1) I don't think the NCAA is going to disappear. I do believe that players will get paid after the lawsuit goes through the Supreme Court in a regulated but free-market system. What that is I don't know.

2) The NCAA will have four Divisions- 1, 2, 3, 4. Division 1 will be the only division where you will have to pay players in all sports. The bigger schools will keep the minimum sports requirement to thin the herd. There will be a minimum wage of sorts that every school will have to play every student athlete.

3) The NCAA tournament will remain in its current format (might shrink back to 64) but the larger conferences will get a much larger share of the pie.

4) The result of #2 and #3 will be a major thinning of the herd. IMO, the Ivy League, HBCUs and service academies will drop to Division 2. I also think a lot of other private schools and smaller state schools will bite the bullet as well.

5) The Power 5 + Big East will survive as Division 1 leagues. I don't see any of the 80 schools in these leagues dropping out (including Notre Dame, Duke, Northwestern, Stanford, or any of the other major private institutions). Some may reduce the number of sports they offer to the minimum, but they will stay Division 1.

6) Division 1 will be left with 150-200 schools. Gonzaga, most of the Atlantic 10, and most of the MWC and AAC will pay players. There will be other schools outside of those leagues that remain. Liberty is a school that comes to mind. I think 12-14 conferences will survive.

7) FBS will thin as well. The 69 P5 schools will remain. I do think UConn will stay up and pay for football. The other schools to make the cut include most of the schools in the MW and AAC and Liberty. In the end, I think 90-100 schools will play major college football.

(01-16-2022 06:56 PM)shizzle787 Wrote:  1) I don't think the NCAA is going to disappear. I do believe that players will get paid after the lawsuit goes through the Supreme Court in a regulated but free-market system. What that is I don't know.

2) The NCAA will have four Divisions- 1, 2, 3, 4. Division 1 will be the only division where you will have to pay players in all sports. The bigger schools will keep the minimum sports requirement to thin the herd. There will be a minimum wage of sorts that every school will have to play every student athlete.

3) The NCAA tournament will remain in its current format (might shrink back to 64) but the larger conferences will get a much larger share of the pie.

4) The result of #2 and #3 will be a major thinning of the herd. IMO, the Ivy League, HBCUs and service academies will drop to Division 2. I also think a lot of other private schools and smaller state schools will bite the bullet as well.

5) The Power 5 + Big East will survive as Division 1 leagues. I don't see any of the 80 schools in these leagues dropping out (including Notre Dame, Duke, Northwestern, Stanford, or any of the other major private institutions). Some may reduce the number of sports they offer to the minimum, but they will stay Division 1.

6) Division 1 will be left with 150-200 schools. Gonzaga, most of the Atlantic 10, and most of the MWC and AAC will pay players. There will be other schools outside of those leagues that remain. Liberty is a school that comes to mind. I think 12-14 conferences will survive.

7) FBS will thin as well. The 69 P5 schools will remain. I do think UConn will stay up and pay for football. The other schools to make the cut include most of the schools in the MW and AAC and Liberty. In the end, I think 90-100 schools will play major college football.

Number 2, all schools no matter what division you are end will be played as employees. All players are treated equally.

At some point, a minimum level of sanity on player wages will have to prevail. It makes no sense whatever for schools, even the wealthiest, to pay athletes on the rowing team, or the bowling team, or the sand volleyball team (among others). All those athletes must pinch themselves every night to make sure that the fact that they get a scholarship at all is real. The idea that they are somehow being exploited is ludicrous.

(01-16-2022 08:03 PM)ken d Wrote:  At some point, a minimum level of sanity on player wages will have to prevail. It makes no sense whatever for schools, even the wealthiest, to pay athletes on the rowing team, or the bowling team, or the sand volleyball team (among others). All those athletes must pinch themselves every night to make sure that the fact that they get a scholarship at all is real. The idea that they are somehow being exploited is ludicrous.

I agree in principle but how do you decide what to pay or more to your point, who you pay?

This is why a pay for play model could destroy the entire college athletic model. For years schools have been taking money from their earnings in Football and men's basketball and using it to fund other sports. What do you do when those players need to be paid?

Unfortunately I think the outcome will be the cutting of the majority of sports not named football, basketball, and baseball. It's going to get ugly.

(01-16-2022 09:20 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  This is why a pay for play model could destroy the entire college athletic model. For years schools have been taking money from their earnings in Football and men's basketball and using it to fund other sports. What do you do when those players need to be paid?

