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

Most won't be able to and still meet other requirements.

(12-05-2023 11:36 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-05-2023 11:29 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

Quote:"There is no cap on the amount of funds that a program can provide an athlete."

Then this isn't a fix, this is formalized insanity. Every competitive sport on Planet Earth has caps to instill sanity. The last sport to try to do away with any caps was Formula-1. It got to where it cost $1,000,000 per tenth of a second shaved off lap time. Mercedes spent everybody into oblivion. It didn't matter who was driving so much ... the Mercedes cars were going to finish first. And they did. Ferrari, Honda, McLaren, and Renault couldn't keep up. Several teams got sent packing permanently never to return: Lotus, Caterham, Marussia, Toyota and scores of others.

It ruined the sport. It destroyed viewership ratings every single year it was a free for all like this: https://www.statista.com/statistics/4801...onths-usa/

This isn't a fix. This is mashing the gas peddle while staring at the cliff.

The courts would crush any NCAA proposal with *unilateral* caps: that would be a per se antitrust violation. If the schools are willing to agree to such caps with an athlete labor union, then that can be enforced. However, the NCAA or any other subgroup (such as a conference) can’t just institute that rule from above without collectively bargaining with the athletes. It’s simply against the law.

Yep, athletes lets say at Texas A&M-San Antonio are equals to the athletes at Texas A&M under the view of judges, courts and lawmakers. That is why Texas have been pushing more Texas schools into the Power conferences. California have been denying schools from joining a power conference which hurt the west coast a bit.

(12-05-2023 12:02 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(12-05-2023 10:58 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

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

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

Many states would be left out at the top level which is why it will not happen.

It's going to happen. Maybe not in this exact form, but it's inevitable. I see you've tried to make the same point on his tweet where this proposal is being introduced to resolve the current anti-trust lawsuit.

(12-05-2023 12:02 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(12-05-2023 10:58 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

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

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

Many states would be left out at the top level which is why it will not happen.

I don't know if that's the case... The issue with the states that would be left out is what logical system would have the best chance for their eventual inclusion, and with some tinkering, this could be it. I could see a two tier postseason D1 setup where you have the Big Money Sub-Division play with the Group Sub-Division. They could still have the same spot in a playoff structure and be included in the Bowls, like they are now. And they would have access to the postseason money.

The risk the states take if they vote against will be if the other schools (and states) go rogue and create their own Association with similar rules where the other states would be left out and have no say in the process.

(12-05-2023 11:56 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-05-2023 11:43 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(12-05-2023 11:25 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-05-2023 10:41 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

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

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

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

The primary antitrust issue has come from the NCAA trying to make everything equal by collectively preventing athlete compensation all of these years as opposed to allowing for leagues like the Big Ten and SEC to assert advantages in a free market.

Separately, this subdivision doesn’t necessarily have to be conference-based. (That needs to be confirmed with the details and specifics of this proposal.) Conceivably, a school like Boise State could decide to participate in this new subdivision even if none of the other MWC members do. The reported proposal states that schools (not conferences) can still play each other under Division I. I’m not sure if that is really how this proposal is intended to be set up (where schools individually can decide to be in this subdivision regardless of conference membership) or not, so we need to see all of those specific details.

I mean this basically sounds like the 1970s D1A/D1AA split just using different minimum standards. ECU opted to go independent to stay D1A because most of the rest of the SOCON didn't want to do it. I suspect the AAC would stay at the top level though.

Right. I think more will do it than anyone would expect honestly.

The amount to meet the minimum isn't tiny, but it's achievable for most of FBS. I think this is actually more about trying to get rid of a large portion of non-FB D1 schools.

(12-05-2023 11:25 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-05-2023 10:41 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

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

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

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

The primary antitrust issue has come from the NCAA trying to make everything equal by collectively preventing athlete compensation all of these years as opposed to allowing for leagues like the Big Ten and SEC to assert advantages in a free market.

Separately, this subdivision doesn’t necessarily have to be conference-based. (That needs to be confirmed with the details and specifics of this proposal.) Conceivably, a school like Boise State could decide to participate in this new subdivision even if none of the other MWC members do. The reported proposal states that schools (not conferences) can still play each other under Division I. I’m not sure if that is really how this proposal is intended to be set up (where schools individually can decide to be in this subdivision regardless of conference membership) or not, so we need to see all of those specific details.

I don't think it is tenable long term to have teams sharing conferences where the members are under different sets of rules.

(12-05-2023 12:09 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(12-05-2023 11:36 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-05-2023 11:29 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

Quote:"There is no cap on the amount of funds that a program can provide an athlete."

