O'Bannon ruling

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Thats true, but lets not forget that football is the breadwinner in the house.  Without football the Big East cant compete financially with the power 5.

But the power 5 are going to spend all of that money on football. NOT basketball. Because we don't have the burden of football, we will be able to outspend the power 5 in the only we sport we really care about.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I'm at a volleyball camp right now with my son...run by former gold medalist Pat Powers....they're talking up scholarships and all that stuff.  Talking about all the growing opportunities for sand volleyball and indoor in college, but yesterday's ruling has them worried as some schools that were looking to add may not any longer.  Others may drop.  For some of these people investing 1000's of dollars a year in training, camps, club, etc, the reality was sinking in a bit with the talk this morning.

Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

As calloused as this sounds, I really don't care. I don't think any student has a right to a free (or discounted) education because they are good at a sport. Whether it be sand volleyball, soccer, football, basketball, etc. I was varsity in ultimate frisbee in high school and won three state championships. No one offered me a scholarship. Why should sand volleyball players get one? If a sport wants the ability to offer free (or discounted) educations, than they need to prove they bring enough benefit to the university to justify the cost of the scholarship. Men's basketball, football, baseball, hockey (for some schools), volleyball (for some schools), lacrosse (for some schools) and soccer (for some schools) have done that.

If sand volleyball wants scholarships, find a way to prove their value to the university, or be happy being added as one of the extra sports that only exist because the NCAA says we need at least 14 different sports and Title IX wills it to be a 7-7 or 6-8 split.

[forgetful]

Its a 5,000 per year MINIMUM

Yes that is the minimum cap.  Which means the NCAA can cap it at $5k.

[Tugg Speedman]

As calloused as this sounds, I really don't care. I don't think any student has a right to a free (or discounted) education because they are good at a sport. Whether it be sand volleyball, soccer, football, basketball, etc. I was varsity in ultimate frisbee in high school and won three state championships. No one offered me a scholarship. Why should sand volleyball players get one? If a sport wants the ability to offer free (or discounted) educations, than they need to prove they bring enough benefit to the university to justify the cost of the scholarship. Men's basketball, football, baseball, hockey (for some schools), volleyball (for some schools), lacrosse (for some schools) and soccer (for some schools) have done that.

If sand volleyball wants scholarships, find a way to prove their value to the university, or be happy being added as one of the extra sports that only exist because the NCAA says we need at least 14 different sports and Title IX wills it to be a 7-7 or 6-8 split.

The non-revenue sports will need to find patrons.  As I mentioned in another post:

* Augusta and the USTA can donate to the NCAA (or another similar organization) to sponsor college Golf

* the USTA and the equipment makers can sponsor college tennis

* the running shoe and apparel makers can sponsor track and cross country

* The NHL can sponsor hockey

* MLB can sponsor baseball

And so on.

In addition wealthy donors can sponsor non-revenue sports at individual schools.

What the schools will do is pick up the tab for existing facilities.  So if a university already has a tennis complex (indoor and outdoor courts), they will continue to upkeep it.  The money from the USTA, equipment sponsors, wealthy donors will go to coaches salaries, scholarships and travel.

You watch, players will get paid and the non-revenue sports will be just fine.

[ChicosBailBonds]

As calloused as this sounds, I really don't care. I don't think any student has a right to a free (or discounted) education because they are good at a sport. Whether it be sand volleyball, soccer, football, basketball, etc. I was varsity in ultimate frisbee in high school and won three state championships. No one offered me a scholarship. Why should sand volleyball players get one? If a sport wants the ability to offer free (or discounted) educations, than they need to prove they bring enough benefit to the university to justify the cost of the scholarship. Men's basketball, football, baseball, hockey (for some schools), volleyball (for some schools), lacrosse (for some schools) and soccer (for some schools) have done that.

If sand volleyball wants scholarships, find a way to prove their value to the university, or be happy being added as one of the extra sports that only exist because the NCAA says we need at least 14 different sports and Title IX wills it to be a 7-7 or 6-8 split.