Unfortunately I think the outcome will be the cutting of the majority of sports not named football, basketball, and baseball. It's going to get ugly.

Some schools see sports sponsorship as a positive, not a negative. Georgetown is not dropping 29 of its 30 sports to support one of them.

(01-16-2022 06:56 PM)shizzle787 Wrote:  1) I don't think the NCAA is going to disappear. I do believe that players will get paid after the lawsuit goes through the Supreme Court in a regulated but free-market system. What that is I don't know.

2) The NCAA will have four Divisions- 1, 2, 3, 4. Division 1 will be the only division where you will have to pay players in all sports. The bigger schools will keep the minimum sports requirement to thin the herd. There will be a minimum wage of sorts that every school will have to play every student athlete.

3) The NCAA tournament will remain in its current format (might shrink back to 64) but the larger conferences will get a much larger share of the pie.

4) The result of #2 and #3 will be a major thinning of the herd. IMO, the Ivy League, HBCUs and service academies will drop to Division 2. I also think a lot of other private schools and smaller state schools will bite the bullet as well.

5) The Power 5 + Big East will survive as Division 1 leagues. I don't see any of the 80 schools in these leagues dropping out (including Notre Dame, Duke, Northwestern, Stanford, or any of the other major private institutions). Some may reduce the number of sports they offer to the minimum, but they will stay Division 1.

6) Division 1 will be left with 150-200 schools. Gonzaga, most of the Atlantic 10, and most of the MWC and AAC will pay players. There will be other schools outside of those leagues that remain. Liberty is a school that comes to mind. I think 12-14 conferences will survive.

7) FBS will thin as well. The 69 P5 schools will remain. I do think UConn will stay up and pay for football. The other schools to make the cut include most of the schools in the MW and AAC and Liberty. In the end, I think 90-100 schools will play major college football.

I agree with a good bit of this.

(01-16-2022 06:56 PM)shizzle787 Wrote:  1) I don't think the NCAA is going to disappear. I do believe that players will get paid after the lawsuit goes through the Supreme Court in a regulated but free-market system. What that is I don't know.

2) The NCAA will have four Divisions- 1, 2, 3, 4. Division 1 will be the only division where you will have to pay players in all sports. The bigger schools will keep the minimum sports requirement to thin the herd. There will be a minimum wage of sorts that every school will have to play every student athlete.

3) The NCAA tournament will remain in its current format (might shrink back to 64) but the larger conferences will get a much larger share of the pie.

4) The result of #2 and #3 will be a major thinning of the herd. IMO, the Ivy League, HBCUs and service academies will drop to Division 2. I also think a lot of other private schools and smaller state schools will bite the bullet as well.

5) The Power 5 + Big East will survive as Division 1 leagues. I don't see any of the 80 schools in these leagues dropping out (including Notre Dame, Duke, Northwestern, Stanford, or any of the other major private institutions). Some may reduce the number of sports they offer to the minimum, but they will stay Division 1.

6) Division 1 will be left with 150-200 schools. Gonzaga, most of the Atlantic 10, and most of the MWC and AAC will pay players. There will be other schools outside of those leagues that remain. Liberty is a school that comes to mind. I think 12-14 conferences will survive.

7) FBS will thin as well. The 69 P5 schools will remain. I do think UConn will stay up and pay for football. The other schools to make the cut include most of the schools in the MW and AAC and Liberty. In the end, I think 90-100 schools will play major college football.

I disagree with you about the service academies. The service academies want to compete against the best competition possible-therefore they will follow the big state schools.
I think that the SunBelt and the MAC are going to try to compete at the highest level for as long as they can. It's going to take regents looking at things year to year to make any decisions: translation: AAC and MWC, don't get your hopes up; the SunBelt and the MAC are here to stay. C-USA will be the interesting one to follow, IMO, because they could go either direction. The Patriot League will join the Ivy League in the new D2 along with the CAA, IMO. Add the Pioneer League also. The Dakota schools and the Montana schools have some interesting choices to make, IMO. Basically, FCS=new D2, much to FCS fans' chagrin.
Also, expect to finally see a D2 in hockey.

(01-16-2022 08:03 PM)ken d Wrote:  At some point, a minimum level of sanity on player wages will have to prevail. It makes no sense whatever for schools, even the wealthiest, to pay athletes on the rowing team, or the bowling team, or the sand volleyball team (among others). All those athletes must pinch themselves every night to make sure that the fact that they get a scholarship at all is real. The idea that they are somehow being exploited is ludicrous.

