(06-22-2021 07:50 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(06-22-2021 02:47 AM)Big Ron Buckeye Wrote:  Name, Image, & Likeness are still out there and the trajectory is that it'll pass with flying colors basically nullifying the need for the NCAA. But if you would take a turn with me down a rabbit hole... I see no way that athletes are not flat out paid. If the professional leagues are a bellwether let's say athletes are paid 50% of everything of your respective sport (tv contracts, playoff/bowl money, butts in stadium seats, everything) in addition to endorsements and other royalties. All off a sudden a full half of the revenue of the department is going to just basketball and football players as salaries and benefits of the newly categorized employees.
Title IX be damned, every athletic department will by necessity shrink. Scholarships (the largest cost for most athletic departments) would be too costly would probably be discontinued. In lieu of scholarships, I believe schools will take the ivy league route and go strictly financial need based and throw in minimum wage plus your proportion of the 50% of the revenues produced by your respective spor.
I'm actually excited to see how this is going to turn out, but while the revenue producers will be just fine... The non-revevue sports are bound to take a HUGE haircut.

I don't think so. The Supreme Court will uphold Title IX as well, IMO, so I don't see all of women's sports being affected. Now the more obscure men & women's sports, I do see as being affected, and alumni are going to be asked to contribute a lot more to keep their favorite non-revenue sports alive.

As a side note, I have to wonder why Division 2 , Division 3, and the NAIA weren't included as well.

NAIA already passed NIL regulations allowing athletes to make money on NIL.

(06-22-2021 11:45 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(06-22-2021 11:30 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-22-2021 11:09 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(06-22-2021 10:52 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-22-2021 07:50 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  I don't think so. The Supreme Court will uphold Title IX as well, IMO, so I don't see all of women's sports being affected. Now the more obscure men & women's sports, I do see as being affected, and alumni are going to be asked to contribute a lot more to keep their favorite non-revenue sports alive.

As a side note, I have to wonder why Division 2 , Division 3, and the NAIA weren't included as well.

Which is why they will go away. Its not like these sources of revenue have not been already squeezed for as much as possible. Its not like all college sports will go away---but my guess is there will be a college NFL Lite league with a handful of teams---and then another league that is basically D3 since the courts seem determined to take the scholarship amateur model off the table. So---what will come out of this is a 1000 or so athletes getting pay checks while the vast majority of current athletes lose both their "big stage" opportunity and their scholarships.

To me---the folks who are all gung ho to pay the players remind me a lot of the folks involved in these activist social justice reform city councils that rush to defund the police and stop requiring bail. They get all wrapped up in what seems like a good hearted mission to really help the downtrodden. Then a year later these same leaders are absolutely shocked that crime has exploded, the murder rate is up, and people are leaving their community. I'm thinking to myself---"Really? You didnt see this coming? Seriously?"

That's not my interpretation. There may well be a breakoff of the highest level of CFB and MBB that compensates players beyond COA but there was no indictment to the amateur model of college sports where players are compensated with an education. The SCOTUS said that the NCAA rules on compensation were to stringent and violated antitrust laws as it disallowed any form of benefits beyond the NCAA prescribed maximums. Suppose though that these limits were left up to the conferences. Can the MAC not choose to retain the current model or even the PAC12? As long as there's no collusion there's no a case based on the rulings we've heard thus far. And as I have mentioned taking the revenue sports to the level of pay for play would trigger labor laws and nonprofit tax laws that would cut deeply into the schools bottom line in addition to the payments to players. Schools will be reluctant to take that step. Perhaps the large revenues the highest level receives will make legislatures take action as we already see happening and schools like Stanford may have to reevaluate their priorities but I don't see it trickling down to all of college sports.

Lets say for a moment that yes---the leagues can do that. What if the MAC gets tired of losing and decides to pay players. The other 9 cant stop them. The CFP cant rule their teams as ineligible. The other 9 leagues cant refuse to play them (thats collusion) and it was a threat that blew up in the face of the NCAA in 1984.

The decision basically undercuts any ability to have a scholarship model for college sports. You can go some sort of NLF/NBA lite pro league---which is probably the best route for the handful of high revenue schools. Everyone else is probably better off adopting the D3 non-scholarship model. Cuts costs and avoids all the anti-trust issues. It's the closest thing to the "student athlete" scholarship model available to the schools---and it has the benefit of even lower costs than the current model. Let be honest---if most schools are losing money while not paying the players---a pay for play model is probably economic disaster for these programs. I suspect D3 will be a better option that trying to figure out how to come up with millions to pay players so you can keep losing money hand over fist on athletics. D3 solves all the anti-trust issues and all the Title-9 issues in one easy move. The big losers will be the vast majority of athletes that arent good enough to make one of the few NFL/NBA Lite school rosters. Those are the kids that would have been playing G5, lower end P5, or FCS football---who used to get full ride scholarships----but get nothing under a pay-for-play system designed to "protect" them from being "taken advantage of".