Same would go for football and basketball...no one offered you a scholarship so why should they get one...right?  Let's not forget, at many of these schools, sports is actually a negative resource and loses money.  Can argue this all day on those lines.   Why should the music kid get a scholarship just because he's good at the flute?  So on and so forth.

So let's play in the world that exists.  Schools have athletic departments with athletic teams, not just 1 or 2 teams, but many teams.  Those teams represent the school in athletic competitions and scholarships are rewarded.  Those opportunities are going to go away, they just are.  For my son, doesn't mean a thing.  Number one, he's a male and there are very few male scholarships to begin with for volleyball and he'll never have the size anyway to get awarded one.  So, for us, not a big deal.  He's at the camp to have fun, polish his skills, check out the hot chicks, etc.  For some of these kids, however, a very big deal.  Their families are betting (right or wrong) on spending a few thousand dollars a year, tons of time in hopes Suzie Q gets a scholarship to avoid having to spend $20K a year for 4 to 5 years.  A wise bet?  Probably not, but a bet they are taking.  Those opportunities are going away, just the reality of it all.

If we want to seriously get into a debate about who merits it and who doesn't, we could have a real fun one on ROI and revenue brought in on the political side if you wish.   

[ChicosBailBonds]

The non-revenue sports will need to find patrons.  As I mentioned in another post:

* Augusta and the USTA can donate to the NCAA (or another similar organization) to sponsor college Golf

* the USTA and the equipment makers can sponsor college tennis

* the running shoe and apparel makers can sponsor track and cross country

* The NHL can sponsor hockey

* MLB can sponsor baseball

And so on.

In addition wealthy donors can sponsor non-revenue sports at individual schools.

What the schools will do is pick up the tab for existing facilities.  So if a university already has a tennis complex (indoor and outdoor courts), they will continue to upkeep it.  The money from the USTA, equipment sponsors, wealthy donors will go to coaches salaries, scholarships and travel.

You watch, players will get paid and the non-revenue sports will be just fine.

Very few highly qualified tennis players play one lick of college tennis.  Not how the funnel works.  Golf's governing body is going to do very little for this.  Could some sponsors, sure.

So let me know who is going to fund softball, fencing, cross country, track and field, lacrosse, etc, etc.  Will an elite track school do fine?  Sure.  Will the average track school?  Not a chance.  Those are still slotted opportunities for young men and women to get an education paid or partially paid for.  Think the broad picture realities, not where a few schools will benefit, and I think you will come to a much different conclusion when the realities set it.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Its a 5,000 per year MINIMUM

No, it is capped at a MAXIMUM payout of $5K per year.


"It is a triumph in the sense that players will now for the first time be able to collect money for what they do. But it is far from the triumph the players and their lawyers envisioned when they began this quest five years ago.The payment authorized by Judge Wilken in the formal injunction is capped at $5,000 per athlete per year of competition. Her ruling says the NCAA is restrained from prohibiting an athlete from getting deferred compension of $5,000 or less (currently, an athlete gets nothing). In a typical NCAA career of five years, a player could collect only $25,000. In their attempt to gain a share of TV revenue for live broadcasts of their games, the players were not thinking of thousands of dollars, they were thinking of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Instead of allowing the players to use their leverage to collect a large portion of huge television contracts."


In many ways, the NCAA is relieved the cap is at $5K.  You may see a scenario here where both sides appeal.  The plaintiffs are pissed at the $5K cap, the NCAA pissed at the anti-trust ruling and the fact the each player signed a waiver allowing the NCAA to use their likeness in promoting their sports.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Same would go for football and basketball...no one offered you a scholarship so why should they get one...right?  Let's not forget, at many of these schools, sports is actually a negative resource and loses money.  Can argue this all day on those lines.   Why should the music kid get a scholarship just because he's good at the flute?  So on and so forth.