I realize you're just making an old-man-shaking-fist-at-cloud post...


... but they're not all getting scholarships. Most varsity athletes get partial scholarships, many are walk-ons. Women athletes are more likely to get a full or larger share simply because the football limit of 85 is so out of proportion to every other NCAA sport. Men's volleyball, for example, permits a maximum of 4.5 athletic scholarships. Every roster in that sport has more than 4.5 athletes. The baseball max is 11.7 scholarships; most rosters have well over 30 players. The T&F max is 12 scholarships for men and 18 for women; Cal has more than 50 men and 50 women on the varsity rosters.

(01-16-2022 08:02 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(01-16-2022 06:56 PM)shizzle787 Wrote:  1) I don't think the NCAA is going to disappear. I do believe that players will get paid after the lawsuit goes through the Supreme Court in a regulated but free-market system. What that is I don't know.

2) The NCAA will have four Divisions- 1, 2, 3, 4. Division 1 will be the only division where you will have to pay players in all sports. The bigger schools will keep the minimum sports requirement to thin the herd. There will be a minimum wage of sorts that every school will have to play every student athlete.

3) The NCAA tournament will remain in its current format (might shrink back to 64) but the larger conferences will get a much larger share of the pie.

4) The result of #2 and #3 will be a major thinning of the herd. IMO, the Ivy League, HBCUs and service academies will drop to Division 2. I also think a lot of other private schools and smaller state schools will bite the bullet as well.

5) The Power 5 + Big East will survive as Division 1 leagues. I don't see any of the 80 schools in these leagues dropping out (including Notre Dame, Duke, Northwestern, Stanford, or any of the other major private institutions). Some may reduce the number of sports they offer to the minimum, but they will stay Division 1.

6) Division 1 will be left with 150-200 schools. Gonzaga, most of the Atlantic 10, and most of the MWC and AAC will pay players. There will be other schools outside of those leagues that remain. Liberty is a school that comes to mind. I think 12-14 conferences will survive.

7) FBS will thin as well. The 69 P5 schools will remain. I do think UConn will stay up and pay for football. The other schools to make the cut include most of the schools in the MW and AAC and Liberty. In the end, I think 90-100 schools will play major college football.

Number 2, all schools no matter what division you are end will be played as employees. All players are treated equally.

If don’t think so. The existence of pay-for-play collegiate leagues will create a landscape that allows the existence of collegiate amateur leagues that avoid antitrust violations. By definition, players who are not pursued by pay-for-play college leagues will have been determined by the marketplace to be of amateur player talent. Not everyone is good enough to be a pro player—-that’s how the free market works. Once the big top level play for play schools break away, there won’t be much money in amateur collegiate leagues anyway—-so any monetary concerns about hypocrisy in that level of sport will be gone. The future amateur college level players won’t be able to complain that they are being deprived of millions of dollars because there will be no millions of dollars to be deprived of.

(01-17-2022 08:35 AM)Pastasevensamurai Wrote:  I could see the NBA and NFL expanding their draft to include current student-athletes. This will allow college athletes to attend training camp, play in preseason games etc just like the NHL without officially going to “pro”.

If a college is paying a student for being a football player, what does it matter if that student was previously paid by another entity for playing football?

Or why couldn't an NFL team hire a player, and have him play for a college team which they have contracted with?

This thread looks like a good spot to speculate on the new ncaa constitution to be voted on this Thursday. The basic idea of the new consttution is to give each division more control of it's own governance and divisions may write their own constitutions later this year.

Many in div 1 will likely want to put tighter controls on fcs move ups for example. CUSA would need to make a move before a change is made if they want to get to 10, for example.

Elite basketball leagues will want to adjust the method of ncaa tournament distributions, something that has been discussed at length on this board.

Any other thoughts related to divisions governing themselves?

(01-17-2022 11:18 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The existence of pay-for-play collegiate leagues will create a landscape that allows the existence of collegiate amateur leagues that avoid antitrust violations.

That isn't going to happen in the near future.

We should not expect universities to eagerly step up to pay salaries to college athletes. It throws the economics of university operations of athletics out of whack. For football alone, if a school pays 85 players an average of $50,000/year, that's a player payroll of $4.25 million. And that's a very low estimate, because if universities dig deep to pay athletes, then the bidding process for star players would drive that average higher. If a school uses its own money to pay athletes in all sports and not just football, then the economics are even more out of whack.