So you think the solution to the SCOTUS reprimanding the NCAA for not allowing schools to sufficiently compensate players is for schools to agree to compensate them less? The MAC can't afford a pay for play model, neither can CUSA or any of the G5. We can afford scholarship, room & board, COA and some laptops and meal stipends though. Is that not sufficient compensations? I think most everyone would agree it is. Can we not form a league and determine rules for a level playing ground? Yes we can. Schools that don't offer scholarships (Div III) wouldn't want to play in that league as they'd be disadvantaged, they're not compelled to do so and we're not compelled to let them. This may be a nuclear bomb to the revenue sports of the P5, time will tell. This is not an indictment on amateur athletics in general though, there's plenty of legal precedent of leagues being able to make reasonable rules for membership to ensure fair competition including that 1984 ruling.

One league can create rules for a level playing field within a conference. But, the NCAA is being told that no conference can coordinate with the other leagues to create a uniform division across the nation. So sure---CUSA can be scholarship only if they wish--but CUSA will lose out on the CFP slot forever because the AAC or MW will decide to pay its players. So you can create a level playing field in a conference---but the idea of a level playing field in FBS or college athletics on a national level is dead. Frankly, I think this is simply a pit stop on the way to individual schools being sued and told they cannot collude with other schools in the conference. I mean---that was what the NFL faced and I see no reason why CUSA or the SEC would fare any better than the NFL in a court challenge.

FBS football and D1 basketball as you know it is finished if there is pay-for-play. Frankly, yes---it will be more financially responsible for most schools to either drop to D3 or eliminate athletics completely than to try to continue with a pay-for-play athletic program.

(06-22-2021 12:21 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Quite frankly I think the revenue sports will require their own department, to avoid any mixing of funds and potential tax and legal issues. They simply cannot have women's lacrosse and men's swimming under the same department as Football and Basketball any more. And they are going to need huge rule separation to avoid any title IX lawsuits. The best way to achieve that is to end scholarships and go to a D-II model for those sports.

Another consequence is going to be an even wider gap among the football schools. I don't think you'll see Stanford, Duke, Vanderbilt or Northwestern drop out. Heck you wont even see Wake Forest drop out. These schools belong to P5 conferences and reap the TV revenue, which keeps them in the top 50-60 programs. Even if they have to operate at a $25m budget while Alabama and Ohio State operate at $40m it's still more than enough to put a competitive team on the field, especially when combined with the prestige of a degree from those schools. The ones to watch are your Maryland, Rutgers and Washington State who are already running deficits.

Where it will really bite is the G5. Everyone one of those schools is operating their athletic departments at a $15-$20m annual loss. Even the AAC generates $30m less annually than the weakest P5 schools in media money, and that gap is growing. For these schools to try and compete at say $10-15m payment budgets means almost doubling their annual deficits. Most are already under pressure to reduce deficits. This could be a death blow to many of them remaining in D-I. My San Jose State Spartans run about a $10-12m deficit, which would likely balloon to $25m and only result in an uncompetitive team. Very few scholarships are endowed significantly in any sport.

The irony is schools like Duke, Stanford and Northwestern will likely become even more dominant in non-revenue sports, as they have many endowed scholarships due to the wealth of their alumni, and these sports relied less on Football than is the case at most even P5 schools.

So I think the net effects will be:

1. New departments among the P5 for revenue sports, as protection from legal issues
2. D-III model for non-revenue sports
3. nearly complete collapse of D-I sports beyond the P5

Three points:

1. Where do you cut to reduce deficits? Sports, sure, but that's not solving the problem. The biggest cost centers at universities are personnel. SJSU has 165 people listed on its online staff directory, or about 10 per sport.

2. The ability of P5 schools to separately incorporate football outside the institution will infuriate the Title IX folks but provide some breathing room for the other sports.

3. Sports are not going away below P5. Full need financial aid attracts students, too and doesn't cost the athletic department the way a scholarship does.

(06-22-2021 01:10 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-22-2021 11:45 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(06-22-2021 11:30 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-22-2021 11:09 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(06-22-2021 10:52 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Which is why they will go away. Its not like these sources of revenue have not been already squeezed for as much as possible. Its not like all college sports will go away---but my guess is there will be a college NFL Lite league with a handful of teams---and then another league that is basically D3 since the courts seem determined to take the scholarship amateur model off the table. So---what will come out of this is a 1000 or so athletes getting pay checks while the vast majority of current athletes lose both their "big stage" opportunity and their scholarships.

To me---the folks who are all gung ho to pay the players remind me a lot of the folks involved in these activist social justice reform city councils that rush to defund the police and stop requiring bail. They get all wrapped up in what seems like a good hearted mission to really help the downtrodden. Then a year later these same leaders are absolutely shocked that crime has exploded, the murder rate is up, and people are leaving their community. I'm thinking to myself---"Really? You didnt see this coming? Seriously?"

