Equitable sharing? Is that like wealth redistribution?Quote:
Originally Posted by WhoRepsTheLurker
Printable View
Equitable sharing? Is that like wealth redistribution?Quote:
Originally Posted by WhoRepsTheLurker
It can be whatever you/they want it to beQuote:
Originally Posted by bisonaudit
If you’re formally paying players that essentially work for a "non-profit", I would think that would put some constraints on NIL, no?
In return the players get benefits etc in addition to "salary"
If they really want NIL $$ autonomy, they go pro
NCAA has to take a stance here at some point and box out their turf, so to speak
I think what you will see is both..Athletes paid by the school as employees and and also free to sign NIL's.
I will be surprised if the NCAA does anything substantial, other than decide to pay players.Quote:
Originally Posted by WhoRepsTheLurker
It will probably be both like MWC says. Athletic expenses will go up as all athletes (in all sports) demand salaries, and also NIL continues. The P5 aren’t going to want any limits on what they can spend for either salary or NIL.
The power conferences will spend crazy money, and the costs will go up for all schools. At some point I think a split is inevitable. There are a lot of schools that just can’t keep up with B1G and SEC spending. It will take $50M+ yearly just to be in the game.
Right but NIL won't look like it does now is my pointQuote:
Originally Posted by BigHorns
If there is a split, you'll lose the best weekend of march madness, but then again, why would they leave when they're getting everything they want basically? The midmajors would have to choose to leave and I just don't see that happening. Table scraps and crumbs are worth it apparently ...
When the table scraps and crumbs for a basketball tournament are worth as much or more than the TV deals for the entire athletic department, yeah they’re going to stick around.Quote:
Originally Posted by WhoRepsTheLurker
That and brand value of getting to say you’re FBS and D1 and compete with the big boys (however accurate or inaccurate that may be) means your get millions more in tv deals, ticket fees, sponsorship, booster contributions.
Mid majors aren’t going anywhere and would band together to spend tens if not hundreds of millions to fight to make sure the high majors don’t go anywhere either.
Been saying it for about 15 years now.
If there's a split, it will most likely be only for football, and it will take a little more time.Quote:
Originally Posted by NDSU92
The G5 will eventually realize they can't compete with schools spending 10-20 times what they do.
The current realignment is all about those top schools joining the SEC and B1G.
Once they get all the top brands, then they can just leave, like the european super league.
They will take 90% of the media money with them.
That sure looks like the strategy. But So far the supposed European super league hasn’t amounted to much. Of course plan B doesn’t look to terrible. If they can’t pull the whole thing off life still looks pretty good at the top of the pyramid.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigHorns
Revenue sharing works for the NFL.Quote:
Originally Posted by bisonaudit
I just don't see how that will ever happen. If they leave the NCAA they will lose the ability to call themselves amateur sports and if they stay in the NCAA they have to have at least provide enough table scraps (As 92 described it) for the G5 to play along and not challenge them in court. I don't believe they want to be totally separate. They want the best of both worlds which is to control 90% of the dollars and the power and still be able to be under the NCAA umbrella so they can have the attention/passion/fan interest that is tied to College/Amateur sports. If they leave the NCAA and move further toward semi-professionalism, I think fan interest wanes.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigHorns
Yes, we do love our public institutions with plantation labor practices. I guess I just don’t see what’s so bad about paying these players what they’re worth. And I don’t understand how doing so would be so damaging to the brands that we’re so attached to.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigLakeBison
I think colleges also do revenue sharing of sorts. The conferences negotiate the TV deals rather than the schools (sans Notre Dame and indys). So Rutgers somehow gets a ton of money even though they themselves have limited fan interest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammerhead
Reparations for all college athletes eh.
that's only for minorities broQuote:
Originally Posted by scottietohottie
so basically the white dudes
The funny thing is the NCAA actually is arguing that. Their court filings reference Vanskike v Peters as a previous ruling saying certain workers aren't employees. The problem is this case was prison inmate workers not being employees because the 13th Amendment allows slavery as part of a criminal conviction. The NCAA is literally saying in court that student athletes are slaves. The plaintiff in Johnson v NCAA is black...Quote:
Originally Posted by bisonaudit
I'm not arguing for or against paying players. I just believe that the further college athletics venture into semi-professional status, the less engagement fans/alumni may have towards the programs. Right now they have carved out a niche in this country that is unique because of this status. Take that away and I fear that the uniqueness of college athletics will be diminished. Maybe that's totally off base. Whether they decide to pay players is a bit of a separate topic in my mind than the decision of the P5 or the SEC/B1G to separate from the rest. I just don't see the separation coming even if they start paying players.Quote:
Originally Posted by bisonaudit
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin
Kevin I'm intouch like audit eh.Quote:
Originally Posted by taper
PL is getting a new boat bro.
CAS a shit load of jeans eh.
Speaking of athletes not getting paid...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuK2agxkS3Q
The players should be paid. Instead of paying them the same (scholarships, tutoring etc.).Do an open/free market, pay each individual based on their worth to the University. Calculate how much they contribute to the success of the overall cost of operating a higher level education, then write the check. The tpp handful may be a contributor, the rest are a liability. Charge/ pay them accordingly.
St Francis of the NEC announced they are ending all 19 of their Division I athletic programs.Quote:
Originally Posted by gabisonfan
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...m/11510364002/
I expect more to come if schools are required to pay athletes. This will have a lot of unintended consequences.
