a huge college football and basketball fan but my interest has certainly waned as "paying the athletes" issue has risen.

The USSC decision in NCAA v Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma was the first chink in the NCAA's armor. Attorney Andy Coats successfully argued for the Board of Regents. It is said that Justice White told Coats “You won the case but I think you’ll be sorry you did.”
Those empowered by Title IX are not going to give ground easily when it comes to keeping Football in the proportionality equation. Agree a reduction in offerings is highly likely or possibly more of a DIII or Ivy League approach when it comes to non revenue sports.

This article written a few years ago but is extremely relevant today.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/marcedelma ... a59fb928eb

i doubt any programs are proportional in the big schools, which is hoo dominates the discussion. of course, depending on settlement structure, etc., as someone noted somewhere recently, even small-ish increments can impact mid-majora and below significantly (which is most lax schools).

when you bring a lot of money together, upheaval usually happens.

[coda]

What about the non-power 5? (BTW are JHU and ND considered part of a power 5 conference IAW House vs NCAA?)

ND is almost assuredly a P5 conference team as that really just relates to football. And really it is only the P4 now with the PAC 12 imploding.

Hopkins isn't even on the same planet as those guys.

It’s the P2 now..

[steel_hop]

Honestly, I was a huge college football and basketball fan but my interest has certainly waned as "paying the athletes" issue has risen.

Just out of curiosity: Why is that?

The money generated by these sports has been huge for decades now, and a number of people related to the largest revenue-generators have been making a killing for years, too...starting with the coaches, who make millions.

I mean, there are a lot of genies I'd love to shove back into a lot of bottles, but I have zero issue with the athletes who are central to these enormous windfalls finally getting a piece of the pie.

Because they were already getting compensation via scholarships, training, etc. And let's be honest, many of football and basketball players weren't getting into their schools but for being able to play said sport. That's never been really discussed. Some scholarships work out to 300 or 400K.

It has also made players mercenaries with no loyalty (and I understand the argument about coaches) but it makes it very difficult to follow what player is where. I don't necessarily mind the ability to transfer once over a career (everyone makes a mistake) to another school but guys moving to multiple schools is beyond pale. What many people want is complete freedom to do as they wish, well every action has unintended consequences and I think the path we are heading down likely leads to less opportunities for not only regular athletes but football and basketball players.

[IvyBrown]

I agree with the second point. Even the NFL and NBA have contracts where a player can’t leave by entering a portal And if a wealthy alumnus decides they want to give a budget to a coach that coach could bring in an entire new team in one year if we took this to its greatest extent It is destroying the sport - there needs to be some rules and regulations.

[coda]

Honestly, I was a huge college football and basketball fan but my interest has certainly waned as "paying the athletes" issue has risen.

Just out of curiosity: Why is that?

The money generated by these sports has been huge for decades now, and a number of people related to the largest revenue-generators have been making a killing for years, too...starting with the coaches, who make millions.

I mean, there are a lot of genies I'd love to shove back into a lot of bottles, but I have zero issue with the athletes who are central to these enormous windfalls finally getting a piece of the pie.

Because they were already getting compensation via scholarships, training, etc. And let's be honest, many of football and basketball players weren't getting into their schools but for being able to play said sport. That's never been really discussed. Some scholarships work out to 300 or 400K.

It has also made players mercenaries with no loyalty (and I understand the argument about coaches) but it makes it very difficult to follow what player is where. I don't necessarily mind the ability to transfer once over a career (everyone makes a mistake) to another school but guys moving to multiple schools is beyond pale. What many people want is complete freedom to do as they wish, well every action has unintended consequences and I think the path we are heading down likely leads to less opportunities for not only regular athletes but football and basketball players.

If we are being truly honest, this is nothing new to big time college sports. NIL is essentially the bag game coming out of the shadows. Money has grown, because it is now legal and you don’t have to hide it. Paying players goes all the way back to Walter Camp. The change is the ability to transfer freely now.