That's not my interpretation. There may well be a breakoff of the highest level of CFB and MBB that compensates players beyond COA but there was no indictment to the amateur model of college sports where players are compensated with an education. The SCOTUS said that the NCAA rules on compensation were to stringent and violated antitrust laws as it disallowed any form of benefits beyond the NCAA prescribed maximums. Suppose though that these limits were left up to the conferences. Can the MAC not choose to retain the current model or even the PAC12? As long as there's no collusion there's no a case based on the rulings we've heard thus far. And as I have mentioned taking the revenue sports to the level of pay for play would trigger labor laws and nonprofit tax laws that would cut deeply into the schools bottom line in addition to the payments to players. Schools will be reluctant to take that step. Perhaps the large revenues the highest level receives will make legislatures take action as we already see happening and schools like Stanford may have to reevaluate their priorities but I don't see it trickling down to all of college sports.

Lets say for a moment that yes---the leagues can do that. What if the MAC gets tired of losing and decides to pay players. The other 9 cant stop them. The CFP cant rule their teams as ineligible. The other 9 leagues cant refuse to play them (thats collusion) and it was a threat that blew up in the face of the NCAA in 1984.

The decision basically undercuts any ability to have a scholarship model for college sports. You can go some sort of NLF/NBA lite pro league---which is probably the best route for the handful of high revenue schools. Everyone else is probably better off adopting the D3 non-scholarship model. Cuts costs and avoids all the anti-trust issues. It's the closest thing to the "student athlete" scholarship model available to the schools---and it has the benefit of even lower costs than the current model. Let be honest---if most schools are losing money while not paying the players---a pay for play model is probably economic disaster for these programs. I suspect D3 will be a better option that trying to figure out how to come up with millions to pay players so you can keep losing money hand over fist on athletics. D3 solves all the anti-trust issues and all the Title-9 issues in one easy move. The big losers will be the vast majority of athletes that arent good enough to make one of the few NFL/NBA Lite school rosters. Those are the kids that would have been playing G5, lower end P5, or FCS football---who used to get full ride scholarships----but get nothing under a pay-for-play system designed to "protect" them from being "taken advantage of".

So you think the solution to the SCOTUS reprimanding the NCAA for not allowing schools to sufficiently compensate players is for schools to agree to compensate them less? The MAC can't afford a pay for play model, neither can CUSA or any of the G5. We can afford scholarship, room & board, COA and some laptops and meal stipends though. Is that not sufficient compensations? I think most everyone would agree it is. Can we not form a league and determine rules for a level playing ground? Yes we can. Schools that don't offer scholarships (Div III) wouldn't want to play in that league as they'd be disadvantaged, they're not compelled to do so and we're not compelled to let them. This may be a nuclear bomb to the revenue sports of the P5, time will tell. This is not an indictment on amateur athletics in general though, there's plenty of legal precedent of leagues being able to make reasonable rules for membership to ensure fair competition including that 1984 ruling.

One league can create rules for a level playing field within a conference. But, the NCAA is being told that no conference can coordinate with the other leagues to create a uniform division across the nation. So sure---CUSA can be scholarship only if they wish--but CUSA will lose out on the CFP slot forever because the AAC or MW will decide to pay its players. So you can create a level playing field in a conference---but the idea of a level playing field in FBS or college athletics on a national level is dead. Frankly, I think this is simply a pit stop on the way to individual schools being sued and told they cannot collude with other schools in the conference. I mean---that was what the NFL faced and I see no reason why CUSA or the SEC would fare any better than the NFL in a court challenge.

FBS football and D1 basketball as you know it is finished if there is pay-for-play. Frankly, yes---it will be more financially responsible for most schools to either drop to D3 or eliminate athletics completely than to try to continue with a pay-for-play athletic program.

No it's not. The SCOTUS didn't eliminate leagues (including the NCAA itself) rights to set rules, they said the NCAA was abusing that power. Why didn't they just go ahead and say that all NCAA regulations were invalid because it's collusion? Seems a pretty narrow decision to allow computers and postgrad study if this is the apocalyptic judgement you're claiming it is.

(06-22-2021 01:11 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  

(06-22-2021 12:21 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  1. New departments among the P5 for revenue sports, as protection from legal issues
2. D-III model for non-revenue sports
3. nearly complete collapse of D-I sports beyond the P5

Three points:

1. Where do you cut to reduce deficits? Sports, sure, but that's not solving the problem. The biggest cost centers at universities are personnel. SJSU has 165 people listed on its online staff directory, or about 10 per sport.

2. The ability of P5 schools to separately incorporate football outside the institution will infuriate the Title IX folks but provide some breathing room for the other sports.

3. Sports are not going away below P5. Full need financial aid attracts students, too and doesn't cost the athletic department the way a scholarship does.

I think schools like San Jose State will stop having D-I athletics. It wont all happen at once, but schools in G5 will throw in the towel one by one over the coming ten to fifteen years. Dropping to D-II would allow the SJSU program to operate at perhaps $15m a year rather than $35m. A lot of pink slips. D-I requires almost twice as many people in the department. So bye bye.

So yes, this means a lot of pink slips will be handed out as even P5 schools look to shed $30m in expenses. Scholarships only cover $5m to $10m.