Then this isn't a fix, this is formalized insanity. Every competitive sport on Planet Earth has caps to instill sanity. The last sport to try to do away with any caps was Formula-1. It got to where it cost $1,000,000 per tenth of a second shaved off lap time. Mercedes spent everybody into oblivion. It didn't matter who was driving so much ... the Mercedes cars were going to finish first. And they did. Ferrari, Honda, McLaren, and Renault couldn't keep up. Several teams got sent packing permanently never to return: Lotus, Caterham, Marussia, Toyota and scores of others.

It ruined the sport. It destroyed viewership ratings every single year it was a free for all like this: https://www.statista.com/statistics/4801...onths-usa/

This isn't a fix. This is mashing the gas peddle while staring at the cliff.

The courts would crush any NCAA proposal with *unilateral* caps: that would be a per se antitrust violation. If the schools are willing to agree to such caps with an athlete labor union, then that can be enforced. However, the NCAA or any other subgroup (such as a conference) can’t just institute that rule from above without collectively bargaining with the athletes. It’s simply against the law.

Yep, athletes lets say at Texas A&M-San Antonio are equals to the athletes at Texas A&M under the view of judges, courts and lawmakers. That is why Texas have been pushing more Texas schools into the Power conferences. California have been denying schools from joining a power conference which hurt the west coast a bit.

UTSA can opt-in to this new league just like any other D1 school as long as they fund it.

(12-05-2023 12:17 PM)Sicembear11 Wrote:  I don't think it is tenable long term to have teams sharing conferences where the members are under different sets of rules.

You're absolutely right. But, this is a step toward those larger P5 schools to break away down the road. It's the NCAA's attempt to keep them in the association for longer.

(12-05-2023 11:39 AM)unalions Wrote:  From the article:

The figures include the following:

• 59 DI schools spend more than $100 million on athletics; another 32 DI schools spend over $50 million; and a whopping 259 spend less than $50 million, with half of those spending less than $25 million.

• On average, 1.8 percent of Power Five athletic budgets is subsidized by student fees while about 15 percent of budgets in the rest of the DI schools are funded by student fees.

...

The NCAA president's proposal has been something bantered about for years.

The organization has been moving toward such a concept. In fact, last year, members of the NCAA’s constitution and transformation committees seriously discussed permitting programs to provide more compensation to athletes but smaller programs stymied such movement — another frustration point for those at the power conference level.

A vast majority of those within the NCAA — the 95 percent, perhaps — have begun to publicly and privately encourage the high-revenue producing athletic departments to distance themselves from the rest of the pack.

However, that too is complicated. Revenue generated from the elite programs in college sports — from the CFP, NCAA men’s basketball tournament, etc. — is disseminated to other schools in Division I, Division II and Division III. It makes any complete separation or split complex.

That said, many college leaders have anticipated a Power Five split for years, if not even decades. Major conference programs often feel handcuffed to spend their wealth through cost-containment measures supported by the other 95 percent. The NCAA has historically attempted to legislate competitive equity. That concept has shown to be problematic, only angering those revenue-producing bluebloods of college football and basketball who believe they don't have enough control of their own cash.

Baker’s new model feels like the final move to end such a fruitless fight, opening the doors for greater independence among college football’s powers — and additional cash to athletes directly from schools.

The problem is that there are schools in the G5 do belong in the P5 for a long time now, but are being denied. If those schools gotten into a P5? They could have upped their spending with more money from media rights.

Boise State, Fresno State, San Diego State, Hawaii, UNR, Air Force, Colorado State, New Mexico, Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota State, South Dakota State, UTSA, SMU, Tulane, West Texas A&M, Northern Iowa, La. Tech, Tulane, Arkansas State, Missouri State, Southern Miss., Troy, Chattanooga, Memphis, Northern Illinois, Illinois State, Indiana State, Toledo, Bowling Green, Central Michigan, Western Michigan, USF, Georgia Southern, Appalachian State, ECU, Temple, ODU, Marshall, Delaware, Towson, Navy, Army, Buffalo, Stony Brook, New Hampshire, Maine, URI, etc. If they got more media money and more money coming in from donors? They would be spending close to the top programs. It shows you a money grab monopoly is going on right now.

(12-05-2023 12:14 PM)unalions Wrote:  

(12-05-2023 12:02 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(12-05-2023 10:58 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

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

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

Many states would be left out at the top level which is why it will not happen.

It's going to happen. Maybe not in this exact form, but it's inevitable. I see you've tried to make the same point on his tweet where this proposal is being introduced to resolve the current anti-trust lawsuit.