So, if college athletes are to be paid any significant amount, the money is going to come from boosters or corporate sponsors. Companies who can make money off of paying athletes, like adidas and Nike paying the very best basketball players, will keep doing so. That's where NIL will disrupt the old under-the-table way of paying college athletes. There will be a gap between teams that have athletes paid by large companies who use those payments as business tools, and teams that don't have those athletes.

IMO individual boosters who pay six figures per athlete to get a player for their favorite college team will get tired of making those payments after a few years. College boosters don't own their favorite college football or basketball team. Unlike pro team owners, boosters can't collect the team's profits and can't cash out by selling the team down the road. At some point nearly all of them will decide that the thrill of sitting in a luxury box and rooting for the team to win the conference or go deep in the playoffs isn't thrilling enough to make them want to spend millions to pay college kids year after year. NIL won't vanish, but payments from individual boosters will eventually settle at a lower level.

(01-17-2022 11:18 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-16-2022 08:02 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(01-16-2022 06:56 PM)shizzle787 Wrote:  1) I don't think the NCAA is going to disappear. I do believe that players will get paid after the lawsuit goes through the Supreme Court in a regulated but free-market system. What that is I don't know.

2) The NCAA will have four Divisions- 1, 2, 3, 4. Division 1 will be the only division where you will have to pay players in all sports. The bigger schools will keep the minimum sports requirement to thin the herd. There will be a minimum wage of sorts that every school will have to play every student athlete.

3) The NCAA tournament will remain in its current format (might shrink back to 64) but the larger conferences will get a much larger share of the pie.

4) The result of #2 and #3 will be a major thinning of the herd. IMO, the Ivy League, HBCUs and service academies will drop to Division 2. I also think a lot of other private schools and smaller state schools will bite the bullet as well.

5) The Power 5 + Big East will survive as Division 1 leagues. I don't see any of the 80 schools in these leagues dropping out (including Notre Dame, Duke, Northwestern, Stanford, or any of the other major private institutions). Some may reduce the number of sports they offer to the minimum, but they will stay Division 1.

6) Division 1 will be left with 150-200 schools. Gonzaga, most of the Atlantic 10, and most of the MWC and AAC will pay players. There will be other schools outside of those leagues that remain. Liberty is a school that comes to mind. I think 12-14 conferences will survive.

7) FBS will thin as well. The 69 P5 schools will remain. I do think UConn will stay up and pay for football. The other schools to make the cut include most of the schools in the MW and AAC and Liberty. In the end, I think 90-100 schools will play major college football.

Number 2, all schools no matter what division you are end will be played as employees. All players are treated equally.

If don’t think so. The existence of pay-for-play collegiate leagues will create a landscape that allows the existence of collegiate amateur leagues that avoid antitrust violations. By definition, players who are not pursued by pay-for-play college leagues will have been determined by the marketplace to be of amateur player talent. Not everyone is good enough to be a pro player—-that’s how the free market works. Once the big top level play for play schools break away, there won’t be much money in amateur collegiate leagues anyway—-so any monetary concerns about hypocrisy in that level of sport will be gone. The future amateur college level players won’t be able to complain that they are being deprived of millions of dollars because there will be no millions of dollars to be deprived of.

You do get athletes that are stars at all levels as some of them become starters on pro teams over stars from the P5 schools. You see more failures at the pro levels who won the Heisman. It tells you that they were not great athletes in college.

Thinking outside the box here....

A good deal of the problems we see in elite-level athletics today has to do with money. Whereas the NCAA is supposed to be a membership driven non-profit, in reality is a money driven media content organization with serious anti-trust issues. How would we go about negating the influence of "money for content" and yet not cripple the budgets of the elite-level programs?

Where does the money come from? The so called "Big Dance".

How to separate the Big Dance money from the NCAA? Go back to making it a 3rd party sponsored Invitational, like the NIT was in the late 30s. The tournament could invite anyone it wanted to invite, including the occasional D2 or even a Canadian team if it seemed worthy.

The NCAA could go back to simply being a membership driven non-profit regulating the programs of its members.

The Elite programs would still make money, via payouts from the tournament organization. In fact, they would likely make more, because it wouldn't have to be shared with schools from the other divisions.

The pressure to move into Division 1 would decrease substantially. Right now, the pull of D1 is money and exposure, even if you are a losing program. With the money flowing only to tournament worthy "winners", which division you are in wouldn't matter so much.

