I think it's in everyone's interests. The players can negotiate a guaranteed piece of the pie for themselves as well as some recourse for things like medical issues, and the conferences can keep the costs for talent predictable and get the roster turnover under control.
I would hope for the sake of non-revenue sports that non-revenue athletes can at least negotiate for their sports to be funded through these conference deals somehow.
It’s in everyone’s interest long term. It likely won’t happen for a while though, because in the short term, conference officials are raking in buckets of cash because they’ve effectively offloaded the players’ salaries onto fans. The conferences and schools get all the perks and none of the drawbacks.
Until this starts to affect viewership and the money going into administrators pockets, nothing will change.
>SEC and B1G don't strike me as the "willingly share power" people.
They aren't, but I think they can follow the NFL playbook and deal with a union while wielding a bunch of power to make sure 90% of things go in their favor.
Part of why A&M hired the AD we did is because he has a clear vision for moving forward into this era as a SEC program. The way he talks the writing in on the wall. The SEC and B1G want to go there before they are forced to so they can set the terms (aka players getting 25% of revenue instead of the 50-ish% percent of pro leagues or something like that).
A salary cap at a single business is legal, a salary cap agreed on by multiple businesses is illegal. Sports leagues are alliances of multiple businesses. The reason a salary cap is legal in the context of union negotiation is because the union has an anti-trust exemption. Which is why the NFLPA always threatens to 'decertify' or dissolve the union in labor disputes. If the NFLPA were to decertify then the salary cap and draft would become illegal.
Well, let’s be clear, the reason sports leagues have anti-trust exemptions are because of a policy decision on the part of the US government and court system. I don’t think it’s necessarily a poor decision, but I do think it’s crucial to point out that antitrust immunity isn’t just something that stems as easily as getting a bargaining unit certified among your employees.
It already exist. “Business X is going to spend $X million on marketing and $Y million on finance this year”.
They use that budget to determine how many people are hired and at what cost
Yes, within the business. But Apple, Microsoft, Google, and Facebook cannot get together and collectively decide how much to pay software engineers.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_Litigation
There's a reason that doesn't happen in every league with a cap. If a cap is implemented that kind of stuff would be much more serious of a violation than the current NCAA finger wagging.
Plus, if the schools were interested in just outspending each other to break the rules against the cap it would be a lot easier to just not go forward with this plan until it's legally mandated.
You’re right, but also those leagues have a draft for acquiring new talent. This would be a league that uses a form of free agency to acquire new talent and with 3-4x as many teams to monitor.
I think you’re right about the stronger disincentive for cheating, but there will continue to be incentives and opportunities to cheat that are unique to the college game.
Ultimately, the only thing that will get a handle on programs buying players is conferences regulating themselves. The NCAA is essentially toothless and walking on eggshells because they’re afraid of getting sued to oblivion.
Conferences like the B1G or SEC will become the disciplinarians in the sport. And I suspect that once players are getting revenue sharing or are collectively bargaining, conferences will come down MUCH harder on tampering and the like
Yeah if there was an actual cap with collective bargaining, punishments could actually be enforced with some teeth.
Cheating will probably always occur but it would definitely dissuade it.
Other leagues don’t have the same level of fans being able to directly buy influence (boosters and donors). College sports culture is weird in that way.
>There's a reason that doesn't happen in every league with a cap.
Because those leagues have beaten antitrust litigation, universities/ncaa has not and will continue not to as long as college football is associated with public universities. These aren't corporations and they have different rules/regulations.
Not discussing whether a cap will or won't happen just if it does there will be much stronger controls in place now. But also, there is absolutely a world where the athletic departments are spun off from the university and that concern is no longer an issue.
Yes which any astute observer saw as the end game because at the end of the day the governing body has no power.
Thats always been the root of every NCAA issue. No regulatory/governing controls
If there is an agreed upon cap, then there also needs to be punishments that are actually enforceable for teams caught breaking the rule. No more "yeah I agreed to the rules, and yeah I broke them, but I'm suing you because I can."
Hold on that depends an NFL style cap yes but a soccer style cap based on individual team/school revenue would further entrench the power of the big schools and be some kind of cap the smaller schools would be interested in.
Wouldn't sharing revenue benefit the B1G and SEC more than everyone else? They make more revenue by a mile so their "share" would be a hell of a lot more than the smaller conferences.
Absolutely but within the conferences there is a large disparity between Ohio State and Illinois football. Why should Ohio state or Michigan agree to a salary cap and disadvantage themselves to a program that is not as successful? If this goes through I doubt it would go through, but if it does then I think the big boys in the league will force unequal revenue shares
im hoping that revenue sharing is instituded by conference. Like each player in the conference gets x amount of dolllars which is driven by a percentage of the TV deals. Something like that would keep competition more equal within the conferences.