Anyone working in private industry knows full well, if your department is losing money that layoffs are coming. That is what will happen to Lacrosse, Cross Country, Golf, Tennis, et al. They will have to operate within a budget supported only by student fees and whatever University money is transferred. Ending scholarships helps get these sports closer to break even. Shifting to D-II with next to $0 recruiting budget and lower salary coaches goes farther. Sharing the facilities with the student union to gain revenue to support the Olympic teams goes farther. Cutting the sport altogether or dropping to club status (say for golf) goes even farther.

But the cuts will not come in Football or Basketball, as these produce the revenue which is needed to pay the players. These programs must be as well funded as possible to attract the level of player necessary to generate revenue. It just means that the $20-40m which football saved by not paying the players will no longer be used to support Olympic Sports.

We are going back to the pre-NCAA days when it was a wild west for recruiting players and zero recruiting or support for other sports.Athletic Departments, Title IX and everything else grew up a separators of the big schools from the smaller. But these are no longer necessary for that separation. Payrolls will do that separation. The Olympic Sports will lose a good 50-75% of their budgets.


**********************

Athletics are not necessary at most schools. Student attendance is close to zero. A good club level and intramural is all you need. The Cal State University system and the UC system are at full capacity and it has nothing to do with sports. If you look at the Illinois school system or the Michigan for that matter, declining enrollments have nothing to do with whether they sponsor D-I sports or not. Further at most campuses Women are now over 56% of the student body, some as much as 61%.

This #3 argument is completely false, the data does not support it.

A good Basketball team is enough. The rest can be club and intramural.

If they simply drop scholarships for football and basketball you can drop title 9 scholarships for women.
Which is currently going through its own upside down evolution that might in the end result in scholarships for males .
This is a strange world we live in.
The truth is a lie and the lie is the truth. Predictability is out the window.

The sports separating will be revenue earning sports. A new governing body and loop hole to get around the verdict could result in a loss of scholarships for women.
So if a school offers no scholarships for it's overpaid athletes who can earn money off their likeness' etc.. also.
Then why not make them pay tuition. And cancel those scholarships you no longer have to provide to offset men's scholarships. For football and basketball . How many is that? how much money is it.
Most universities lose money and are not profitable. This seems to be another push toward a split for the P5.

(06-22-2021 09:09 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(06-22-2021 08:44 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

(06-22-2021 06:35 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  Take a deep breath. If what you say were true the only college athletics that would survive would be the FB & MBB programs of 20-30 schools and those probably wouldn’t last too long. That’s not going to happen

Huh? They can't do that because it's illegal and there's a minimum number of sports schools have to sponsor for each division. But there's nothing to stop schools from eliminating sports or stopping the NCAA from lowering the DI sports minimum.

There's only a handful of schools that can afford what he's suggesting and only for their revenue sports and the remaining leagues wouldn't be popular enough to continue their revenue streams. Making athletes employees and paying them 30% of the revenues their sports bring in wouldn't kill non-revenue sports, it'd kill all college sports.

It is not a matter of being able to afford. It is a matter of what is legally required. At this point your paradigm must shift. College sports have changed and I believe that players will be paid straight out. On the other hand, I feel like there will be more pressure to perform for players.

(06-22-2021 02:25 PM)cleburneslim Wrote:  If they simply drop scholarships for football and basketball you can drop title 9 scholarships for women.

Title IX is not just about scholarships but participation, spending, and a lot of other things. It's a law that's been co-opted to college sports.

(06-22-2021 03:06 PM)Big Ron Buckeye Wrote:  

(06-22-2021 09:09 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(06-22-2021 08:44 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

(06-22-2021 06:35 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  Take a deep breath. If what you say were true the only college athletics that would survive would be the FB & MBB programs of 20-30 schools and those probably wouldn’t last too long. That’s not going to happen

Huh? They can't do that because it's illegal and there's a minimum number of sports schools have to sponsor for each division. But there's nothing to stop schools from eliminating sports or stopping the NCAA from lowering the DI sports minimum.

There's only a handful of schools that can afford what he's suggesting and only for their revenue sports and the remaining leagues wouldn't be popular enough to continue their revenue streams. Making athletes employees and paying them 30% of the revenues their sports bring in wouldn't kill non-revenue sports, it'd kill all college sports.

It is not a matter of being able to afford. It is a matter of what is legally required. At this point your paradigm must shift. College sports have changed and I believe that players will be paid straight out. On the other hand, I feel like there will be more pressure to perform for players.

That's a lot of speculation based on nothing but playing along....I repeat, all but a small handful would not be able to afford it. Period. So you'll be left with 20-30 CFB & MBB programs and they would soon lose revenue too because interest would wane, donations would dry up (because those big dollar donations are no longer deductible under your proposal) and they too would be done. Poof. No more college athletics.

Now who do you suppose will make this legal requirement?

(06-22-2021 10:36 AM)Big Ron Buckeye Wrote:  The easiest way to cut expenses is to cut scholarships.

