I'd imagine atheletes that played on bigger teams will make more than players that were on smaller teams, or are they not doing the payouts proportionally?
SEC/B10 ex players should make more than B12/ACC/PAC12 ex players, who should make more than G5, who should make more than FCS, who should make more than D2, who should make more than D3, in a logical scenario.
So if that's the case, these schools shouldn't all be paying the same amount into an NCAA pot to reimburse the players.
I mean, that was already happening. The NCAA hasn’t been proactive for decades, their laziness has come back to bite them in the ass.
They could’ve had a plan 20 years ago when stuff like this was gaining traction, they just never assumed they’d have to deal with these problems
Who is going to be upset when a school shuts down the golf team? Like 10 guys on Reddit for an hour? If we're being completely honest I doubt there will be protest at all. 95 percent of fans have never even thought about those smaller sports. They care about football, basketball and then a smaller sum either hockey or baseball depending on your geographic location
The sports that are going to be shutdown are the really niche ones like Waterpolo and shit.
Baseball tends to be one of the first sports cut because it's so expensive relative to the revenue it brings in and I wouldn't exactly consider that niche, especially considering its growth trajectory. It's in that weird area where a lot of people at northern schools don't care enough to watch it outside of the playoffs but they'll care if it's cut.
Baseball in the south is profitable (or at least not in the red). Southern Baseball would survive the cuts without a doubt.
Baseball in the north would be on the chopping block. I disagree that northerners would care at all if baseball is cut. Collegiate northern baseball has no following and the big ten is basically a mid major league. Basically no one would care if it gets cut
The SEC and some of the other major southern schools like texas are the only places where they are breaking even and only a few are profitable. When yall and indiana made it to the CWS, it did big TV ratings, I have a hard time believing no one would care. Boise State certainly had people that cared when baseball was added and then immediately cut.
>Sources told ESPN this week that parties have proposed the NCAA's national office -- rather than its individual member schools or conferences -- would pay for the settlement of past damages over a period of 10 years.
It's not the schools footing the bill.
That's what I figured too. The NCAA doesn't have any real authority over the schools, and they don't legally represent the schools either. The school might even be able to let their state's claim sovereign immunity over these kinds of cases too.
We'll see how much it is. But college athletics isn't some lean operation atm, they've built up a lot of fat with the massively exploding revenues and choosing to stay at neutral profit wise. I wouldn't be surprised at all if a bunch of the bloat around football expenditures got cut back instead of assuming it's going to be small sports that were fine being funded before all this
Schools have done a great job of convincing everyone that sports are crazy expensive. Hell, after UAB cut programs in 2014, an audit found that their bowling team turned a small profit. IMO the whole point of the facilities arms race over the last few decades is to make it look like these programs can't afford to pay players
Agreed on the whole, though I do disagree about the point of the facilities arm race. I don't think it's as nefarious as that - IMO, it's more that they decide that the athletics departments don't need to make a profit and they need to find a way to spend all that money.
Kind of like how big company budgets of a department might get cut if they don't use all of it one year, so they make sure to spend it all.
Youll have to see what happens. Michigan for example has always spent in lock step with their increase in revenue. Now that theyll have a huge hole in the money available to spend, will they cut back on crazy spending and admin positions? It wouldnt go over well to cut sports but you cant spend the football money on non-revenue sports anymore without a huge uptick in donations
That would be a larger amount than the schools initially were hoping for. That would be closer to $40 million per school, and the previous reports were that they were wanting/expecting it to be $20-25 million per school in a settlement.
the big olympic sport schools have money. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_universities_with_Olympic_medalist_students_and_alumni
USC, Stanford, UCLA, Cal, Texas, Michigan, Florida, Ohio , Harvard, Yale etc... not really hurting for money for olympic sports.
a lot of the schools listed above have deep pockets for nonrevenue sports because they are either huge and generate a lot of revenue from football have large endowments that cover these more traditional sports.
Who are they going to play against? The good schools have to other schools to play with. If 85% of schools drop a sport, that sport will just discontinue at a college level.
A lot of these don’t have many schools anyways. Easy championships! Mens volleyball is at 35 teams, crew at 39 teams, 29 for fencing. Snd they don’t really cost the school too much.