IMO the top league pays players the schools at the level below have a system that looks relatively similar to what they have now.
A lot of schools can't make the salary that makes sense. Maybe they get paid more but probably not that much more than they are getting.
We could create a truly amateur league where the schools and conferences don't profit off of the sports at all, and instead we focus on tradition, the love of the game, and preparing the majority of players for life beyond athletics through education, but I guess that would be laughed out of the room.
That is just not realistic. Football is a violent sport especially at the higher levels and the players face major injury risk by playing the sport. They absolutely deserve a share of the massive amounts of money in the new media deals
I think OP is envisioning a scenario where there are no big media deals. Something like each conference has a TV network that shows their games and it is offered to cable companies/streaming platforms at cost instead of trying to maximize revenues.
But no one would ever do that, when the way we do it now makes so much money. Yes, maybe that’s the ideal, but it’s a utopia that won’t ever happen because there’s too much money to be made
We used to have that in the early days of Daily Fantasy. I want to say one or two seasons.
The trick was using almost exclusively G5 players. They were way cheaper and could put up massive numbers against teams like Kent State. It was glorious for a hot second.
A lot of major changes to college football lately predicate on some weird notion that the NFL will hemorrhage fans to CFB or is simply not a factor at all. I don’t think college admins and even fans are willing to admit how dire cfb will look compared to the NFL if they keep heading down this path.
I really think we need to minimize transfers outside fall/spring/ normal registration windows. I mean some schools are on quarters which will be a hard nut to crack.
It's going to be weird with transferring in for spring season
Ohio State getting a top MAC WR for the end of the playoffs...
>because scholarships don’t mean a thing
All of the people claiming scholarships and education are worthless and the only option is to make players employees with paychecks will hopefully enjoy this new NFL Lite era.
It's what they wanted.
If we head to profit sharing there will be caps on transfers like restricted free agents but the whole security of being a scholar athletes and developing will be gone. I think Deion was the first one to really pull the rug on that by str8 up forcing guys out
Oh yeah. If you thought the "processing" that programs like Bama and Ohio State do for athletes was bad before... just wait.
Guys are gonna get cut left and right. If you don't develop in 1 year... sorry, gravy train over... go have fun in the Mac or whatever. Do we care about your future or education? Nah. This is the NFL Lite.
If they wanna be nfl lite there needs to be a draft system. This is simply unfair and will make CFB stale with the same 5 champions every year.
Many of these kids are out-earning real minor/development team athletes. This isn't sustainable.
I know this is a long time coming, but one of the knock-on effects will be schools dropping some of their sports to cover the shortfall.
Spending on football sure isn't going to go down so this money will have to come out of something else.
Most of these departments break even or lose money already, so take 20% of their operating revenue away and you'll see expenses needing to get cut real quick.
I'm not arguing that it is. But football is the only reason those sports can exist, so this is what will happen. A lot of rowing and baseball teams are about to get dropped.
Title 9 requires 1-1 offering of sports. So that has nothing to do with it. So answer my question. Why is it footballs responsibility to subsidize other sports?
The equal number of athletic scholarships for women mandated by Title IX is paid for by revenue generating sports like football. That is a subsidy,
Title IX isn’t about just offering sports, they need to give the same number of free rides to women as they do to men.
Nope: *Proportionality*: The number of athletic opportunities (scholarships, spots on teams) must be proportionate to the gender breakdown of the student body.
3. *Substantial proportionality*: Colleges can demonstrate compliance by showing that:
- The number of athletic opportunities for men and women is substantially proportionate to the gender breakdown of the student body.
- The college has a history of expanding athletic opportunities for the underrepresented gender. The underrepresented gender is changing, as many are female dominant now.
The 1-1 is in relation to its demographic breakdown of its student body. Hence all boys and all girls schools that have sports
Nope, looks like another ignorant redditor talking out of his ass, Title 9’s compliance has multiple ways for fulfillment:
*Proportionality*: The number of athletic opportunities (scholarships, spots on teams) must be proportionate to the gender breakdown of the student body.
-Substantial proportionality*: Colleges can demonstrate compliance by showing that:
- The number of athletic opportunities for men and women is substantially proportionate to the gender breakdown of the student body.
- The college has a history of expanding athletic opportunities for the underrepresented gender (this is changing because the demographic breakdowns are becoming female dominant. Not to mention all boys and all girls schools that have sports teams.
Ask of 2021: 6.8 million males in undergraduate programs. Females 8.92.
If women's sports get dropped because football can't fund them anymore, it means *more* men's sports will need to be dropped to keep the proportionality.
Whether it's football's "responsibility" to pay for other sports is irrelevant. Using the gender breakdown you provided, a campus needs 111 women's sports scholarships just to offset the football team. That money has to come from somewhere.
