CSNbbs

NCAA proposing new college athletics subdivision rooted in direct athlete compensation

This looks significant, but not the biggest expert on this. Figured this was worth posting.

Anyone following this board for a while has known this was coming.

Here we go!

Opt-in is the key phrase. If schools are willing to opt in, they will be able to stay.

I mean they let the cat out of the bag with the FSU decision so why not go whole hog now? What's it gonna do, make'em look worse?

Indirect effect: G5 schools cutting other sports to be able to afford $30K per student-athlete.

(12-05-2023 10:20 AM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote: [ -> ]NCAA proposing new college athletics subdivision rooted in direct athlete compensation

This looks significant, but not the biggest expert on this. Figured this was worth posting.

Here is the breakdown from the article:

The new subdivision would do the following:

• Schools may opt in or out to the new subdivision.
• New subdivision has strict minimum standrard rooted in athlete investment.
• Members may create their own NIL deals with their own athletes.
• Members may directly compensate athletes through a trust fund.
• Members are required to distribute to athletes "thousands of dollars in additional educationally related funds without limitation."
• No cap on the amount of funding that a program can provide an athlete.
• Entry into the subdivision requires a minimum $30,000 per year per athlete investment into the "enhanced education trust fund" for at least half of the school's countable athletes.
• Schools determine when the athletes receive the amount, which will total $120,000 for four-year athletes.
• Schools must abide by Title IX framework, 50% of the investment must be directed towards women athletes.
• NCAA will be over the subdivision and the members will compete against other members in Division 1. (Current CFP models and national championship selections methods are unaltered).
• Schools in the new subdivision have control of decision-making regarding schoolarship limits and countable coaches. Major conference programs can increase the limits or do away with them altogether.
  

(12-05-2023 10:34 AM)DFW HOYA Wrote: [ -> ]Indirect effect: G5 schools cutting other sports to be able to afford $30K per student-athlete.

Right?

I agree that it's fair for revenue generating athletes to receive some of that money, but it's also the money propping everything else up. At some point, this is going to nuke men's and women's programs down the line.

Yeah, I think they need to require the schools to maintain a certain minimum number of sports or all this is going to do is cause schools to eliminate several sports.

(12-05-2023 10:34 AM)DFW HOYA Wrote: [ -> ]Indirect effect: G5 schools cutting other sports to be able to afford $30K per student-athlete.

but there's minimum sports required to be D1. So can't cut that much.

(12-05-2023 10:20 AM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote: [ -> ]NCAA proposing new college athletics subdivision rooted in direct athlete compensation

This looks significant, but not the biggest expert on this. Figured this was worth posting.

Let the anti-trust suit and fair trade among the states to take part. If a state does not have a school in the SEC and Big 10 will have lawsuits filed against the NCAA and the Big 2. If I am a lawmaker? I would create a bill for equal trade among the universities in the NCAA, and the Big 2 can't exclude other schools.

(12-05-2023 10:39 AM)Just Joe Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-05-2023 10:34 AM)DFW HOYA Wrote: [ -> ]Indirect effect: G5 schools cutting other sports to be able to afford $30K per student-athlete.

Right?

I agree that it's fair for revenue generating athletes to receive some of that money, but it's also the money propping everything else up. At some point, this is going to nuke men's and women's programs down the line.

There's already minimum sports sponsored and scholarship levels. I would expect to see these higher in the new subdivision as well. There's no way around Title 9 and the higher hurdles to keep the rif raf out will likely guarantee money going to athletes of nonrevenue sports. Will they be making 6-7 figures like the star FB and MBB players? No but they'll get a taste and further skew the competitive advantage across all sports to the P2.

This is DOA when lawmakers are not happy with this ideal.

So in this new subdivision, let's call us Division 1-$$$, they'll still play the rest of us in baseball/basketball tourneys?

And our smaller schools can still coordinate with athletes on NIL under the new rules?

Seems fair. It's gonna take a bit out of coaches salaries at the biggest schools though. Which is a win for us too.

(12-05-2023 10:44 AM)mturn017 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-05-2023 10:39 AM)Just Joe Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-05-2023 10:34 AM)DFW HOYA Wrote: [ -> ]Indirect effect: G5 schools cutting other sports to be able to afford $30K per student-athlete.

Right?

I agree that it's fair for revenue generating athletes to receive some of that money, but it's also the money propping everything else up. At some point, this is going to nuke men's and women's programs down the line.

There's already minimum sports sponsored and scholarship levels. I would expect to see these higher in the new subdivision as well. There's no way around Title 9 and the higher hurdles to keep the rif raf out will likely guarantee money going to athletes of nonrevenue sports. Will they be making 6-7 figures like the star FB and MBB players? No but they'll get a taste and further skew the competitive advantage across all sports to the P2.

We'll see on minimums. There's only so much money.

Title IX just means the schools will have to cut men's and women's sports alike.

(12-05-2023 10:49 AM)DavidSt Wrote: [ -> ]This is DOA when lawmakers are not happy with this ideal.

Yup. Baker can talk about it all he wants but it's not happening.

(12-05-2023 10:53 AM)Just Joe Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-05-2023 10:44 AM)mturn017 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-05-2023 10:39 AM)Just Joe Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-05-2023 10:34 AM)DFW HOYA Wrote: [ -> ]Indirect effect: G5 schools cutting other sports to be able to afford $30K per student-athlete.

Right?

I agree that it's fair for revenue generating athletes to receive some of that money, but it's also the money propping everything else up. At some point, this is going to nuke men's and women's programs down the line.

There's already minimum sports sponsored and scholarship levels. I would expect to see these higher in the new subdivision as well. There's no way around Title 9 and the higher hurdles to keep the rif raf out will likely guarantee money going to athletes of nonrevenue sports. Will they be making 6-7 figures like the star FB and MBB players? No but they'll get a taste and further skew the competitive advantage across all sports to the P2.

We'll see on minimums. There's only so much money.

Title IX just means the schools will have to cut men's and women's sports alike.

Coaching salaries at major athletic departments surpass aid given to student athletes.

The money is right there.

(12-05-2023 10:34 AM)DFW HOYA Wrote: [ -> ]Indirect effect: G5 schools cutting other sports to be able to afford $30K per student-athlete.

Most G5's wouldn't be able to afford it. Many of us already struggle with NIL due to not having the levels of big money donors other schools do. Athletic Departments barely make profits as is.

A few who have either a major donor financing everything, or have enough of a surplus might be able to try it, but then you've got Bama paying 6K salaries to everyone, and its still not close to being a fair fight.

My major question at present is that many US States have laws on the books preventing schools from paying athletes, those would need to be removed by legislatures before this could even happen.