https://sports.yahoo.com/college-leaders...29628.html

Quote:At the NCAA convention in Phoenix, college administrators will gather to potentially lay the groundwork for further exploration of president Charlie Baker’s proposal to revolutionize the Division I model.

At its meeting next Thursday, the Division I Board of Directors is scheduled to review the proposal and determine whether to charge the Division I Council, or another body, with developing recommendations related to the framework of the proposal — a decision that will initiate a potentially yearlong activation process and chart a course for one of the most radical changes in NCAA history.

The board’s plans are detailed in convention documents obtained by Yahoo Sports.

Baker’s proposal, deemed as “Project Division I” and introduced last month, would permit schools to strike name, image and likeness (NIL) deals with athletes and offer them an unlimited amount of educationally related benefits. A third concept, perhaps viewed as the most radical, creates a new FBS subdivision requiring schools to deposit into a trust $30,000 per athlete for half of a school’s athletes.

Bump

Why just half of the school's athletes? Wimins not getting paid?

(01-05-2024 08:02 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  Why just half of the school's athletes? Wimins not getting paid?

I'm sure Title 9 ensures they will be, if not the majority of the paid athletes.

Athletes in sports that do not generate positive cash flow do not deserve to be paid

(01-05-2024 11:36 PM)Fanofreason Wrote:  Athletes in sports that do not generate positive cash flow do not deserve to be paid

That is irrelevant. 99.9% of paid employees everywhere are pure cost centers that don’t generate revenue. If your company is losing money or even on the verge of bankruptcy, that doesn’t mean that they don’t need to pay you. Similarly, whether an athlete is in a revenue sport or not has absolutely zero impact on whether they are defined as employees. If an athlete is treated like an employee by a school, then they are an employee under the law entitled to compensation even if the sport that they play loses $100 million per year.

(01-06-2024 12:22 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-05-2024 11:36 PM)Fanofreason Wrote:  Athletes in sports that do not generate positive cash flow do not deserve to be paid

That is irrelevant. 99.9% of paid employees everywhere are pure cost centers that don’t generate revenue. If your company is losing money or even on the verge of bankruptcy, that doesn’t mean that they don’t need to pay you. Similarly, whether an athlete is in a revenue sport or not has absolutely zero impact on whether they are defined as employees. If an athlete is treated like an employee by a school, then they are an employee under the law entitled to compensation even if the sport that they play loses $100 million per year.

Are athletes employees though? I thought that we were still trying to figure that out, with the vast majority of the schools in the "no" column.

I'm always up for changes so I hope so.

(01-06-2024 12:22 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-05-2024 11:36 PM)Fanofreason Wrote:  Athletes in sports that do not generate positive cash flow do not deserve to be paid

That is irrelevant. 99.9% of paid employees everywhere are pure cost centers that don’t generate revenue. If your company is losing money or even on the verge of bankruptcy, that doesn’t mean that they don’t need to pay you. Similarly, whether an athlete is in a revenue sport or not has absolutely zero impact on whether they are defined as employees. If an athlete is treated like an employee by a school, then they are an employee under the law entitled to compensation even if the sport that they play loses $100 million per year.

You definitely have to applaud the effort with this post.

If a corporation has a group that isn't contributing (Women's Sports in this case) then they exit the business and lay off the workers (ex: Citi exiting the Muni Bond business recently).

You can't possibly be advocating for a 50/50 split here. That goes contrary to every aspect of capitalism. One trader brings in 99% of the revenue and then has to split the commission with the useless?

(01-07-2024 10:13 AM)Garden_KC Wrote:  I'm always up for changes so I hope so.

Anything that creates less teams and barriers to entry is a step in the right direction.

(01-09-2024 12:34 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  

(01-07-2024 10:13 AM)Garden_KC Wrote:  I'm always up for changes so I hope so.

Anything that creates less teams and barriers to entry is a step in the right direction.

I thought we just had the D1 Transformation Committee which tightened the transfer windows.

Final recommendations won't be until June 25-26th with action in August. New subdivision (potentially) for January 2025.

Its hard to say but its bound to lead to a lot of realignment if there is a new subdivision in place.

(01-09-2024 12:33 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  

(01-06-2024 12:22 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-05-2024 11:36 PM)Fanofreason Wrote:  Athletes in sports that do not generate positive cash flow do not deserve to be paid

That is irrelevant. 99.9% of paid employees everywhere are pure cost centers that don’t generate revenue. If your company is losing money or even on the verge of bankruptcy, that doesn’t mean that they don’t need to pay you. Similarly, whether an athlete is in a revenue sport or not has absolutely zero impact on whether they are defined as employees. If an athlete is treated like an employee by a school, then they are an employee under the law entitled to compensation even if the sport that they play loses $100 million per year.

You definitely have to applaud the effort with this post.

If a corporation has a group that isn't contributing (Women's Sports in this case) then they exit the business and lay off the workers (ex: Citi exiting the Muni Bond business recently).