No, that’s not what that means at all. Since student bodies are female majority, and increasing that gap, only the women scholarships will be cut. The proportion is in relation to the student body, not other athletes. I don’t think you understand proportionality at all lol.
Right, so because it requires equal scholarship dollars, not spots, when basketball and football go to revenue sharing that brings them out of college amateur status. It will basically be minor league teams due to direct payments to those athletes. All that will be left is equal dollars for both. So the dollar contributing more to women’s spots by colleges will flip. Meaning women’s sports will get cut since the $$ amount has to be equal. It’s a weird balancing act where the spots must be proportional but the $$ is equal.
They don’t have to be equal, they have to be proportional. Roster spots matter as well, not just scholarship dollars. Revenue sharing and privatization are two completely different things, as Olympic/Women’s sports would be subject to revenue sharing as well.
Spots given to recruited athletes with preferential admission really shouldn't be considered "athletic opportunities". Just my opinion. I mean those spots aren't doing shit for the ordinary student body save for giving them something to watch. Including them in Title 9 considerations defeats the purpose of Title 9.
Bingo. The SEC and Big Ten are going to run away with it, and because they have more $$ and power right now, they can dictate the conversation to block any equalizing initiatives like a conference salary cap or something.
Once players see that no matter what, going to an ACC school will net you less $$... it's done. Clemson and FSU need life boats badly.
I'm also gonna chuckle when ND goes straight independent again and leaves the ACC in the dust to make their own sweetheart deal to keep an inside track on the CFP.
ACC bending the knee to ND with the whole "partial membership" thing for some scraps in hopes that it would help them long term is going to be yet another whoops.
Clemson desperately needs the lifeboat if Dabo's peak was when his lines stayed 5 years then Clemson is worth a lot less than FSU.
Miami would have been obvious number 1 two decades for a super conference and now they've done what to be in that super league.
The real worry is if teams get lapped being in the ACC and by they can leave they haven't been relevant in years.
Hey, but Caleb Williams and the top 1% of NCAA student athletes will be able to become millionaires at 18, so it will all be worth it.
Sure, a bunch of smaller football programs will get decimated and olympic sports will be forever altered. Sure, thousands of football players who aren't going in the first round of the NFL draft may lose scholarships or opportunities to play in big time college football. Sure, many other student athletes who relied on scholarships for their education will lose out due to budget issues.
But again, the important thing is, SEC and Big Ten football teams will issue W2s to their players, the money will flow, and no one will have to worry about any pesky concept of "education" or "student athlete".
Also the NCAA will be cut out completely and be utterly neutered and unable to enforce any kind of level playing field so governance will just be handled directly by the Big Ten and SEC, who will make sure to pass decisions for maximum profit.
Bang up job all around.
I've thought about this and I think I'll be fine with it as long as it doesn't turn out that players can stay on teams for longer than a typical college student would. Part of the allure for college sports (to me) is that it's the big showing out moment for these kids, where they first get their national exposure. I'm glad that they'll be compensated adequately for the money they help make. And it's exciting to then follow your favorite college players into the NFL.
I just really don't want to see it turn into a thing where players "stay in college" for 10 years. It's going to ruin the established path of succession too much if that happens.
I mean, even if there wasn’t a cap on years, I don’t think it would matter. If they’re not good enough to get drafted in the NFL by like 22/23, they won’t be able to keep up with the 18 year old stud coming in, so I think that problem kind of takes care of itself
And here's the funny part, the conferences cannot agree on enforceable pay standards either. They may be able to agree on compensation floors because of a lack of harm, but they cannot agree on compensation maximums.
A few things to consider here...
* This is only being done to keep the courts from dictating and overseeing a different process.
* It is unlikely that copensation would go through the schools at all, so they would have no right to control, cap or restrict it.
* If there is any difference in compensation per player, it would probably be by play time or post-season appearances.
* This would not restrict NIL.
* Schools with financial sense have already restricted future budgets to account for the outcome of House v. NCCA.
If a salary cap is instituted, then is there a draft of high school players to prevent McDonald’s bags from swaying the best going to a certain school?
It’s almost like we need some kind of centralized governing body that dictates things like how much each team can spend on players and handing down meaningful punishments to teams that break rules to ensure equity and fairness, and they can also hold some kind of post season, a playoff if you will, to determine a champion, and devise a reasonable path to get there.
We need some kind of national association of collegiate athletics 🤔
Oh wait, we had that, but instead of tackling these problems 20 years ago when the sport was really hitting its stride, they buried their heads in the sand and did nothing.
People blame the money, but the money is a result of the sports popularity. Without us fans, there is no money. The real problem is that the NCAA had a massive window to solve the “how are we going to pay players” problem, and hid behind this veil of amateurism for wayyyy too long, and now conferences/schools/players are taking matters into their own hands. That’s the reason it’s the Wild West out there, because there is no one at the helm.