A lot of scholarship expenses are fixed costs that don't actually stop being paid just because they no longer have a share of the cost charged to the athletic department. There may be some majors cut that were put in place to give football and basketball players something to major in ... eg, "Sports Communication" ... but if the instruction still has to be there in front of the class, you still have to pay their impressive (for the 10-30% tenured professors) or miserly (for the majority of those doing the teaching) salaries. The buildings still need to be heated in the winter, etc.

The thing about scholarships is not cost, it's that recruiting the athlete to play on a team and then waving them through the admissions process that most students go through and then saying that they are (wink-wink) "student athletes" that turned varsity sports on its head. If the teams are made up of all walk-ons, and the University supports the activity by hiring coaches and providing facilities and paying for travel ... it doesn't seem that kind of sport team is affected by the ruling at all. Even if they give scholarships, giving scholarships to students who have already been granted a place at the school versus promising scholarships if they attend the school to play on your sports team are two different things.

It's travel costs that is the easiest expense to cut. After that comes sports sponsorship costs. If men's football and basketball break off to form their own organization for the paid semi-pro sports, there is no need for half or more of the division one schools to stay in Division one, and a lot of them will want to pare back the sports they participate in, and smaller, bus league conferences can be formed.

I would not be surprised if the Big Ten stays together, because with the selective recruitment that so many have, they won't want to get beat up by all of those directional schools where a lot of aspiring Olympic sports athletes will find it easier to get admitted.

(06-22-2021 08:06 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I still maintain that it’s not the NCAA’s fault that the NFL and NBA refuse to pay for the development of their talent.

Without any real minor league system, top athletes that are skilled enough to play professionally have no choice but to play college sports.

(06-22-2021 08:06 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I still maintain that it’s not the NCAA’s fault that the NFL and NBA refuse to pay for the development of their talent.

Without any real minor league system, top athletes that are skilled enough to play professionally have no choice but to play college sports.

That is true to a degree, but false at the same time as well. There is literally nothing stopping a talented athlete from taking his/her talents to the CFL, XFL, , or some overseas basketball league, except $$'s to get established in said leagues.

However, I will say that I have yet to hear about high schoolers going to the CFL and then the NFL. In fact, I have not heard of too many CFL players going to the NFL.

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk

(06-22-2021 11:45 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(06-22-2021 11:30 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-22-2021 11:09 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(06-22-2021 10:52 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-22-2021 07:50 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  I don't think so. The Supreme Court will uphold Title IX as well, IMO, so I don't see all of women's sports being affected. Now the more obscure men & women's sports, I do see as being affected, and alumni are going to be asked to contribute a lot more to keep their favorite non-revenue sports alive.

As a side note, I have to wonder why Division 2 , Division 3, and the NAIA weren't included as well.

Which is why they will go away. Its not like these sources of revenue have not been already squeezed for as much as possible. Its not like all college sports will go away---but my guess is there will be a college NFL Lite league with a handful of teams---and then another league that is basically D3 since the courts seem determined to take the scholarship amateur model off the table. So---what will come out of this is a 1000 or so athletes getting pay checks while the vast majority of current athletes lose both their "big stage" opportunity and their scholarships.

To me---the folks who are all gung ho to pay the players remind me a lot of the folks involved in these activist social justice reform city councils that rush to defund the police and stop requiring bail. They get all wrapped up in what seems like a good hearted mission to really help the downtrodden. Then a year later these same leaders are absolutely shocked that crime has exploded, the murder rate is up, and people are leaving their community. I'm thinking to myself---"Really? You didnt see this coming? Seriously?"

That's not my interpretation. There may well be a breakoff of the highest level of CFB and MBB that compensates players beyond COA but there was no indictment to the amateur model of college sports where players are compensated with an education. The SCOTUS said that the NCAA rules on compensation were to stringent and violated antitrust laws as it disallowed any form of benefits beyond the NCAA prescribed maximums. Suppose though that these limits were left up to the conferences. Can the MAC not choose to retain the current model or even the PAC12? As long as there's no collusion there's no a case based on the rulings we've heard thus far. And as I have mentioned taking the revenue sports to the level of pay for play would trigger labor laws and nonprofit tax laws that would cut deeply into the schools bottom line in addition to the payments to players. Schools will be reluctant to take that step. Perhaps the large revenues the highest level receives will make legislatures take action as we already see happening and schools like Stanford may have to reevaluate their priorities but I don't see it trickling down to all of college sports.

Lets say for a moment that yes---the leagues can do that. What if the MAC gets tired of losing and decides to pay players. The other 9 cant stop them. The CFP cant rule their teams as ineligible. The other 9 leagues cant refuse to play them (thats collusion) and it was a threat that blew up in the face of the NCAA in 1984.

