(10-12-2023 11:24 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: (10-12-2023 11:02 AM)Skyhawk Wrote: (10-12-2023 10:51 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: (10-12-2023 10:34 AM)Skyhawk Wrote: (10-12-2023 10:31 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: Eh - having dealt with large scale insurance, it’s definitely a major issue. There might be a cost-benefit analysis and the schools ultimately determine a breakaway is still worth giving up the NCAA liability shield, but make no mistake that it can’t be taken lightly. Spreading risk among hundreds of Division I schools and over 1000 NCAA members overall is a LOT less expensive per school than concentrating it on 67 P4 members or 130 or so FBS schools that are generating the vast majority of the claims (as they are the ones with the deeper pockets and have the most illegal issues across the board).
Once again, it might not be outcome determinative, but anyone that thinks that there isn’t a LOT of value in that NCAA liability shield or it’s a simple matter to transfer it to a breakaway organization doesn’t know what they’re talking about. The P4 and FBS schools have the highest liability exposures, so separating them out is creating a liability pool that is composed entirely of high risk members (and anyone that has dealt with large scale insurance and legal claims knows that the sky is the limit on those potential costs).
I'm not disagreeing with you.
But at the same time, there is a value to all those same schools' other sports to have those football-related issues split to elsewhere.
And not having to keep the other sports in mind, could be seen as a benefit to the football programs too.
It’s a benefit to non-football playing schools.
It’s not a benefit to the football-playing schools because, once again, you’re creating a separate group that is entirely made up of the very highest risk of liability claims.
Once again, that’s not the ONLY issue. It may not be a dealbreaker. However, there’s no way to spin it that on this particular issue, the cost and coverage of a liability shield for a breakaway group would be much worse compared to what they receive from the NCAA (or even worse, they may not be able to get any liability shield at all - it’s like a company aggregating all of their employees with the highest health insurance risks into one plan as opposed to spreading that risk among lots of healthy people that have a low risk of claims). There are other issues where it’s a net benefit for the P4 to breakaway, but losing the NCAA liability shield is a big-time negative.
I'm not going to delve into the shadowy world of what ifs and maybes, concerning liability. I'm not a lawyer, for one thing, and for another, FDR's "fear itself" speech seems to come to mind.
That aside, I mentioned boxing. Here's their umbrella organization:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_C...ssociation
https://www.ncbaboxing.org/
So it can be done. In this case, apparently since the 60s...
I’m not sure why the boxing comparison is relevant. It’s not a Division I sport, the money in 1960s college sports was a fraction of what it is today, and there wasn’t plaintiff lurking around every corner for every person that has had a concussion. I’m not arguing that schools *can’t* split based on football. They can certainly choose to do so. It’s just that it annoys me that people pass off or downplay legitimate large dollar issues because it conflicts with what their desired worldview might be. (And it also drives me me nuts because I point this out when I’m NOT a defender of the NCAA. I’ve said for years that it’s a walking antitrust violation. I’m just not going to sit here and apply my personal animosity toward the NCAA but then discount some real world reasons why the power schools may still want/need the NCAA.)
Two points:
1. The societal issue here is that attorneys needing to eat drive liability claims which jacks insurance rates. The injuries have always been with us.
2. Schools that make 150 million a year can afford liability insurance, workman's compensation, and long and short term disability, plus hospitalization. And paid players can contribute a small portion toward their own care. The only ones for which this is an issue are the multitude of lower division schools which need subsidies to play sports at all.
This debt-ridden society needs to take a refresher course on why you don't subsidize things you cannot afford to begin with.
These sir, are real world issues. I think I read something the other day that said consumer debt in the U.S. amounts to 15 trillion. The NCAA is outdated in its organizing principle, amateurism, outdated in its governance, outdated in its subsidies for schools which likely shouldn't be offering sports above the intramural level, and outdated and all over the place with enforcement. It has become a bloated self-serving bureaucracy banking 70 million on average a year into one of its two endowments from the hoops tourney.
Why should Michigan State or Arizona, or N.C. State, or Mississippi State, which are all funded by the taxpayers of their states, generate revenue which goes to support athletic programs in other states because one group of schools is bigger and can afford to play them and the others are not?
That too is a real-world issue! And when the schools spent much less and earned much less it made sense. If pay for play does indeed become the law it makes no sense. As a taxpayer in Alabama, I know which schools get the money I pay. Why should anything they earn, or compete to generate, go to a Division III school from another state? When it is deemed a for profit enterprise by the Supreme Court and compensation becomes the law, it is no longer amateur, and if it is mandated, as it likely will be that some form of Title IX compliance will remain, why should the Athletic Department of that state school not earn every nickel it can to support all of the athletic offerings of that school, and why should any other entity or group of schools profit from them?
Arguing that this benefit is a comprehensible basis for remaining with the NCAA is not even logical. The nature of the relationship has changed. It changed in 1983, it changed with NIL, and it will change with pay for players.
What the NCAA should be doing is looking at their very large endowments and thinking about how to use those to keep their function with Division II and Division III schools, or whatever those divisions are called today, and to kiss the proceeds from FBS schools and their basketball programs goodbye.
/
Sankey verbalizing contraction (Ross Dellenger article)