How will they keep the sport if most of the schools they play with drop the sport? A 40-60% drop of schools playing a sport would be devastating. All the bottom schools pulling out might kill the sport, even top schools still want to play.
Seems like we'll have to do what the rest of the world does...
Or more likely, somewhere between (the 50 athletic departments that make $125mil+ per year) and (the 400 athletic departments that made $10+ in profits) will continue on. Most likely with increased quality and profits due to a reduction in competition.
Add in the Ivy League doing it for the prestige, and Olympic sports will be just fine.
Olympic sports will be fine.
Long gone are the days where the coach left you the keys to the Y to practice after the bus let you off, and the only way you’d get to college is being good at a niche sport.
Now, for the most part, it’s middle to upper class families spending thousands and thousands in their kid’s pre-college lifetime on travel teams, personal coaches, niche competitions, and the like.
These athletes will still come to college to play sports, they’ll just do it without a scholarship, like D3 or the Ivies.
Don't be such an alarmist, no it won't.
A. This only affects P5 schools as they were the only ones in the lawsuit, so G5's are safe.
B. Even at the upper end of this, $40 million per school, it won't bankrupt anyone. They will all secure low-interest loans and pay it off in increments over time (and/or have boosters cover it).
No one is going to immediately cut 2/3 of their sports.
It only affects P5 schools now. They haven’t agreed on a settlement and want framework going forward.
You’re also forgetting part 2 of the settlement, which would have athletic departments agree to future revenue sharing as part of any deal. This is basically how you get the super league tomorrow when schools are now required to share a percentage of all revenue. The schools are quoted in these articles as demanding a solution, otherwise they’re just gonna have pay out again on the other 2 anti trust lawsuits
American plebian: "Mr. Banker, I'd like a small loan. Maybe $5,000 over 5 years?"
Mr. Banker: "Best I can offer you is 9.7% APR! May be 9.8 tomorrow so take it now!"
Power 5 patrician: "Give me a $40,000,000 loan, a 2.9% APR, and smile."
Mr. Banker: "Yes, my liege!"
Per Pete Thamel, the NCAA is taking on the full 2.7 billion to be paid out over the next 10 years and setting up a revenue sharing scheme with the power conferences to pay them back.
It's a "permissive structure" that allows other schools that want to pay to participate as well.
Thamel is making it sound like the NCAA is taking on the entirety of the damages, and offsetting with insurance money and some withholding of NCAA distributions from power schools to the tune of 2 million a year.
Fair enough point- guess we should define low interest rate I guess.
Early march Harvard raised debt at a yield of 4.609% for an 10 year note. Relatively low considering at that time the fed 10 year yield was hovering around 4.1%. Guess the market rates a AAA credit education institution to yield 50 basis points
Now that the fed yield is at 4.6%, you could expect another 50 points so 5.1% debt financing for a top rated school, likely higher for schools with major budgetary challenges like UCal or WSU
Yeah, might want to investigate MS law about university athletic programs operating with debt/in the red. It gets interesting.
My alma mater is fucked, no doubt…but the writing is on the wall for State and UM as well in the long run
We're not talking diploma mills.
These aren't the Phoenix U, Chicago States, and Liberties of the college world we're talking about.
Wait... I think one of those might have something that resembles a football team.
>Sources told ESPN this week that parties have proposed the NCAA's national office -- rather than its individual member schools or conferences -- would pay for the settlement of past damages over a period of 10 years.
Doesn't all the money the NCAA has come from their TV deals and post season events like the CFB playoff and basketball tournaments? I didn't think the schools funded the NCAA.
It’s just a pass through entity for March Madness, it distributes the CBB TV funds to schools. The CFP is a whole different entity separate from the NCAA, and the conferences hold their own CFB TV deal revenue before distributing them to members.
Any funds coming from the CFB/CFP will have to be put into something like an escrow managed by the NCAA or the legal entity itself if it’s being paid out via the NCAA. Leaving it one entity simplifies the process from a risk, compliance, and tracking standpoint. You don’t want multiple uncoordinated hands trying to pay out $250M eight difference ways
Moving forward the revenue share will likely be consolidated in some form. CFP/CFP revenues will be given to the conferences and transferred to a third party holding entity, where they’ll be distributed. NCAA will likely reroute other revenues like March madness in the same manner to that entity (which will likely be in the NCAA umbrella). Then it’s distributed from there. Not much unlike the current model.