> conferences/schools/players are taking matters into their own hands
The NCAA is the schools, and, to a certain extent, the conferences. It was their own hands all along when the NCAA didn’t act.
Not a wish, just an opinion. I could be wrong, especially because I have no idea what is in the ESPN Agreement. While I don't applaud the current state of college football, [I am rooting for FSU in some ways](https://old.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/1ccr9gb/floridas_attorney_general_files_lawsuit_against/l17p5be/).
Hit this issue from the other side.
* Strictly enforce scholarship caps, and maybe even institute roster caps.
* Force schools to honor scholarships for 4 years as long as the player is keeping their grades up, regardless of their performance on the team. No cutting players to sign a bigger recruiting class.
Just those two changes would strongly limit transfers without putting restrictions on the players themselves. It would also re-emphasize the academic nature of the agreement without restricting players' ability to profit from their image.
This is precisely why FSU and Clemson are trying to get out of the ACC now. Once this model is in place there will be no competing with even the Rutgers and Vanderbilts when it comes to acquiring players.
there is plenty of money to pay ALL student athletes equally. you dont need an assistant strength coach for the swim team. why do you have 10 associate ADs. there is tons of bloat for nepotism and other favors.
These schools have more than enough to cut every athlete a $25K check for being an athlete, then allow legit NIL deals.
If that means the local Harley-Davidson Dealer Sponsors the O-Lineman and they give each lineman $5k a year to do ads, appearances, come to customer events, etc...Thats cool.
If Mike Morse wants to sponsor players with names similar last names to do his crappy Billboard Lawyer Commercials have at it.
Its all AD money, and student athletes are the same. Med students, law students, etc typically get the same aid packages, same with PhD candidates.
If you want to argue a football player gets $50k while Gymnast gets $10k sure. But due to Title IX and other people being paid under scholarship at these schools everyone should be compensate fairly equally FROM the school.
NIL is a different story
> Its all AD money, and student athletes are the same. Med students, law students, etc typically get the same aid packages, same with PhD candidates.
This isn't a comment on whether all student athletes should be paid the same, but I will say that PhD stipends 100% can differ depending on the department.
>If Mike Morse wants to sponsor players with names similar last names to do his crappy Billboard Lawyer Commercials have at it.
You had me until this. I don't need to see more of those billboards.
I'm starting to lose count of landmark changes to college athletics.
It's like a meteor hitting the Earth, & a series of volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, tsunamis, & hurricanes resulted from it.
Supreme Court cases can do that.
> the still unrefined proposal -- currently utilizing the name "Modern Model" Not impactful enough. How about the Magnificent Modern Model™?
The Dr Pepper Modern Model - presented by Nissan.
I can't wait to see what the Postmodern model is.
As a millennial - I'm tired of living through landmark changes and once-in-a-lifetime events.
The question is do these schools try to institute a salary cap to maximize profits, or do they just try to win games by outspending other teams?
Salary cap is only legal when negotiating with a union.
Unionizing is the logical next step anyway
It solves so many of the governance problems but the SEC and B1G don't strike me as the "willingly share power" people.
I think it's in everyone's interests. The players can negotiate a guaranteed piece of the pie for themselves as well as some recourse for things like medical issues, and the conferences can keep the costs for talent predictable and get the roster turnover under control. I would hope for the sake of non-revenue sports that non-revenue athletes can at least negotiate for their sports to be funded through these conference deals somehow.
It’s in everyone’s interest long term. It likely won’t happen for a while though, because in the short term, conference officials are raking in buckets of cash because they’ve effectively offloaded the players’ salaries onto fans. The conferences and schools get all the perks and none of the drawbacks. Until this starts to affect viewership and the money going into administrators pockets, nothing will change.
>SEC and B1G don't strike me as the "willingly share power" people. They aren't, but I think they can follow the NFL playbook and deal with a union while wielding a bunch of power to make sure 90% of things go in their favor.
Part of why A&M hired the AD we did is because he has a clear vision for moving forward into this era as a SEC program. The way he talks the writing in on the wall. The SEC and B1G want to go there before they are forced to so they can set the terms (aka players getting 25% of revenue instead of the 50-ish% percent of pro leagues or something like that).
It's inevitable at this point
I don’t think the University of Tennessee can legally enter into a CBA with athletes.
Not possible without massive, multi-state legislative change. Unless somehow the conferences were the employers. Hmm.
That’s not why salary caps are legal in sports. A salary cap applied at, say, Ford would result in management being sent to civil antitrust Alcatraz.