[Farfromgeneva]

Honestly, I was a huge college football and basketball fan but my interest has certainly waned as "paying the athletes" issue has risen.

Just out of curiosity: Why is that?

The money generated by these sports has been huge for decades now, and a number of people related to the largest revenue-generators have been making a killing for years, too...starting with the coaches, who make millions.

I mean, there are a lot of genies I'd love to shove back into a lot of bottles, but I have zero issue with the athletes who are central to these enormous windfalls finally getting a piece of the pie.

Because they were already getting compensation via scholarships, training, etc. And let's be honest, many of football and basketball players weren't getting into their schools but for being able to play said sport. That's never been really discussed. Some scholarships work out to 300 or 400K.

It has also made players mercenaries with no loyalty (and I understand the argument about coaches) but it makes it very difficult to follow what player is where. I don't necessarily mind the ability to transfer once over a career (everyone makes a mistake) to another school but guys moving to multiple schools is beyond pale. What many people want is complete freedom to do as they wish, well every action has unintended consequences and I think the path we are heading down likely leads to less opportunities for not only regular athletes but football and basketball players.

If you’re being honest you’d know they weren’t really trying to educate a lot of those kids either so let’s not talk about the COA and related.

[SCLaxAttack]

https://www.thescore.com/ncaab/news/2926271

[coda]

https://www.thescore.com/ncaab/news/2926271

I am looking forward to seeing Jersey's with ads all over them. Going to be sad and funny at the same time.

[a fan]

Last Thursday, the NCAA and the so-called "power five" athletic conferences reached an agreement to end the tradition of amateurism in college sports by allowing athletes to receive pay directly from the colleges and universities they play for.

The agreement, part of a class-action lawsuit known as House v. NCAA, must be approved by a federal judge overseeing the case, a decision that could be months away.

The proposed settlement has two parts. First, it would distribute some $2.75 billion to athletes who competed before July 2021, when the NCAA first allowed athletes to earn money from their name, image and likeness rights. Second, it would create a future revenue-sharing model in which schools could each distribute around $20 million per year directly to athletes.

What is not specified is who gets what. Is the $20M split $10M to men and $10M to women? Does it go the sports based on their revenue? I am sure courts will play a roll in this.

What about the non-power 5? (BTW are JHU and ND considered part of a power 5 conference IAW House vs NCAA?)

If college sports are now a business (and can unionize) is the basis for Title IX removed or weakened? (Picture a start up company that receives federal funding or a federal tax break being told because they have used this funding, 50 % of their product line must be to each gender (and for the sake of argument lets leave the number of genders at 2) (and I know Title IX has much more in it then just sports equity in it).

None of it is binding or legal until a Union is formed. They're fools to waste too much time putting together an agreement. A student can sue at any time for any number of anti-trust violations. If they were smart, they'd spend their time helping the kids organize so they can set up collective bargaining.

But they're not smart...they're simply greedy, and are simply trying to keep the party going.

[a fan]

Honestly, I was a huge college football and basketball fan but my interest has certainly waned as "paying the athletes" issue has risen.

Just out of curiosity: Why is that?

The money generated by these sports has been huge for decades now, and a number of people related to the largest revenue-generators have been making a killing for years, too...starting with the coaches, who make millions.

I mean, there are a lot of genies I'd love to shove back into a lot of bottles, but I have zero issue with the athletes who are central to these enormous windfalls finally getting a piece of the pie.

Because they were already getting compensation via scholarships, training, etc.

Obviously, then, the REAL problem is that the coaches and administrators' wages aren't capped.

Apply the total cost of room, board and tuition to everyone in the Athletic Department.

This would mean that the University of Alabama Football coach would get in total compensation..... a little under $50K per year.

Now the coach can tell the kids he's there because he loves coaching, and he get the same deal that they get.

Had they done that? This "pay for play" would NEVER have happened.

[wgdsr]

https://www.thescore.com/ncaab/news/2926271

damn, when i heard about this, thought it must be a mega-deal. everything's got a price, and theirs is $2-3 million a school? that's laughable, actually.