I am referring to G5 schools cutting sports - many are at the bare minimum now. Those requirements don't look to be going away

(12-05-2023 11:45 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

Quote:50% has to be directed to female athletes in accordance with Title IX

The NCAA is so incredibly behind feminism and equality that they think male football players and basketball players should be further robbed to prop up women's programs that hemorrhage red ink which nobody watches. Without Joe Burrow, where would Jade, Lexus, Grace, Madison, and the rest of the silver spooners born to wealthy people get $30k each to blow on temporary luxuries when not playing field hockey in front of no one or grabass in the locker room or getting that "gender studies" degree to educate everyone about how society is keeping them down because they possess ovaries?

Title 9 isn't an NCAA regulation and this still isn't pay to play. The 30K "trust fund" is for educational spending, which it seems can include direct payments similar to the current stipend payment but it's not 50K per lineman just because. They are trying to walk a tightrope for them still not to be considered employees. The NIL will still be where the real money is coming from and can still be directed to the revenue athletes and not subject to title 9. The 30K per trust fund is just setting the bar high enough to make a real division, now whether Georgia decides to spend that on BJ's for their football players because it helps them relax before tests, we'll see. Obviously a lot to iron out.

(12-05-2023 11:58 AM)Hootyhoo Wrote:  Everything seems reasonable but why trust funds instead of giving the player the cash immediately?

Because the NCAA cares deeply about its children

(12-05-2023 11:44 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(12-05-2023 11:36 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-05-2023 11:29 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

Quote:"There is no cap on the amount of funds that a program can provide an athlete."

Then this isn't a fix, this is formalized insanity. Every competitive sport on Planet Earth has caps to instill sanity. The last sport to try to do away with any caps was Formula-1. It got to where it cost $1,000,000 per tenth of a second shaved off lap time. Mercedes spent everybody into oblivion. It didn't matter who was driving so much ... the Mercedes cars were going to finish first. And they did. Ferrari, Honda, McLaren, and Renault couldn't keep up. Several teams got sent packing permanently never to return: Lotus, Caterham, Marussia, Toyota and scores of others.

It ruined the sport. It destroyed viewership ratings every single year it was a free for all like this: https://www.statista.com/statistics/4801...onths-usa/

This isn't a fix. This is mashing the gas peddle while staring at the cliff.

The courts would crush any NCAA proposal with *unilateral* caps: that would be a per se antitrust violation. If the schools are willing to agree to such caps with an athlete labor union, then that can be enforced. However, the NCAA or any other subgroup (such as a conference) can’t just institute that rule from above without collectively bargaining with the athletes. It’s simply against the law.

Do it anyway. The message you send to Congress is clear: pass an exemption, or the blood and ruin is on your hands, not ours.

Call me crazy, but I don’t think the NCAA would be well-advised to do something where they knowingly break the law, particularly when they are on full notice that the courts are smacking down the NCAA at every turn. More importantly, this is among the full spectrum of political ideologies - the Alston case was a complete wipeout on *both* liberal and conservative grounds.

I keep pointing back to how the most scathing opinion against the NCAA in Alston came from Justice Kavanaugh, who has otherwise been a very employer-friendly judge. I think at that moment, any attorney with half of a brain representing the NCAA knew that if *that* guy (Justice Kavanaugh) hated the NCAA rules that much, then they knew they were dead in the court system going forward.

I’ve said this before: I think there’s a big-time disconnect from a lot of traditional college sports fans (probably disproportionately represented on this forum) and the general public (which includes politicians and the court system). The general public is very broadly in favor of the athletes and the politicians are responding to it as shown by how supporting college athletes to get more money seems to be one of the few issues that draws wide bipartisan support. The legislatures of California and Florida AGREE on athlete compensation. If anyone thinks any politicians are coming to impose caps on anyone, I think they’re VERY sorely mistaken. Every trend shows the complete opposite.

(12-05-2023 11:55 AM)Mean Green Alum Wrote:  

(12-05-2023 11:36 AM)HartfordHusky Wrote:  This is probably exactly what UConn has been hoping for. A P5 opt in. Now, invited or not, it can decide to compete at a P5 level.

I'm interested in the viability of Independence in this new setup. It would depend on how many schools opt in to the new subdivision and how the scheduling across it will work.

I'm sure that they will leave opportunity for Independence for Notre Dame's sake, but with this setup, TV money will crucial. I think UConn would still have to attach itself to a conference to remain viable, and that's what is interesting to me: Where the cutoff in revenues will be? How okay with the new model will the Cal/Stanford's be?

FWIW I think it is a definite win for UConn, if this is adopted.

This is paying players. UConn will be fine.

(12-05-2023 12:17 PM)Sicembear11 Wrote:  

(12-05-2023 11:25 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-05-2023 10:41 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

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

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

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

The primary antitrust issue has come from the NCAA trying to make everything equal by collectively preventing athlete compensation all of these years as opposed to allowing for leagues like the Big Ten and SEC to assert advantages in a free market.