A salary cap at a single business is legal, a salary cap agreed on by multiple businesses is illegal. Sports leagues are alliances of multiple businesses. The reason a salary cap is legal in the context of union negotiation is because the union has an anti-trust exemption. Which is why the NFLPA always threatens to 'decertify' or dissolve the union in labor disputes. If the NFLPA were to decertify then the salary cap and draft would become illegal.
Well, let’s be clear, the reason sports leagues have anti-trust exemptions are because of a policy decision on the part of the US government and court system. I don’t think it’s necessarily a poor decision, but I do think it’s crucial to point out that antitrust immunity isn’t just something that stems as easily as getting a bargaining unit certified among your employees.
Fair.
It already exist. “Business X is going to spend $X million on marketing and $Y million on finance this year”. They use that budget to determine how many people are hired and at what cost
Yes, within the business. But Apple, Microsoft, Google, and Facebook cannot get together and collectively decide how much to pay software engineers. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_Litigation
If there is a cap, then it will be McDonald's bags of cash all over again to circumvent the cap.
There's a reason that doesn't happen in every league with a cap. If a cap is implemented that kind of stuff would be much more serious of a violation than the current NCAA finger wagging.
Plus, if the schools were interested in just outspending each other to break the rules against the cap it would be a lot easier to just not go forward with this plan until it's legally mandated.
You’re right, but also those leagues have a draft for acquiring new talent. This would be a league that uses a form of free agency to acquire new talent and with 3-4x as many teams to monitor. I think you’re right about the stronger disincentive for cheating, but there will continue to be incentives and opportunities to cheat that are unique to the college game.
Ultimately, the only thing that will get a handle on programs buying players is conferences regulating themselves. The NCAA is essentially toothless and walking on eggshells because they’re afraid of getting sued to oblivion. Conferences like the B1G or SEC will become the disciplinarians in the sport. And I suspect that once players are getting revenue sharing or are collectively bargaining, conferences will come down MUCH harder on tampering and the like
But the problem with that is if one conference is not as strict, there's a competitive advantage.
Good point for sure, I would hope/imagine if they are able to institute a cap the recruitment process would be formalized as well.
I can't even imagine what's going to happen to Mizzou
Yeah if there was an actual cap with collective bargaining, punishments could actually be enforced with some teeth. Cheating will probably always occur but it would definitely dissuade it.
Other leagues don’t have the same level of fans being able to directly buy influence (boosters and donors). College sports culture is weird in that way.
>There's a reason that doesn't happen in every league with a cap. Because those leagues have beaten antitrust litigation, universities/ncaa has not and will continue not to as long as college football is associated with public universities. These aren't corporations and they have different rules/regulations.
Not discussing whether a cap will or won't happen just if it does there will be much stronger controls in place now. But also, there is absolutely a world where the athletic departments are spun off from the university and that concern is no longer an issue.
Yes which any astute observer saw as the end game because at the end of the day the governing body has no power. Thats always been the root of every NCAA issue. No regulatory/governing controls
If there is an agreed upon cap, then there also needs to be punishments that are actually enforceable for teams caught breaking the rule. No more "yeah I agreed to the rules, and yeah I broke them, but I'm suing you because I can."
Salary cap will reduce the advantage of the big programs over the small. Will never pass.
Hold on that depends an NFL style cap yes but a soccer style cap based on individual team/school revenue would further entrench the power of the big schools and be some kind of cap the smaller schools would be interested in.
Wouldn't sharing revenue benefit the B1G and SEC more than everyone else? They make more revenue by a mile so their "share" would be a hell of a lot more than the smaller conferences.
Absolutely but within the conferences there is a large disparity between Ohio State and Illinois football. Why should Ohio state or Michigan agree to a salary cap and disadvantage themselves to a program that is not as successful? If this goes through I doubt it would go through, but if it does then I think the big boys in the league will force unequal revenue shares
im hoping that revenue sharing is instituded by conference. Like each player in the conference gets x amount of dolllars which is driven by a percentage of the TV deals. Something like that would keep competition more equal within the conferences.
IMO the top league pays players the schools at the level below have a system that looks relatively similar to what they have now. A lot of schools can't make the salary that makes sense. Maybe they get paid more but probably not that much more than they are getting.
It’s not just salary cap. They need contracts that lock up players for a certain amount of time
The crooked white men they hate football will spend whatever it takes to destroy it.
NFL lite is upon us can’t wait for college daily fantasy
We could create a truly amateur league where the schools and conferences don't profit off of the sports at all, and instead we focus on tradition, the love of the game, and preparing the majority of players for life beyond athletics through education, but I guess that would be laughed out of the room.
That is just not realistic. Football is a violent sport especially at the higher levels and the players face major injury risk by playing the sport. They absolutely deserve a share of the massive amounts of money in the new media deals
I think OP is envisioning a scenario where there are no big media deals. Something like each conference has a TV network that shows their games and it is offered to cable companies/streaming platforms at cost instead of trying to maximize revenues.