The decision basically undercuts any ability to have a scholarship model for college sports. You can go some sort of NLF/NBA lite pro league---which is probably the best route for the handful of high revenue schools. Everyone else is probably better off adopting the D3 non-scholarship model. Cuts costs and avoids all the anti-trust issues. It's the closest thing to the "student athlete" scholarship model available to the schools---and it has the benefit of even lower costs than the current model. Let be honest---if most schools are losing money while not paying the players---a pay for play model is probably economic disaster for these programs. I suspect D3 will be a better option that trying to figure out how to come up with millions to pay players so you can keep losing money hand over fist on athletics. D3 solves all the anti-trust issues and all the Title-9 issues in one easy move. The big losers will be the vast majority of athletes that arent good enough to make one of the few NFL/NBA Lite school rosters. Those are the kids that would have been playing G5, lower end P5, or FCS football---who used to get full ride scholarships----but get nothing under a pay-for-play system designed to "protect" them from being "taken advantage of".

So you think the solution to the SCOTUS reprimanding the NCAA for not allowing schools to sufficiently compensate players is for schools to agree to compensate them less? The MAC can't afford a pay for play model, neither can CUSA or any of the G5. We can afford scholarship, room & board, COA and some laptops and meal stipends though. Is that not sufficient compensations? I think most everyone would agree it is. Can we not form a league and determine rules for a level playing ground? Yes we can. Schools that don't offer scholarships (Div III) wouldn't want to play in that league as they'd be disadvantaged, they're not compelled to do so and we're not compelled to let them. This may be a nuclear bomb to the revenue sports of the P5, time will tell. This is not an indictment on amateur athletics in general though, there's plenty of legal precedent of leagues being able to make reasonable rules for membership to ensure fair competition including that 1984 ruling.

If you read Justice Kavenaugh, no--I dont think he agrees that a scholarship and a lap top is enough--not even close in his view. Is paying even less by going to D3 the answer? Its not the answer he wants---but its probably closer to the answer he will get from a lot of schools. Some will be able to pay---but most will either downgrade if they can. If they cant downgrade---many will simply end the massive increasing flow of red ink by shutting down athletics completely. Unintended consequences in the real world is a thing. Mark my words---when this race to pay players reaches its final end point---the result will be LESS opportunities for players---not more.

College athletics might look different but they aren’t going anywhere. Conference membership may change and probably should. If a school can’t afford to compete, maybe they shouldn’t. Perhaps it’s time the college athletics saw some contraction.

Schools will find other revenue streams. We’ve been paying for the right just to buy tickets for the best seats for Louisville games for almost 40 years. Premium seating is an area UofL started targeting over 20 years ago. When you haven’t received that big check from the conference for decades you look for ways to survive.

If anyone thinks college players aren’t already being compensated (wink,wink) at football factories you’re kidding yourself. Google “bagman college football” Maybe this ruling will help level the playing field and bring the $100 dollar handshakes out into the open.

I am going to make up numbers for the sake of the argument.
So say a scholarship meal plan and all the other freebies athletes get is worth 60k at school X.
The school could pay these players and require them to pay tuition and for everything else.
For a sport to be considered revenue the revenue would need to exceed these cost.
So Men's basketball and football at some schools .
I imagine a formula for compensation would be figured out.
A percentage of revenue that must exceed the cost now transferred to players.
Cost like travel coaching facilities would be accounted for before the revenue split.
Gonzaga and BYU basketball could be revenue teams the rest of the conference scholarship. BYU and Gonzaga could cut women's sports or may be forced to . Revenue sports would be a different category.

Conference TV money especially conference networks dividing up that money will be interesting. I think this effects the P5 almost exclusively.
The pay at Alabama vs Oklahoma St will increase the divide.
For Bowling Green nothing changes maybe a lowering of sports required.

(06-23-2021 02:53 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-22-2021 11:45 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(06-22-2021 11:30 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-22-2021 11:09 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(06-22-2021 10:52 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Which is why they will go away. Its not like these sources of revenue have not been already squeezed for as much as possible. Its not like all college sports will go away---but my guess is there will be a college NFL Lite league with a handful of teams---and then another league that is basically D3 since the courts seem determined to take the scholarship amateur model off the table. So---what will come out of this is a 1000 or so athletes getting pay checks while the vast majority of current athletes lose both their "big stage" opportunity and their scholarships.

To me---the folks who are all gung ho to pay the players remind me a lot of the folks involved in these activist social justice reform city councils that rush to defund the police and stop requiring bail. They get all wrapped up in what seems like a good hearted mission to really help the downtrodden. Then a year later these same leaders are absolutely shocked that crime has exploded, the murder rate is up, and people are leaving their community. I'm thinking to myself---"Really? You didnt see this coming? Seriously?"

That's not my interpretation. There may well be a breakoff of the highest level of CFB and MBB that compensates players beyond COA but there was no indictment to the amateur model of college sports where players are compensated with an education. The SCOTUS said that the NCAA rules on compensation were to stringent and violated antitrust laws as it disallowed any form of benefits beyond the NCAA prescribed maximums. Suppose though that these limits were left up to the conferences. Can the MAC not choose to retain the current model or even the PAC12? As long as there's no collusion there's no a case based on the rulings we've heard thus far. And as I have mentioned taking the revenue sports to the level of pay for play would trigger labor laws and nonprofit tax laws that would cut deeply into the schools bottom line in addition to the payments to players. Schools will be reluctant to take that step. Perhaps the large revenues the highest level receives will make legislatures take action as we already see happening and schools like Stanford may have to reevaluate their priorities but I don't see it trickling down to all of college sports.