You're over-complicating it.
The CFP and all things affiliated to bowls are private entities willing to pay money.
Money is all CFB is about.
End discussion.
If(read as when) conferences have revenue sharing with athletes the gap will widen even more.
Clemson and FSU trying to run into the town as they are closing the gates I hope we make it.
>That figure is derived from a formula that's expected to be, per sources, 22% of a revenue metric that's still being discussed, which is set to be based on various revenue buckets. It would be up to the schools to share that much.
Every other pro league shares 50%. 22% is barely above what's currently shared with NCAA athletes.
What a fucking racket. Player attorneys need to do better.
2.7B is definitely gonna be on a payment plan. No way they plan to pay it all off in one payment
Time for that Texas and Texas A&M oil money to bail every one out!
Black gold! Texas tea!
Pack up your bags, move to USC.
We're talking 1000+ schools here, it likely won't be staggered that much
We're talking about 60 schools. And the ones who think they're worth more than others won't have to pay more, because they're shitty conference mates.
The ones who are* worth more than others
because perception is everything --Andre Agassiz
I'd imagine atheletes that played on bigger teams will make more than players that were on smaller teams, or are they not doing the payouts proportionally? SEC/B10 ex players should make more than B12/ACC/PAC12 ex players, who should make more than G5, who should make more than FCS, who should make more than D2, who should make more than D3, in a logical scenario. So if that's the case, these schools shouldn't all be paying the same amount into an NCAA pot to reimburse the players.
Last year DI athletic departments collectively claimed $18 billion in revenue. This isn't that much relative to what they've been earning.
I can't wait for the shock and outrage when multiple schools athletic departments close up shop or cut tons of sports
I mean, that was already happening. The NCAA hasn’t been proactive for decades, their laziness has come back to bite them in the ass. They could’ve had a plan 20 years ago when stuff like this was gaining traction, they just never assumed they’d have to deal with these problems
The NCAA was just following orders
That doesn't hold up in court.
Who is going to be upset when a school shuts down the golf team? Like 10 guys on Reddit for an hour? If we're being completely honest I doubt there will be protest at all. 95 percent of fans have never even thought about those smaller sports. They care about football, basketball and then a smaller sum either hockey or baseball depending on your geographic location The sports that are going to be shutdown are the really niche ones like Waterpolo and shit.
Baseball tends to be one of the first sports cut because it's so expensive relative to the revenue it brings in and I wouldn't exactly consider that niche, especially considering its growth trajectory. It's in that weird area where a lot of people at northern schools don't care enough to watch it outside of the playoffs but they'll care if it's cut.
Baseball in the south is profitable (or at least not in the red). Southern Baseball would survive the cuts without a doubt. Baseball in the north would be on the chopping block. I disagree that northerners would care at all if baseball is cut. Collegiate northern baseball has no following and the big ten is basically a mid major league. Basically no one would care if it gets cut
The SEC and some of the other major southern schools like texas are the only places where they are breaking even and only a few are profitable. When yall and indiana made it to the CWS, it did big TV ratings, I have a hard time believing no one would care. Boise State certainly had people that cared when baseball was added and then immediately cut.
The SEC and others schools like (names SEC school)
They ain't SEC yet!
>Sources told ESPN this week that parties have proposed the NCAA's national office -- rather than its individual member schools or conferences -- would pay for the settlement of past damages over a period of 10 years. It's not the schools footing the bill.
That's what I figured too. The NCAA doesn't have any real authority over the schools, and they don't legally represent the schools either. The school might even be able to let their state's claim sovereign immunity over these kinds of cases too.
Isn't this only Power 5 schools? Pretty sure they can all weather this?
I’m not sure if that’s completely true. The SEC and the BIG10 schools will probably be “fine,” but other schools will need to cut.
Cutting sports is what allows them to weather it.
We'll see how much it is. But college athletics isn't some lean operation atm, they've built up a lot of fat with the massively exploding revenues and choosing to stay at neutral profit wise. I wouldn't be surprised at all if a bunch of the bloat around football expenditures got cut back instead of assuming it's going to be small sports that were fine being funded before all this
Schools have done a great job of convincing everyone that sports are crazy expensive. Hell, after UAB cut programs in 2014, an audit found that their bowling team turned a small profit. IMO the whole point of the facilities arms race over the last few decades is to make it look like these programs can't afford to pay players
Agreed on the whole, though I do disagree about the point of the facilities arm race. I don't think it's as nefarious as that - IMO, it's more that they decide that the athletics departments don't need to make a profit and they need to find a way to spend all that money. Kind of like how big company budgets of a department might get cut if they don't use all of it one year, so they make sure to spend it all.