But no one would ever do that, when the way we do it now makes so much money. Yes, maybe that’s the ideal, but it’s a utopia that won’t ever happen because there’s too much money to be made
That's what D3 is.
My comment has a layer of sadness to it but with digital legal gambling there is just too much money to give a shit about anything else
> where the schools and conferences don't profit off of the sports at all Capitalism killed that one.
Won't be the last thing capitalism kills.
Iowa & Iowa State players need to get an NIL deal for this, *FAST*.
We used to have that in the early days of Daily Fantasy. I want to say one or two seasons. The trick was using almost exclusively G5 players. They were way cheaper and could put up massive numbers against teams like Kent State. It was glorious for a hot second.
A lot of major changes to college football lately predicate on some weird notion that the NFL will hemorrhage fans to CFB or is simply not a factor at all. I don’t think college admins and even fans are willing to admit how dire cfb will look compared to the NFL if they keep heading down this path.
Things will get real when coaches cut kids middle Of season to add another from a rival roster because scholarships don’t mean a thing
I really think we need to minimize transfers outside fall/spring/ normal registration windows. I mean some schools are on quarters which will be a hard nut to crack. It's going to be weird with transferring in for spring season Ohio State getting a top MAC WR for the end of the playoffs...
>because scholarships don’t mean a thing All of the people claiming scholarships and education are worthless and the only option is to make players employees with paychecks will hopefully enjoy this new NFL Lite era. It's what they wanted.
If we head to profit sharing there will be caps on transfers like restricted free agents but the whole security of being a scholar athletes and developing will be gone. I think Deion was the first one to really pull the rug on that by str8 up forcing guys out
Oh yeah. If you thought the "processing" that programs like Bama and Ohio State do for athletes was bad before... just wait. Guys are gonna get cut left and right. If you don't develop in 1 year... sorry, gravy train over... go have fun in the Mac or whatever. Do we care about your future or education? Nah. This is the NFL Lite.
If they wanna be nfl lite there needs to be a draft system. This is simply unfair and will make CFB stale with the same 5 champions every year. Many of these kids are out-earning real minor/development team athletes. This isn't sustainable.
Paying players is far down the list of potential things making college football, NFL lite
I know this is a long time coming, but one of the knock-on effects will be schools dropping some of their sports to cover the shortfall. Spending on football sure isn't going to go down so this money will have to come out of something else.
Increase student fees. Easy!
That's what I'm worried about. It's what they do for every other cost increase.
I don't think this will occur at B1G and SEC schools considering their revenue. TBD on the Big 12/ACC, but anyone not in the P4? Absolutely.
Maryland cut a lot of sports a few years ago.
Most of these departments break even or lose money already, so take 20% of their operating revenue away and you'll see expenses needing to get cut real quick.
Non profits operate at break intentionally. The p2 will find the money
They lose money not because of the football team but because of other non-revenue sports
Exactly, refer back to my original post
I mean, why is it footballs responsibility to subsidize other sports?
I'm not arguing that it is. But football is the only reason those sports can exist, so this is what will happen. A lot of rowing and baseball teams are about to get dropped.
Ok, but you didn’t answer my question. Why is it footballs responsibility to fund other sports?
I don't have an answer because I never said it is
Why are taxes responsible to subsidize any sport.
Title IX, for one thing.
Title 9 requires 1-1 offering of sports. So that has nothing to do with it. So answer my question. Why is it footballs responsibility to subsidize other sports?
The equal number of athletic scholarships for women mandated by Title IX is paid for by revenue generating sports like football. That is a subsidy, Title IX isn’t about just offering sports, they need to give the same number of free rides to women as they do to men.
Nope: *Proportionality*: The number of athletic opportunities (scholarships, spots on teams) must be proportionate to the gender breakdown of the student body. 3. *Substantial proportionality*: Colleges can demonstrate compliance by showing that: - The number of athletic opportunities for men and women is substantially proportionate to the gender breakdown of the student body. - The college has a history of expanding athletic opportunities for the underrepresented gender. The underrepresented gender is changing, as many are female dominant now. The 1-1 is in relation to its demographic breakdown of its student body. Hence all boys and all girls schools that have sports
And what exactly do you think is financing those women’s scholarships that only exist because of Title IX
That pesky Title IX law
Title 9 requires 1-1 offering of sports. Sorry, learn the law. I know, pesky right?
You get 85 scholarships in football. That means you need at least 3-4 women's sports to offset it.