Lets say for a moment that yes---the leagues can do that. What if the MAC gets tired of losing and decides to pay players. The other 9 cant stop them. The CFP cant rule their teams as ineligible. The other 9 leagues cant refuse to play them (thats collusion) and it was a threat that blew up in the face of the NCAA in 1984.

The decision basically undercuts any ability to have a scholarship model for college sports. You can go some sort of NLF/NBA lite pro league---which is probably the best route for the handful of high revenue schools. Everyone else is probably better off adopting the D3 non-scholarship model. Cuts costs and avoids all the anti-trust issues. It's the closest thing to the "student athlete" scholarship model available to the schools---and it has the benefit of even lower costs than the current model. Let be honest---if most schools are losing money while not paying the players---a pay for play model is probably economic disaster for these programs. I suspect D3 will be a better option that trying to figure out how to come up with millions to pay players so you can keep losing money hand over fist on athletics. D3 solves all the anti-trust issues and all the Title-9 issues in one easy move. The big losers will be the vast majority of athletes that arent good enough to make one of the few NFL/NBA Lite school rosters. Those are the kids that would have been playing G5, lower end P5, or FCS football---who used to get full ride scholarships----but get nothing under a pay-for-play system designed to "protect" them from being "taken advantage of".

So you think the solution to the SCOTUS reprimanding the NCAA for not allowing schools to sufficiently compensate players is for schools to agree to compensate them less? The MAC can't afford a pay for play model, neither can CUSA or any of the G5. We can afford scholarship, room & board, COA and some laptops and meal stipends though. Is that not sufficient compensations? I think most everyone would agree it is. Can we not form a league and determine rules for a level playing ground? Yes we can. Schools that don't offer scholarships (Div III) wouldn't want to play in that league as they'd be disadvantaged, they're not compelled to do so and we're not compelled to let them. This may be a nuclear bomb to the revenue sports of the P5, time will tell. This is not an indictment on amateur athletics in general though, there's plenty of legal precedent of leagues being able to make reasonable rules for membership to ensure fair competition including that 1984 ruling.

If you read Justice Kavenaugh, no--I dont think he agrees that a scholarship and a lap top is enough--not even close in his view. Is paying even less by going to D3 the answer? Its not the answer he wants---but its probably closer to the answer he will get from a lot of schools. Some will be able to pay---but most will either downgrade if they can. If they cant downgrade---many will simply end the massive increasing flow of red ink by shutting down athletics completely. Unintended consequences in the real world is a thing. Mark my words---when this race to pay players reaches its final end point---the result will be LESS opportunities for players---not more.

I did read Kavanaugh and he basically said the NCAA put up **** for an argument and that if the rest of their compensation limits came to court they would get shot down too. He acknowledged the tricky situation of revenue vs. nonrevenue sports and the issues of Title 9 and suggested these could be resolved either through negotiations with student athletes or through legislation instead of the courts. (Hint, hint NCAA)

He also agreed with and commended the court's decision written by Gorsuch which spoke in depth about antitrust, joint ventures, competition and necessary vs. unnecessary restrictions. If what you say comes to pass then it will basically prove the NCAA right that the compensation limitations were necessary to provide opportunity for the athletes as a complete removal of restrictions will have resulted in the opposite effect. I'd read the full court opinion, it acknowledges the purpose of compensation limits as legitimate but that the NCAA has been for too long overly restrictive and that the economies it operates under have greatly changed. Most of that change can be pinpointed down to 5 conferences and two sports though.

May we see a breakoff of the top in FB and MBB and some sort of revenue sharing with players in those areas? Maybe, I hope not. March Madness would lose it's luster without full participation IMO. FB may be inevitable that another subdivision or completely new governing body forms for that. May we see some broader negotiated agreement that covers all athletes with increased stipends (perhaps a base and then increases for needs based) along with guarantees of health insurance, scholarship guarantees, etc.? Maybe and would be good and just IMO.

What I don't think we see is an actual employer/employee relationship at any level of college sports. It wouldn't benefit the players, the colleges or the sport. Nor will we see individually negotiated contracts for each player when they sign their NLI. I don't see the cataclysmic change that you and others have promoted happening. College sports will continue and though the definition of "amateurism" that the NCAA tried to insist on will most certainly change, college athletes will still be considered amateurs.

Go read the full courts opinion, or at least skim it. Compensation limits and rules set up by the NCAA and/or the conferences are not being thrown out the window, just the way the NCAA has carried it out.

The main question is how much is going to be taken out for things that the scholarship covers? Dorm rooms at the school, books, classes, travel to games, hotel rooms for away games, food. If there's going to be any money made I think it would be appearance fees through the college for things like donor dinners. Maybe pay some of the Olympic sports players to mingle with maybe a few football or basketball players. I'm under the assumption most of the money is going to come from sources outside the schools like commercials, autographs or appearance fees at local business or tv shows.