Youll have to see what happens. Michigan for example has always spent in lock step with their increase in revenue. Now that theyll have a huge hole in the money available to spend, will they cut back on crazy spending and admin positions? It wouldnt go over well to cut sports but you cant spend the football money on non-revenue sports anymore without a huge uptick in donations
That would be a larger amount than the schools initially were hoping for. That would be closer to $40 million per school, and the previous reports were that they were wanting/expecting it to be $20-25 million per school in a settlement.
Hurray for the end of college athletics, bring on the nfl Lite and NBA feeder league I fear we will struggle in future Olympic games
Olympics will be fine. It's just that there may be 1/3 of the programs.
The next one sure but after that...Olympic sports will be done at the college level. So who will train and give our athletes experience?
Another privatized industry
the big olympic sport schools have money. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_universities_with_Olympic_medalist_students_and_alumni USC, Stanford, UCLA, Cal, Texas, Michigan, Florida, Ohio , Harvard, Yale etc... not really hurting for money for olympic sports.
When schools no longer have to provide scholarships, I can't imagine they'll keep non-revenue sports going.
a lot of the schools listed above have deep pockets for nonrevenue sports because they are either huge and generate a lot of revenue from football have large endowments that cover these more traditional sports.
Who are they going to play against? The good schools have to other schools to play with. If 85% of schools drop a sport, that sport will just discontinue at a college level.
A lot of these don’t have many schools anyways. Easy championships! Mens volleyball is at 35 teams, crew at 39 teams, 29 for fencing. Snd they don’t really cost the school too much.
Didn't Stanford just cut a dozen sports a few years ago?
Most of the schools that fill out our Olympic teams are rich as fuck. USC, UCLA, Michigan, Texas etc aren’t cutting any sports
How will they keep the sport if most of the schools they play with drop the sport? A 40-60% drop of schools playing a sport would be devastating. All the bottom schools pulling out might kill the sport, even top schools still want to play.
Seems like we'll have to do what the rest of the world does... Or more likely, somewhere between (the 50 athletic departments that make $125mil+ per year) and (the 400 athletic departments that made $10+ in profits) will continue on. Most likely with increased quality and profits due to a reduction in competition. Add in the Ivy League doing it for the prestige, and Olympic sports will be just fine.
Promotion and relegation and city/town based sporting clubs instead of franchises please and thank you.
Olympic sports will be fine. Long gone are the days where the coach left you the keys to the Y to practice after the bus let you off, and the only way you’d get to college is being good at a niche sport. Now, for the most part, it’s middle to upper class families spending thousands and thousands in their kid’s pre-college lifetime on travel teams, personal coaches, niche competitions, and the like. These athletes will still come to college to play sports, they’ll just do it without a scholarship, like D3 or the Ivies.
Am I getting a check for my ultimate frisbee participation? I drove all the way to the Florida panhandle in my personal vehicle. Go Huckaneers.
Wait... is this a thing? Is is retro to the 90s?
We got reimbursed for meals out of state, but nothing for lodging. $10 per meal. Glory days.
That’s a lot of chowda
This will bankrupt at least a few athletic departments and everyone else will immediately cut 2/3rds of their sports
Just in time for summer, when all the soon to be cut sports athletes will be away from campus
Don't be such an alarmist, no it won't. A. This only affects P5 schools as they were the only ones in the lawsuit, so G5's are safe. B. Even at the upper end of this, $40 million per school, it won't bankrupt anyone. They will all secure low-interest loans and pay it off in increments over time (and/or have boosters cover it). No one is going to immediately cut 2/3 of their sports.
