NCAA to Allow Schools to Pay Athletes

[orange79]

Many good points made and questions asked here. I think this settlement raises waaaaaay more questions than it answers.

The next couple years are going to be a roller coaster ride.

 

[General20]

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but Olympic sports need to stay because of title IX? Same number of female scholarships need to be available and given as men’s scholarships. That would be roughly 112 scholarships for football, basketball, lacrosse.

Maybe some additional men’s sports are cut. But can’t cut the female sports.

This whole thing about non revenue sports needing to be subsidized by revenue sports to exist is the biggest lie of all the NCAAs many lies.

My college was D3. They had exactly zero sports that generated revenue, and they still competed in more sports than Syracuse University does despite charging about a fifth of the tuition.

Colleges will fund sports because it's good for the students and because the students want it. Non revenue sports will never go away. What will go away is UCLA playing in the same conference as Rutgers for non revenue sports. Those sports will stay more regional, which is a good thing.

 

[Sherman20]

This is the beginning of the end.

1) players from now on are employees.
2) with virtually unlimited labor costs schools will no longer make a profit from money sports.

Pro teams are not generally profitable but valuation increases over time. Colleges cannot sell their teams to new owners. There is no market for college teams.

Lacking both collegial status and economic profitability It is not unreasonable that many schools will see no reason to keep basketball and football teams.

The schools/NCAA will have to allow the players to unionize and then they can create guardrails and regulations of the market to foster competitive balance.

 

[Hoo's That]

Limits will always be raised or avoided. Ever rising labor costs will make it unprofitable. Free markets without profit are unstable. If there are no rewards why undertake the endeavor and take the financial risk?

Pro teams spend all their revenue. Winning creates value which is recouped when the owners sell.

Without profit, colleges will have no incentive to hire employees to play sports. Being that they are employees rather than student athletes, why should they even be required to attend class? Class time and study time creates less valuable employees.

The entire system was and is unsustainable. It existed as long as athletes were willing to sacrifice their services.

The eventual goal is that class attendance will be optional (that's a weasel word for "forbidden").

 

[AlaskaSU]

Unions will bargain to make class optional.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

Many good points made and questions asked here. I think this settlement raises waaaaaay more questions than it answers.

The next couple years are going to be a roller coaster ride.

Another big question, what happens when players from prior to 2016 bring a lawsuit?

 

[Sherman20]

Unions will bargain to make class optional.

Well, then it’s not college sports anymore. Universities are probably already in danger of losing their tax exempt status, and this would amplify the arguments for them losing that status.

And correct me if I’m wrong, but you’re one of these anti-union people who think unions are the reason for all of society’s ills, instead of one of the last meager defenses we have against capitalism run amok, corporations and the mega-rich gaming the system to their full advantage, and all the country’s wealth going to the .1 percent.

 

[Madbiker]

Won’t happen because those sports will be eliminated. Olympic sports are going drop like flies.

Title IX is going to protect women's Olympic sports.

 

[hoopsupstate]

Title IX is going to protect women's Olympic sports.

Not if mens sports are also dropped.

 

[two3zone]

Many good points made and questions asked here. I think this settlement raises waaaaaay more questions than it answers.

The next couple years are going to be a roller coaster ride.

It does, but it also needed to happen I think. Rich billionaires throwing money around to players activly playing for other teams is laughable, even then Lampkin drama at the end. Let the school decide if they want to make their brand more valuable.

 

[Hoo's That]

Unions will bargain to make class optional.

Accomplishes the goal either way.

 

[AlaskaSU]

Well, then it’s not college sports anymore. Universities are probably already in danger of losing their tax exempt status, and this would amplify the arguments for them losing that status.

And correct me if I’m wrong, but you’re one of these anti-union people who think unions are the reason for all of society’s ills, instead of one of the last meager defenses we have against capitalism run amok, corporations and the mega-rich gaming the system to their full advantage, and all the country’s wealth going to the .1 percent.

I've never posted about unions. However, the fact that my neighbor might be rich does not make me poor unless he keeps his money under his mattress. Unions work to set the price of labor. If the price is above the marginal rate of productivity the business will not remain competitive unless capital is substituted for labor. Price fixing is known as a command economy rather than a market economy. If you think some sectors are too profitable, buy their stock; become an owner, take the risk.

 

[longtimefan]

Another big question, what happens when players from prior to 2016 bring a lawsuit?

The statute of limitations comes into play. They could only go back as far as 2016.

 

[AlaskaSU]

Well, then it’s not college sports anymore. Universities are probably already in danger of losing their tax exempt status, and this would amplify the arguments for them losing that status.

And correct me if I’m wrong, but you’re one of these anti-union people who think unions are the reason for all of society’s ills, instead of one of the last meager defenses we have against capitalism run amok, corporations and the mega-rich gaming the system to their full advantage, and all the country’s wealth going to the .1 percent.

That is the point. If it is not collegial sport, why pay for it.

 

[FRANKIEFAN]

Whats great about non revenue sports going away is that the club teams will no longer be second class citizens and they will get to use the scholarship level facilities built off the backs of football and basketball players who played for free. Everyone has pretty much finished upgrading everything athletic related across all these campuses. Now the field hockey coaches salary just does to the third string PG.

In lacrosse and hockey some of those club teams are close to D1 level already.