(06-23-2021 10:09 PM)46566 Wrote:  The main question is how much is going to be taken out for things that the scholarship covers? Dorm rooms at the school, books, classes, travel to games, hotel rooms for away games, food. If there's going to be any money made I think it would be appearance fees through the college for things like donor dinners. Maybe pay some of the Olympic sports players to mingle with maybe a few football or basketball players. I'm under the assumption most of the money is going to come from sources outside the schools like commercials, autographs or appearance fees at local business or tv shows.

I've argued that athletic scholarships will no longer be a thing. I think straight division III model with a few adjustments:
*Financial Need based and only.
*Minimum wage for all athletes (as compensation for team activities)
*A percentage cut of revenue produced by your sport
*Student would get residual income from NIL
*Students would be able to get endorsement deals.
*Students need to maintain good standing with the school
Basically, football and basketball have bankrolled everyone in the athletic department. And now that they can no longer do that... non-revevue sports will be true student athletes.

I predict a split between those who make a profit and those who do not.
paid vs unpaid, those who can will attend the haves and those who fall under that line will play at the unpaid level. The haves will have all the bells and whistles and the have nots will Garner whatever they can from endorsement etc.. on their own since they arguable have no value in that they produce no profit for athletics.
For those poverty stricken schools things will go on as somewhat usual, while the wealthy school will likely look like semi pro football.

(06-23-2021 04:20 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  College athletics might look different but they aren’t going anywhere. Conference membership may change and probably should. If a school can’t afford to compete, maybe they shouldn’t. Perhaps it’s time the college athletics saw some contraction.

Schools will find other revenue streams. We’ve been paying for the right just to buy tickets for the best seats for Louisville games for almost 40 years. Premium seating is an area UofL started targeting over 20 years ago. When you haven’t received that big check from the conference for decades you look for ways to survive.

If anyone thinks college players aren’t already being compensated (wink,wink) at football factories you’re kidding yourself. Google “bagman college football” Maybe this ruling will help level the playing field and bring the $100 dollar handshakes out into the open.

Agreed.

I'm truly tired of this apocalyptic complaining about this ruling.

Schools pay 7 figure salaries to coaches, 8 figure amounts for training facilities, and take on 9 figure loans for stadiums.

These schools have the money (at least in the P5). They have simply chosen to spend it on a whole lot of things other than the players themselves up to this point.

I'll repeat what I've stated elsewhere: I have zero sympathy for the NCAA and its members on this matter. None.

All of the suggestions of supposed loopholes around Title IX fall flat on their face. Trying to structurally separate football and men's basketball from the rest of the athletic department will NOT work - that's a classic legal case of attempting "form over substance" to try to get around a rule. Believe me - the only thing worse for a university than dealing with athlete compensation is getting into a civil rights Title IX lawsuit where the damages are unlimited under the law.

The bottom line is that if schools want to have marquee football and men's basketball programs that make money, then they're going to find a way to compensate players in alignment with this Supreme Court ruling along with complying Title IX. No one said that this is going to be simple, but that's what these schools get for trying to kick the can down the road on this issue for decades.

(06-24-2021 08:58 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-23-2021 04:20 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  College athletics might look different but they aren’t going anywhere. Conference membership may change and probably should. If a school can’t afford to compete, maybe they shouldn’t. Perhaps it’s time the college athletics saw some contraction.

Schools will find other revenue streams. We’ve been paying for the right just to buy tickets for the best seats for Louisville games for almost 40 years. Premium seating is an area UofL started targeting over 20 years ago. When you haven’t received that big check from the conference for decades you look for ways to survive.

If anyone thinks college players aren’t already being compensated (wink,wink) at football factories you’re kidding yourself. Google “bagman college football” Maybe this ruling will help level the playing field and bring the $100 dollar handshakes out into the open.

Agreed.

I'm truly tired of this apocalyptic complaining about this ruling.

Schools pay 7 figure salaries to coaches, 8 figure amounts for training facilities, and take on 9 figure loans for stadiums.

These schools have the money (at least in the P5). They have simply chosen to spend it on a whole lot of things other than the players themselves up to this point.

I'll repeat what I've stated elsewhere: I have zero sympathy for the NCAA and its members on this matter. None.

All of the suggestions of supposed loopholes around Title IX fall flat on their face. Trying to structurally separate football and men's basketball from the rest of the athletic department will NOT work - that's a classic legal case of attempting "form over substance" to try to get around a rule. Believe me - the only thing worse for a university than dealing with athlete compensation is getting into a civil rights Title IX lawsuit where the damages are unlimited under the law.

The bottom line is that if schools want to have marquee football and men's basketball programs that make money, then they're going to find a way to compensate players in alignment with this Supreme Court ruling along with complying Title IX. No one said that this is going to be simple, but that's what these schools get for trying to kick the can down the road on this issue for decades.

Great Post Frank +3
No sympathy for the NCAA or its members either. #NFTG