You can't possibly be advocating for a 50/50 split here. That goes contrary to every aspect of capitalism. One trader brings in 99% of the revenue and then has to split the commission with the useless?

In this example it would be the sport gets cut.

If it doesn't get cut, the employees at the business are still required to be paid until they are laid off.

There's also a "starting salary" at most businesses, and commissions go on top of that.

(01-06-2024 12:22 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-05-2024 11:36 PM)Fanofreason Wrote:  Athletes in sports that do not generate positive cash flow do not deserve to be paid

That is irrelevant. 99.9% of paid employees everywhere are pure cost centers that don’t generate revenue. If your company is losing money or even on the verge of bankruptcy, that doesn’t mean that they don’t need to pay you. Similarly, whether an athlete is in a revenue sport or not has absolutely zero impact on whether they are defined as employees. If an athlete is treated like an employee by a school, then they are an employee under the law entitled to compensation even if the sport that they play loses $100 million per year.

THIS is the part that most people on the paying athletes don't get. Most fans look at FOOTBALL as "The Business." But the Business is ATHLETICS, it's everyone.

When you take the money that athletics bring in, and apply a "pro sports CBA" (NHL's a great example, because they guarantee a revenue percentage to the players)... Dividing that by the number of Division I athletes, you get almost the average cost of a scholarship!

But scholarships aren't taxable like income (Nor are the other perks of being an athlete: the gear, and what amounts to a free gym membership and your own personal CVS).


Of course, the pro sports leagues have REVENUE SHARING. If you wanted to make things immensely better for the greatest number of athletes, the smart moves for a "players union" would be to collectively bargain as DIVISION I ATHLETES, and push for (a) full scholarships/cost of attendance for ALL ATHLETES, Period. and (b) Revenue sharing so that ALL Division I conferences can do it.

Pushing for a P5/FBS breakaway that gives players salaries is gonna screw over tens of thousands more people than it will "help."

(01-09-2024 12:33 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  

(01-06-2024 12:22 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-05-2024 11:36 PM)Fanofreason Wrote:  Athletes in sports that do not generate positive cash flow do not deserve to be paid

That is irrelevant. 99.9% of paid employees everywhere are pure cost centers that don’t generate revenue. If your company is losing money or even on the verge of bankruptcy, that doesn’t mean that they don’t need to pay you. Similarly, whether an athlete is in a revenue sport or not has absolutely zero impact on whether they are defined as employees. If an athlete is treated like an employee by a school, then they are an employee under the law entitled to compensation even if the sport that they play loses $100 million per year.

You definitely have to applaud the effort with this post.

If a corporation has a group that isn't contributing (Women's Sports in this case) then they exit the business and lay off the workers (ex: Citi exiting the Muni Bond business recently).

You can't possibly be advocating for a 50/50 split here. That goes contrary to every aspect of capitalism. One trader brings in 99% of the revenue and then has to split the commission with the useless?

That’s the thing about college athletics though, other than 1 or 2 sports at a low% of the total in the NCAA are anything more than purely “amateur”. The governments interference with Title IX forces schools to do things that a business would not, and this is a very strong argument imo for schools to push Congress to give them a limited anti-trust exemption. Unfortunately, it takes, well, an Act of Congress to pass said legislation, and gridlock is the order of the day. So, schools are forced to act against their own self interest, and then are offered no help from Congress or the courts when they try to create and enforce common sense guidelines for running their Athletic Depts.

(01-09-2024 05:21 PM)JSchmack Wrote:  

(01-06-2024 12:22 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-05-2024 11:36 PM)Fanofreason Wrote:  Athletes in sports that do not generate positive cash flow do not deserve to be paid

That is irrelevant. 99.9% of paid employees everywhere are pure cost centers that don’t generate revenue. If your company is losing money or even on the verge of bankruptcy, that doesn’t mean that they don’t need to pay you. Similarly, whether an athlete is in a revenue sport or not has absolutely zero impact on whether they are defined as employees. If an athlete is treated like an employee by a school, then they are an employee under the law entitled to compensation even if the sport that they play loses $100 million per year.

THIS is the part that most people on the paying athletes don't get. Most fans look at FOOTBALL as "The Business." But the Business is ATHLETICS, it's everyone.

When you take the money that athletics bring in, and apply a "pro sports CBA" (NHL's a great example, because they guarantee a revenue percentage to the players)... Dividing that by the number of Division I athletes, you get almost the average cost of a scholarship!

But scholarships aren't taxable like income (Nor are the other perks of being an athlete: the gear, and what amounts to a free gym membership and your own personal CVS).


Of course, the pro sports leagues have REVENUE SHARING. If you wanted to make things immensely better for the greatest number of athletes, the smart moves for a "players union" would be to collectively bargain as DIVISION I ATHLETES, and push for (a) full scholarships/cost of attendance for ALL ATHLETES, Period. and (b) Revenue sharing so that ALL Division I conferences can do it.

Pushing for a P5/FBS breakaway that gives players salaries is gonna screw over tens of thousands more people than it will "help."