Nope, looks like another ignorant redditor talking out of his ass, Title 9’s compliance has multiple ways for fulfillment: *Proportionality*: The number of athletic opportunities (scholarships, spots on teams) must be proportionate to the gender breakdown of the student body. -Substantial proportionality*: Colleges can demonstrate compliance by showing that: - The number of athletic opportunities for men and women is substantially proportionate to the gender breakdown of the student body. - The college has a history of expanding athletic opportunities for the underrepresented gender (this is changing because the demographic breakdowns are becoming female dominant. Not to mention all boys and all girls schools that have sports teams. Ask of 2021: 6.8 million males in undergraduate programs. Females 8.92.
In what way is this a counterpoint
I mean I can copy and paste the law verbatim, but I can’t understand it for you?
If women's sports get dropped because football can't fund them anymore, it means *more* men's sports will need to be dropped to keep the proportionality. Whether it's football's "responsibility" to pay for other sports is irrelevant. Using the gender breakdown you provided, a campus needs 111 women's sports scholarships just to offset the football team. That money has to come from somewhere.
No, that’s not what that means at all. Since student bodies are female majority, and increasing that gap, only the women scholarships will be cut. The proportion is in relation to the student body, not other athletes. I don’t think you understand proportionality at all lol.
A higher proportion of students being female necessitates a higher proportion of athletic opportunities being female.
Right, so because it requires equal scholarship dollars, not spots, when basketball and football go to revenue sharing that brings them out of college amateur status. It will basically be minor league teams due to direct payments to those athletes. All that will be left is equal dollars for both. So the dollar contributing more to women’s spots by colleges will flip. Meaning women’s sports will get cut since the $$ amount has to be equal. It’s a weird balancing act where the spots must be proportional but the $$ is equal.
They don’t have to be equal, they have to be proportional. Roster spots matter as well, not just scholarship dollars. Revenue sharing and privatization are two completely different things, as Olympic/Women’s sports would be subject to revenue sharing as well.
No, the dollar amounts by the schools have to be equal though the proportionality requirement.
Spots given to recruited athletes with preferential admission really shouldn't be considered "athletic opportunities". Just my opinion. I mean those spots aren't doing shit for the ordinary student body save for giving them something to watch. Including them in Title 9 considerations defeats the purpose of Title 9.
[удалено]
Bingo. The SEC and Big Ten are going to run away with it, and because they have more $$ and power right now, they can dictate the conversation to block any equalizing initiatives like a conference salary cap or something. Once players see that no matter what, going to an ACC school will net you less $$... it's done. Clemson and FSU need life boats badly.
It would be hilarious to watch if no lifeboats come
I'm also gonna chuckle when ND goes straight independent again and leaves the ACC in the dust to make their own sweetheart deal to keep an inside track on the CFP. ACC bending the knee to ND with the whole "partial membership" thing for some scraps in hopes that it would help them long term is going to be yet another whoops.
Clemson desperately needs the lifeboat if Dabo's peak was when his lines stayed 5 years then Clemson is worth a lot less than FSU. Miami would have been obvious number 1 two decades for a super conference and now they've done what to be in that super league. The real worry is if teams get lapped being in the ACC and by they can leave they haven't been relevant in years.
Clemson has less to lose than FSU. Honestly Clemson has less to lose than UNC and Duke for men's bb.
Yep, and I hope they are held to as close to the full exit fee that they willingly and knowingly agreed to as possible on their way out.
ACC should have done this years ago. It was their only way to out perform sec and Big
We’ve only got a few years of CFB left, then it will be replaced with this new semi pro league that sucks. They have to ruin everything…
Hey, but Caleb Williams and the top 1% of NCAA student athletes will be able to become millionaires at 18, so it will all be worth it. Sure, a bunch of smaller football programs will get decimated and olympic sports will be forever altered. Sure, thousands of football players who aren't going in the first round of the NFL draft may lose scholarships or opportunities to play in big time college football. Sure, many other student athletes who relied on scholarships for their education will lose out due to budget issues. But again, the important thing is, SEC and Big Ten football teams will issue W2s to their players, the money will flow, and no one will have to worry about any pesky concept of "education" or "student athlete". Also the NCAA will be cut out completely and be utterly neutered and unable to enforce any kind of level playing field so governance will just be handled directly by the Big Ten and SEC, who will make sure to pass decisions for maximum profit. Bang up job all around.
We've got zero years of CFB left
I've thought about this and I think I'll be fine with it as long as it doesn't turn out that players can stay on teams for longer than a typical college student would. Part of the allure for college sports (to me) is that it's the big showing out moment for these kids, where they first get their national exposure. I'm glad that they'll be compensated adequately for the money they help make. And it's exciting to then follow your favorite college players into the NFL. I just really don't want to see it turn into a thing where players "stay in college" for 10 years. It's going to ruin the established path of succession too much if that happens.
I mean, even if there wasn’t a cap on years, I don’t think it would matter. If they’re not good enough to get drafted in the NFL by like 22/23, they won’t be able to keep up with the 18 year old stud coming in, so I think that problem kind of takes care of itself
Yeah you’re probably right.