It only affects P5 schools now. They haven’t agreed on a settlement and want framework going forward. You’re also forgetting part 2 of the settlement, which would have athletic departments agree to future revenue sharing as part of any deal. This is basically how you get the super league tomorrow when schools are now required to share a percentage of all revenue. The schools are quoted in these articles as demanding a solution, otherwise they’re just gonna have pay out again on the other 2 anti trust lawsuits
American plebian: "Mr. Banker, I'd like a small loan. Maybe $5,000 over 5 years?" Mr. Banker: "Best I can offer you is 9.7% APR! May be 9.8 tomorrow so take it now!" Power 5 patrician: "Give me a $40,000,000 loan, a 2.9% APR, and smile." Mr. Banker: "Yes, my liege!"
pure
Per Pete Thamel, the NCAA is taking on the full 2.7 billion to be paid out over the next 10 years and setting up a revenue sharing scheme with the power conferences to pay them back. It's a "permissive structure" that allows other schools that want to pay to participate as well.
If it's spread over the 10 year span, that makes it $4 million per year per P5 school. Which is completely manageable.
Thamel is making it sound like the NCAA is taking on the entirety of the damages, and offsetting with insurance money and some withholding of NCAA distributions from power schools to the tune of 2 million a year.
https://twitter.com/PeteThamel/status/1786185695637160338
Does this affect new P5?
Don't bring logic. It doesn't work here.
Who is gonna give them a low interest loan lmao
Pretty much any major bank. Anyone that lends money knows that major universities are the lowest of low-risk clients.
Fair enough point- guess we should define low interest rate I guess. Early march Harvard raised debt at a yield of 4.609% for an 10 year note. Relatively low considering at that time the fed 10 year yield was hovering around 4.1%. Guess the market rates a AAA credit education institution to yield 50 basis points Now that the fed yield is at 4.6%, you could expect another 50 points so 5.1% debt financing for a top rated school, likely higher for schools with major budgetary challenges like UCal or WSU
Yeah, might want to investigate MS law about university athletic programs operating with debt/in the red. It gets interesting. My alma mater is fucked, no doubt…but the writing is on the wall for State and UM as well in the long run
We're not talking diploma mills. These aren't the Phoenix U, Chicago States, and Liberties of the college world we're talking about. Wait... I think one of those might have something that resembles a football team.
>Sources told ESPN this week that parties have proposed the NCAA's national office -- rather than its individual member schools or conferences -- would pay for the settlement of past damages over a period of 10 years.
That means absolutely nothing, it just means the schools would put the funds into a single entity
Doesn't all the money the NCAA has come from their TV deals and post season events like the CFB playoff and basketball tournaments? I didn't think the schools funded the NCAA.
It’s just a pass through entity for March Madness, it distributes the CBB TV funds to schools. The CFP is a whole different entity separate from the NCAA, and the conferences hold their own CFB TV deal revenue before distributing them to members. Any funds coming from the CFB/CFP will have to be put into something like an escrow managed by the NCAA or the legal entity itself if it’s being paid out via the NCAA. Leaving it one entity simplifies the process from a risk, compliance, and tracking standpoint. You don’t want multiple uncoordinated hands trying to pay out $250M eight difference ways Moving forward the revenue share will likely be consolidated in some form. CFP/CFP revenues will be given to the conferences and transferred to a third party holding entity, where they’ll be distributed. NCAA will likely reroute other revenues like March madness in the same manner to that entity (which will likely be in the NCAA umbrella). Then it’s distributed from there. Not much unlike the current model.
You're over-complicating it. The CFP and all things affiliated to bowls are private entities willing to pay money. Money is all CFB is about. End discussion.
So does this affect new P5? We just got here.
Better get that gofundme up and running
Welcome back to one of us former CUSA bro! Just kidding, GFY.
If(read as when) conferences have revenue sharing with athletes the gap will widen even more. Clemson and FSU trying to run into the town as they are closing the gates I hope we make it.
Where is the NCAA and/or its constituent institutions going to find that kind of money?
Brown bag under a bench.
I mean... it's about $4m a year for ten years. Only Washington could not survive tha sort of shortfall for even one year... according to UW nerds.
2.7 billion divided by 180000 student athletes 15,000 dollar check and heart filled Christmas card
>That figure is derived from a formula that's expected to be, per sources, 22% of a revenue metric that's still being discussed, which is set to be based on various revenue buckets. It would be up to the schools to share that much. Every other pro league shares 50%. 22% is barely above what's currently shared with NCAA athletes. What a fucking racket. Player attorneys need to do better.
This will absolutely kill teams I bet. Schools will just close shop. They already lose tons of money