Sounds more like it would stop tens of thousands of soccer, lacrosse, etc players from mooching off the rainmakers who actually generate revenue for college athletic depts if you ask me.

(01-09-2024 05:34 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  Sounds more like it would stop tens of thousands of soccer, lacrosse, etc players from mooching off the rainmakers who actually generate revenue for college athletic depts if you ask me.

This is my disconnect with fans saying the athletes should be paid. It's totally disingenuous.

"Those poor kids bringing in millions and getting nothing... but Eff those other kids, putting in the exact same work, but the ball is shaped different so their sport gets cut. They can pay for school themselves."

The whole argument is busted, because One Specific Individual is not bringing in X dollars. It's 99.9% the brand, and the connection that brand has with its fanbase that brings in the dollars.

The players/recruits themselves are interchangable. If Matt Forte went to Alabama and Mark Ingram went to Tulane, the attendance and revenues at those schools is not changing. Alabama brings in hundreds of millions of dollars playing in front of 100,000 people and Tulane brings in dozen(s) of millions of dollars in front of 10,000 people because Alabama is Alabama and Tulane is Tulane.

Alabama always has an endless string of guys like Mark Ingram, at every position, 2 deep up and down the roster; and Tulane occasionally gets a Forte, King, Moore, or Pratt.


Basketball has an even better example: Every single G-League roster is better than the rosters of the best college basketball teams. The G-League is players who are between #451-1200 in the "best players in the world" category.

The G-League salaries are mostly paid by the NBA because G-League games bring in an average of 3000 fans.

Places like Gonzaga, Dayton, New Mexico and Utah State crush that attendance.

The Maryland WOMEN have higher attendance than the Washington Wizards' G-League team.

Fans simply don't REALLY care about the individual person and their special talent, they only care that MY SCHOOL gets talented kids to win; which is why most of you guys can name your school's starting point guard, and probably can't name the point guard or team name on that Washington G-League team.

(01-09-2024 06:14 PM)JSchmack Wrote:  

(01-09-2024 05:34 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  Sounds more like it would stop tens of thousands of soccer, lacrosse, etc players from mooching off the rainmakers who actually generate revenue for college athletic depts if you ask me.

This is my disconnect with fans saying the athletes should be paid. It's totally disingenuous.

"Those poor kids bringing in millions and getting nothing... but Eff those other kids, putting in the exact same work, but the ball is shaped different so their sport gets cut. They can pay for school themselves."

The whole argument is busted, because One Specific Individual is not bringing in X dollars. It's 99.9% the brand, and the connection that brand has with its fanbase that brings in the dollars.

The players/recruits themselves are interchangable. If Matt Forte went to Alabama and Mark Ingram went to Tulane, the attendance and revenues at those schools is not changing. Alabama brings in hundreds of millions of dollars playing in front of 100,000 people and Tulane brings in dozen(s) of millions of dollars in front of 10,000 people because Alabama is Alabama and Tulane is Tulane.

Alabama always has an endless string of guys like Mark Ingram, at every position, 2 deep up and down the roster; and Tulane occasionally gets a Forte, King, Moore, or Pratt.


Basketball has an even better example: Every single G-League roster is better than the rosters of the best college basketball teams. The G-League is players who are between #451-1200 in the "best players in the world" category.

The G-League salaries are mostly paid by the NBA because G-League games bring in an average of 3000 fans.

Places like Gonzaga, Dayton, New Mexico and Utah State crush that attendance.

The Maryland WOMEN have higher attendance than the Washington Wizards' G-League team.

Fans simply don't REALLY care about the individual person and their special talent, they only care that MY SCHOOL gets talented kids to win; which is why most of you guys can name your school's starting point guard, and probably can't name the point guard or team name on that Washington G-League team.

There's good basketball played throughout the world and plenty of former NBA prospects or even players that didn't make it in the NBA playing abroad, including some who were still good enough to play in the NBA but just replaced by cheaper, younger players (and they weren't as good as the other veterans). So can't really go with that figure.

(01-09-2024 10:18 PM)C2__ Wrote:  There's good basketball played throughout the world and plenty of former NBA prospects or even players that didn't make it in the NBA playing abroad, including some who were still good enough to play in the NBA but just replaced by cheaper, younger players (and they weren't as good as the other veterans). So can't really go with that figure.

Agreed, that's why I went 451-1200, instead of 451-900. It's probably a lot higher.

Talent's like a pyramid. Using EA Sports kind of ratings, there's few 99s and a ton of 74s.

But the overall point on what the open market pays for basketball talent is a valid one: The players at each rating point are interchangeable for a team's box office. Fans are paying because they want their roster to be better than other schools' roster; not because "you have to watch THIS SPECIFIC INDIVIDUAL."

You can use Max Abmas at Oral Roberts first and now Texas.
Or Damian Lilliard at Weber State. Or Steph Curry at Davidson.

Kentucky is Kentucky because they ALMOST ALWAYS have 3-5 guys who are NBA prospects, while Weber St is Weber St because they get a guy like Dame once.