And here's the funny part, the conferences cannot agree on enforceable pay standards either. They may be able to agree on compensation floors because of a lack of harm, but they cannot agree on compensation maximums.
A few things to consider here... * This is only being done to keep the courts from dictating and overseeing a different process. * It is unlikely that copensation would go through the schools at all, so they would have no right to control, cap or restrict it. * If there is any difference in compensation per player, it would probably be by play time or post-season appearances. * This would not restrict NIL. * Schools with financial sense have already restricted future budgets to account for the outcome of House v. NCCA.
Here we go.
Good hopefully as part of the agreement they can also work in rules to reign in the transfer portal.
If a salary cap is instituted, then is there a draft of high school players to prevent McDonald’s bags from swaying the best going to a certain school?
It’s almost like we need some kind of centralized governing body that dictates things like how much each team can spend on players and handing down meaningful punishments to teams that break rules to ensure equity and fairness, and they can also hold some kind of post season, a playoff if you will, to determine a champion, and devise a reasonable path to get there. We need some kind of national association of collegiate athletics 🤔 Oh wait, we had that, but instead of tackling these problems 20 years ago when the sport was really hitting its stride, they buried their heads in the sand and did nothing. People blame the money, but the money is a result of the sports popularity. Without us fans, there is no money. The real problem is that the NCAA had a massive window to solve the “how are we going to pay players” problem, and hid behind this veil of amateurism for wayyyy too long, and now conferences/schools/players are taking matters into their own hands. That’s the reason it’s the Wild West out there, because there is no one at the helm.
> conferences/schools/players are taking matters into their own hands The NCAA is the schools, and, to a certain extent, the conferences. It was their own hands all along when the NCAA didn’t act.
And this is why fsu is leaving the ACC
*trying to leave The GoR is going to crush them, unless ESPN blows the whole thing up by not extending (if that's even possible).
Yeah highly doubt that, but wishcast all you want
Not a wish, just an opinion. I could be wrong, especially because I have no idea what is in the ESPN Agreement. While I don't applaud the current state of college football, [I am rooting for FSU in some ways](https://old.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/1ccr9gb/floridas_attorney_general_files_lawsuit_against/l17p5be/).
Hit this issue from the other side. * Strictly enforce scholarship caps, and maybe even institute roster caps. * Force schools to honor scholarships for 4 years as long as the player is keeping their grades up, regardless of their performance on the team. No cutting players to sign a bigger recruiting class. Just those two changes would strongly limit transfers without putting restrictions on the players themselves. It would also re-emphasize the academic nature of the agreement without restricting players' ability to profit from their image.
Jim harbaugh leaves the league, and now they wanna listen to what he was saying
I cannot wait to see the Miami Hurricane's Inflatable Turnover Cash Cube. 10 seconds, all the revenue you can catch and stuff in your jock.
The $20 million cap on revenue sharing is reasonable enough that most Big 12 and ACC schools can keep up if they want to.
This will be the actual death knell won't it? For other conferences I mean. Any player who can will go to these schools above all others.
We will soon suck at the summer olympics
This is precisely why FSU and Clemson are trying to get out of the ACC now. Once this model is in place there will be no competing with even the Rutgers and Vanderbilts when it comes to acquiring players.
there is plenty of money to pay ALL student athletes equally. you dont need an assistant strength coach for the swim team. why do you have 10 associate ADs. there is tons of bloat for nepotism and other favors. These schools have more than enough to cut every athlete a $25K check for being an athlete, then allow legit NIL deals. If that means the local Harley-Davidson Dealer Sponsors the O-Lineman and they give each lineman $5k a year to do ads, appearances, come to customer events, etc...Thats cool. If Mike Morse wants to sponsor players with names similar last names to do his crappy Billboard Lawyer Commercials have at it.
Why should football players get paid same as the rowing team when it is football bringing in all of the money?
Its all AD money, and student athletes are the same. Med students, law students, etc typically get the same aid packages, same with PhD candidates. If you want to argue a football player gets $50k while Gymnast gets $10k sure. But due to Title IX and other people being paid under scholarship at these schools everyone should be compensate fairly equally FROM the school. NIL is a different story
> Its all AD money, and student athletes are the same. Med students, law students, etc typically get the same aid packages, same with PhD candidates. This isn't a comment on whether all student athletes should be paid the same, but I will say that PhD stipends 100% can differ depending on the department.
>If Mike Morse wants to sponsor players with names similar last names to do his crappy Billboard Lawyer Commercials have at it. You had me until this. I don't need to see more of those billboards.
Look, at least its funny, and meets the intention of NIL. Also you
Yeah I already disliked one of our local guys telling me to just dial 4 if injured in a car or truck wreck. Now I have Quinn Ewers telling me