Yep, they folded up their athletic department because they can’t afford to pay athletes that that are not paying. That makes sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigHorns
One could argue that a college with 2,600 students has no business being in Division I.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigHorns
Tulsa and Holy Cross are very small as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammerhead
It just shows how little "profit" many of the D1 programs make. If you raise expenses further, more will fold.Quote:
Originally Posted by bisonaudit
Sounds easy to say "just pay the football players, screw everyone else", but title IX will make that impossible. As soon as one team is paid, all the others will demand equity.
That’s a silly take. They’ll save millions in coaching salaries, travel costs, and athletic department support staff.Quote:
Originally Posted by bisonaudit
Tiny private school folds dept. + gender politics + what do you mean pay people for their work = the sky is falling.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigHorns
A school dropping athletics completely? Good.
As much as we've been programmed to believe athletics is "co-curricular" at all levels, it's becoming more and more hogwash. School is school; sport is sport. "Student-athlete" is somewhere between misnomer and oxymoron.
Want little Johnny or Janey to be a star athlete? Two words: Canadian model -> private clubs not normally affiliated with academic institutions, and when they are they are private academic institutions. Mom and Dad should be paying for all, full price, of their offspring's athletic endeavors. We are socializing the cost of sports at public institutions across the tax base. Why is a fixed income retiree paying for HS athletics? For the school, yes; athletics, no.
And I'd pull athletics out of all universities. Communities would still support what is important to them. Grand Forks would likely have a Western Hockey League franchise. Fargo would likely have a football team in some new league. But sports that can't generate the funds to play would disappear, and so what. That's the free market. Why are we socializing the costs of sports that have little broad interest and can't self-sustain at the gate.
St. Francis dropped 19 sports and an athletic department? I'd say they took an honest look at themselves, realized they are a university first, and prioritized.
There is definitely some truth to what you speak. From a devil's advocate standpoint, do we exclude a large number of kids from athletics and all the positives if we were to go this route? There are a number of kids that would never have the opportunity to be involved in athletics if funding was solely left up to their parents. It's sadly unfortunate but it's 100% true. There are definitely some warts with how youth, high school and college athletics are run in this country but sometimes the kids that benefit the most from involvement in athletics are likely the ones that would be left out of a system that you describe above.Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Sicatoka
The operators of private sports clubs would find a way to get talent in their programs.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigLakeBison
As far as "positives", there are other mechanisms to get kids those same positives without the costs of athletics. We've been programmed to believe that it has to be athletics. I learned just as much about hard work, tenacity, responsibility, leadership, commitment, working on the farm or at a job during HS as I did wearing a hockey jersey.*
*Before you say it: club team. Paid my own way, or worked, or begged for private donations, for gear, travel, etc.
Yeah, that’s not how the system in Canada works. They have school teams. They have community center teams. And they have club teams.Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Sicatoka
Aac mwc cusa..... Tick tock. Ndsu is waiting
I wouldn't call the model "Canadian." I'd call it the "everywhere outside America" model. I dont think there is anything wrong with either way of doing it.Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Sicatoka
Travel costs for them are relatively low since there is only one conference opponent more than a 4 hour drive from their campus.Quote:
Originally Posted by NDSU_grad
Fair enough. Those experiences will need to come from somewhere though and sports have typically been an easier sell as far as getting "buy-in". Working on the farm or at a job doesn't always have kids lining up to "try out". Private sports clubs can only do so much without taxpayer subsidies. The operating costs are high and will likely become higher if the cost of facilities no longer is tied to schools and other public entities built by taxpayer funds. Your scenario would likely result in less kids participating in sports overall which in my opinion isn't a positive even with the tax dollar savings.Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Sicatoka
If you can show the ROI is there, I'd have to listen. I haven't seen such data.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigLakeBison
Financial ROI or societal ROI? I guess I just believe that the intrinsic value of sports is beneficial to youth and society overall. If it goes to a full pay for play scenario, the overall participation in youth sports likely decreases and without something to replace it I think it would be a negative for society at large. I would say the same for band, choir, orchestra, debate, drama, robotics, etc. If all of those activities are uncoupled from academics, we lose a lot of opportunities for positive youth activities. I think the argument you are making is stronger at the College level but at the youth, middle and high school level I would have a hard time getting behind it.Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Sicatoka
The ROI is a US olympic team development system that is pretty dominant on the world stage.Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Sicatoka
Also, provides many scholarship opportunities, some for kids that otherwise might not be able to afford college.
It's up for debate whether those things, plus gender equity in sports are worthwhile. Currently, its so engrained I can't see it changing.
If you want to drop olympic sports, will likely need to drop all sports like St Francis did.
Liberty Fan Page
Sidelines - Liberty
@SSN_Flames
These are all the D1 FCS Schools that are actively trying to make a move to the FBS as we speak:
NDSU
Austin Peay
EKU
Abilene Christian
North Alabama
Tarleton State
Southern Utah
Utah Tech
SFA
UTGRV
Central Arkansas
KSU (2024)
Delaware
Eastern Washington
Thought you said Stony Brook liked us being fcs?Quote:
Originally Posted by El_Chapo
I’m seeing a lot of kids getting invited to camp this summer from Texas (not just Frisco area) Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Arizona and Washington St. must be a sign for our inclusion to MWC. Pretty much locked in at this point.