 

[Madbiker]

Not if mens sports are also dropped.

If I'm reading this right, Title IX requires the percentages of male and female athletes to be proportionate to the percentages of male and female students enrolled. For example if 52% of the students are women the number of women athletes must be 52% of total athletes? If you assume football will continue at 85 scholarships that means there would have to be slightly more women's scholarships even if all other men's programs were dropped. In short, there would have to be a lot of women's Olympic sports teams.

 

[Orangezoo]

It does, but it also needed to happen I think. Rich billionaires throwing money around to players activly playing for other teams is laughable, even then Lampkin drama at the end. Let the school decide if they want to make their brand more valuable.

Exactly. There will be X # of big time programs that will pay and thus settle into the fact you are going to be paid well no matter which of these programs you choose so start making it about other factors instead of just the $$. I haven’t read it all but hopefully schools can establish a vesting schedule too to add some stability and make the portal about the other stuff a bit more too.

 

[AlaskaSU]

Possible outcomes:
Schools with inadequate revenue drop out of Div. 1;
As I've posted over the years, the money teams become privatized and schools lease out their facilities.
Glad we all got to enjoy it as long as it lasted. Ultimately, big money TV coverage proved to be incompatible with amateurism. Once athletes become employees the only reason to continue is to finance Olympic sports, but the school does not have to be the employer. There might be a transition to a farm team type arrangement. Perhaps the pros will buy the college teams?

 

[Hoo's That]

Whats great about non revenue sports going away is that the club teams will no longer be second class citizens and they will get to use the scholarship level facilities built off the backs of football and basketball players who played for free. Everyone has pretty much finished upgrading everything athletic related across all these campuses. Now the field hockey coaches salary just does to the third string PG.

In lacrosse and hockey some of those club teams are close to D1 level already.

Many club teams usually have to pay for the use of facilities.

I'd still expect the "worst" D-1 team to manhandle any MCLA or NCLL team.

 

[Hoo's That]

If I'm reading this right, Title IX requires the percentages of male and female athletes to be proportionate to the percentages of male and female students enrolled. For example if 52% of the students are women the number of women athletes must be 52% of total athletes? If you assume football will continue at 85 scholarships that means there would have to be slightly more women's scholarships even if all other men's programs were dropped. In short, there would have to be a lot of women's Olympic sports teams.

The goal is to match percentages. However, only the STEM-oriented schools and the service academies are able to do that. A school has to show that it is meeting the demand for teams and its imbalance is excused. SU doesn't have to offer gymnastics or equestrian, etc., if they can show they've surveyed the student body and basically no one asked that a team be started. Rowing allows the greatest number of scholarships for women, 20, and usually has the largest roster.

 

[Hoo's That]

Possible outcomes:
Schools with inadequate revenue drop out of Div. 1;
As I've posted over the years, the money teams become privatized and schools lease out their facilities.
Glad we all got to enjoy it as long as it lasted. Ultimately, big money TV coverage proved to be incompatible with amateurism. Once athletes become employees the only reason to continue is to finance Olympic sports, but the school does not have to be the employer. There might be a transition to a farm team type arrangement. Perhaps the pros will buy the college teams?

It may be "the other way around". The blue bloods may leave D-1 for their own division for football and possibly b-ball. That could be the way they try to get out of the conference GoRs, "We no longer play FBS football."

 

[AlaskaSU]

Rhe

It may be "the other way around". The blue bloods may leave D-1 for their own division for football and possibly b-ball. That could be the way they try to get out of the conference GoRs, "We no longer play FBS football."

They would not be able to have TV revenue.

 

[JustPherU]

If I'm reading this right, Title IX requires the percentages of male and female athletes to be proportionate to the percentages of male and female students enrolled. For example if 52% of the students are women the number of women athletes must be 52% of total athletes? If you assume football will continue at 85 scholarships that means there would have to be slightly more women's scholarships even if all other men's programs were dropped. In short, there would have to be a lot of women's Olympic sports teams.

Or one big rostered team.

 

[longtimefan]

The goal is to match percentages. However, only the STEM-oriented schools and the service academies are able to do that. A school has to show that it is meeting the demand for teams and its imbalance is excused. SU doesn't have to offer gymnastics or equestrian, etc., if they can show they've surveyed the student body and basically no one asked that a team be started. Rowing allows the greatest number of scholarships for women, 20, and usually has the largest roster.

What is interesting to me is the roster size/scholarship limit dichotomy. The new framework will set limits on the size of rosters--the end of 120-man football rosters with 30+ walk-ons--but allows schools to offer scholarships to every member of a team. A big impact might be felt in baseball and men's lax--no more 11.7 or 12.6.

Of course, we'll hear major wailing from FB coaches. "I can't run a program with only 90 scholarship players!".

 

[Hoo's That]

What is interesting to me is the roster size/scholarship limit dichotomy. The new framework will set limits on the size of rosters--the end of 120-man football rosters with 30+ walk-ons--but allows schools to offer scholarships to every member of a team. A big impact might be felt in baseball and men's lax--no more 11.7 or 12.6.

Of course, we'll hear major wailing from FB coaches. "I can't run a program with only 90 scholarship players!".

We heard that same line in the 60s/70s when the number of scholarships was cut to the present 85.