Separately, this subdivision doesn’t necessarily have to be conference-based. (That needs to be confirmed with the details and specifics of this proposal.) Conceivably, a school like Boise State could decide to participate in this new subdivision even if none of the other MWC members do. The reported proposal states that schools (not conferences) can still play each other under Division I. I’m not sure if that is really how this proposal is intended to be set up (where schools individually can decide to be in this subdivision regardless of conference membership) or not, so we need to see all of those specific details.

I don't think it is tenable long term to have teams sharing conferences where the members are under different sets of rules.

If the proposed Sub-Division happens, it would spark a whole new series of realignment. It will also show how aligned these conferences are. The conference members will have to get together and propose minimum limits/union representation for athletes. If there are disagreements, there's a good chance there will be a massive split. There could be a massive shift in the structure of college sports, potentially.

I see similar movement to 1940's post-WW2 NCAA, when you saw a split of programs who were serious about funding football vs schools who were not, and the 1970's split into three divisions.

I'm curious to see what Power schools will drop out entirely from this if it passes.

My main question is this: will opting in be required to play 1-A football?

(12-05-2023 12:27 PM)shizzle787 Wrote:  

(12-05-2023 11:55 AM)Mean Green Alum Wrote:  

(12-05-2023 11:36 AM)HartfordHusky Wrote:  This is probably exactly what UConn has been hoping for. A P5 opt in. Now, invited or not, it can decide to compete at a P5 level.

I'm interested in the viability of Independence in this new setup. It would depend on how many schools opt in to the new subdivision and how the scheduling across it will work.

I'm sure that they will leave opportunity for Independence for Notre Dame's sake, but with this setup, TV money will crucial. I think UConn would still have to attach itself to a conference to remain viable, and that's what is interesting to me: Where will the cutoff in revenue be? How okay with the new model will the Cal/Stanford's be?

FWIW I think it is a definite win for UConn, if this is adopted.

This is paying players. UConn will be fine.

30k/year for half of the student athletes. Plus NIL (for the big football teams).

Is this simply pay-for-play with an extra 15k per woman athlete?

Any P4 President going to shy away from this? Is the investment feasible for G5 schools? Do football-less programs have an easier opt-in?

(12-05-2023 12:26 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Call me crazy, but I don’t think the NCAA would be well-advised to do something where they knowingly break the law, particularly when they are on full notice that the courts are smacking down the NCAA at every turn. More importantly, this is among the full spectrum of political ideologies - the Alston case was a complete wipeout on *both* liberal and conservative grounds.

I keep pointing back to how the most scathing opinion against the NCAA in Alston came from Justice Kavanaugh, who has otherwise been a very employer-friendly judge. I think at that moment, any attorney with half of a brain representing the NCAA knew that if *that* guy (Justice Kavanaugh) hated the NCAA rules that much, then they knew they were dead in the court system going forward.

I’ve said this before: I think there’s a big-time disconnect from a lot of traditional college sports fans (probably disproportionately represented on this forum) and the general public (which includes politicians and the court system). The general public is very broadly in favor of the athletes and the politicians are responding to it as shown by how supporting college athletes to get more money seems to be one of the few issues that draws wide bipartisan support. The legislatures of California and Florida AGREE on athlete compensation. If anyone thinks any politicians are coming to impose caps on anyone, I think they’re VERY sorely mistaken. Every trend shows the complete opposite.

There's nothing wrong with compensating players. There is broad bipartisan support that. It's when you start putting concrete details to paper that it falls apart quickly.

There is something wrong in having no caps, and we all know from other sports where that ends: self-destruction.

There is something wrong in compensating players in non-revenue sports by stealing from the players of revenue sports.

There is something wrong in expecting to have a governing body look over a sport to maintain fairness of play while also having that same governing body be completely impotent to address any issues it finds or even meaningfully search for them.

There is something wrong in expecting the student body of a public university to foot the bill of athletic largess through mandatory athletic fees to attend the university -- some of which can be ludicrously high.

Great idea. Catastrophic execution.

If you're going to get slapped around in court, might as well fire the broadside that solves your problem. Let Congress get their hands dirty with their inaction if that's the way they choose to handle it at that point. If the ship is going down, go down running damage control and bailing instead of playing violin on the deck.

(12-05-2023 12:25 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(12-05-2023 11:58 AM)Hootyhoo Wrote:  Everything seems reasonable but why trust funds instead of giving the player the cash immediately?

Because the NCAA cares deeply about its children

If you give 18 year olds a $30k check half of them will blow through it very quickly, and a not insignificant number will be dead within a month.