Each Division (including D1) would still have its own tournament, but the Elites would be elsewhere. So there would still be ample post season opportunities AND some broadcast money, it just wouldn't be enough to drive policy.

Food for thought

LoL…. UCONN won’t survive.

(01-17-2022 11:38 AM)jimrtex Wrote:  

(01-17-2022 08:35 AM)Pastasevensamurai Wrote:  I could see the NBA and NFL expanding their draft to include current student-athletes. This will allow college athletes to attend training camp, play in preseason games etc just like the NHL without officially going to “pro”.

If a college is paying a student for being a football player, what does it matter if that student was previously paid by another entity for playing football?

Or why couldn't an NFL team hire a player, and have him play for a college team which they have contracted with?

Because the NFL doesn't want the expense associated with creating a developmental league when one already exists.

Too many people are trying to find some type of legal or contractual solution to what is fundamentally an economic problem.

You can't just magically say, "The football team will legally separate to be a third party club that is licensing the name 'The Ohio State Buckeyes' and, therefore, it's a totally separate unaffiliated entity that doesn't have to worry about Title IX and other compliance issues!"

You can't just magically say, "All Division I athletes can be paid while all Division II/III/IV athletes won't be paid!" The whole point of all of these rulings is that it doesn't matter whether an athlete is playing for a P5 school or a junior college - they ALL are entitled to payment.

Congress isn't stepping in. Legislators DGAF whether these athletes are getting paid (and if anything, it's one of the few things that seems to unite both the liberals that support student equity and conservatives that want to see their state schools dominate on the field).

All schools - Division I, II, III, etc. - are going to have to subject to paying their athletes. Now, how *much* that payment might be is an economic question. It's not a legal one, though.

At the same time, there is NO such thing as unilateral disengagement or choosing not to participate outside of not having any teams at all. People REALLY need to internalize this because, ironically, I think it's going to cause a lot LESS change than what people think. Everyone is getting thrust into this at the same time and, if the reality is that you're going to have to pay your athletes no matter what level you're at, then it continues to behoove everyone to make as much revenue in the exact same manner is today. NO ONE is downgrading.

(01-17-2022 12:50 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  This thread looks like a good spot to speculate on the new ncaa constitution to be voted on this Thursday. The basic idea of the new consttution is to give each division more control of it's own governance and divisions may write their own constitutions later this year.

Many in div 1 will likely want to put tighter controls on fcs move ups for example. CUSA would need to make a move before a change is made if they want to get to 10, for example.

Elite basketball leagues will want to adjust the method of ncaa tournament distributions, something that has been discussed at length on this board.

Any other thoughts related to divisions governing themselves?

I don't see Division II or III changing much. Although both will have fits dealing with NIL within the law. Reduce aid by the amount of NIL over a certain amount maybe? They won't want NIL to make scholarship limits superflous.

Division I is just too diverse and needs to change.

(01-24-2022 02:40 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Too many people are trying to find some type of legal or contractual solution to what is fundamentally an economic problem.

You can't just magically say, "The football team will legally separate to be a third party club that is licensing the name 'The Ohio State Buckeyes' and, therefore, it's a totally separate unaffiliated entity that doesn't have to worry about Title IX and other compliance issues!"

You can't just magically say, "All Division I athletes can be paid while all Division II/III/IV athletes won't be paid!" The whole point of all of these rulings is that it doesn't matter whether an athlete is playing for a P5 school or a junior college - they ALL are entitled to payment.

Congress isn't stepping in. Legislators DGAF whether these athletes are getting paid (and if anything, it's one of the few things that seems to unite both the liberals that support student equity and conservatives that want to see their state schools dominate on the field).

All schools - Division I, II, III, etc. - are going to have to subject to paying their athletes. Now, how *much* that payment might be is an economic question. It's not a legal one, though.

At the same time, there is NO such thing as unilateral disengagement or choosing not to participate outside of not having any teams at all. People REALLY need to internalize this because, ironically, I think it's going to cause a lot LESS change than what people think. Everyone is getting thrust into this at the same time and, if the reality is that you're going to have to pay your athletes no matter what level you're at, then it continues to behoove everyone to make as much revenue in the exact same manner is today. NO ONE is downgrading.

If it works out like you say, I can see a lot of Division III schools switching to club sports and "opting out" in that way. I can see Division II schools dropping to Division III to lower their costs. This is a very big percentage change in costs for many of these schools.

Good posts shizzle, bill, ken, wedge, bullet ...

Fascinating subject to watch unfold in real time.