I agree. No one deserves a scholarship just because they are good at something. They deserve it because they bring enough ROI to the university. Football and basketball for most schools brings a positive ROI. Academics bring a positive ROI. Depending on the school, music can bring a positive ROI. Many of the non-revenue sports? Not a positive ROI. I don't feel bad about cutting them.

[Tugg Speedman]

I agree. No one deserves a scholarship just because they are good at something. They deserve it because they bring enough ROI to the university. Football and basketball for most schools brings a positive ROI. Academics bring a positive ROI. Depending on the school, music can bring a positive ROI. Many of the non-revenue sports? Not a positive ROI. I don't feel bad about cutting them.

When did ROI become the standard?  If it was most humanities and liberal arts education would be eliminated.  According to the AD of Michigan, only 20 to 25 D1 football programs make money, now with this ruling, that will go down.  You think we are going to 20 D1 football schools?  We would if ROI was the standard.

It's about priorities.  If non-revenue sports are important to a school, they will keep them.  Why are they important?  Because non-revenue athletes are better than average students, graduate in higher percentages and donate more than the average student. 

Simply put, non-revenue sport athletes are "better" students than "regular" students and they are worth the investment.  Just like kids with high test scores and/or GPAs are offered incentives to attend.  They are worth the investment too.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I agree. No one deserves a scholarship just because they are good at something. They deserve it because they bring enough ROI to the university. Football and basketball for most schools brings a positive ROI. Academics bring a positive ROI. Depending on the school, music can bring a positive ROI. Many of the non-revenue sports? Not a positive ROI. I don't feel bad about cutting them.

It would be interesting if they used your standard for social programs in this country.....lots of people doing absolutely nothing and getting paid to do NOTHING.   We make those decisions as a society, perhaps with the hope that some of these folks will see the light and get it in gear.  At least these kids are working their butts off to represent their schools, excel at their sport, earning minimum grades to stay eligible (often much much higher than minimum).

How would you respond to the basketball and football schools that have a negative ROI....should those schools kill the sports because their revenues do not exceed expenses?

Furthermore, aren't you short changing your ROI?  How many of these kids that are not bringing in revenue immediately for the school end up graduating, going on to great things, give back to the school in many ways? 

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

When did ROI become the standard?  If it was most humanities and liberal arts education would be eliminated.  According to the AD of Michigan, only 20 to 25 D1 football programs make money, now with this ruling, that will go down.  You think we are going to 20 D1 football schools?  We would if ROI was the standard.

This data is incomplete. Yes, only 20 to 25 football programs make money. But they more than make up for it in the alumni donations they create, the students they attract, the connection they create with the students (successful athletic programs have been proven to help increase student retention and persistence to graduation), the free marketing, and the prestige that they bring. You can't just look at if the football program balances the budget or not.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

It would be interesting if they used your standard for social programs in this country.....lots of people doing absolutely nothing and getting paid to do NOTHING.   We make those decisions as a society, perhaps with the hope that some of these folks will see the light and get it in gear.  At least these kids are working their butts off to represent their schools, excel at their sport, earning minimum grades to stay eligible (often much much higher than minimum).

Without wading into politics on a basketball forum I would say that there is a HUGE difference between basic human needs and getting a free or discounted college education because a kid is good at tossing a ball around.

How would you respond to the basketball and football schools that have a negative ROI....should those schools kill the sports because their revenues do not exceed expenses?

Furthermore, aren't you short changing your ROI?  How many of these kids that are not bringing in revenue immediately for the school end up graduating, going on to great things, give back to the school in many ways? 

See my response to Heisenberg. I think you find that very few football and basketball programs have a true negative ROI. And if they did, my response would be the same as it is to the sand volleyball team, cut it.

And sure, there are many kids who are on a swimming scholarship or something similar that go on to do great things. I would argue that there is just as much likelihood that a kid on an academic scholarship would do the same thing. Only difference is that the academic scholarship doesn't come with the extra cost of coaches, facilities, travel budgets, tutors, etc. My response? Cut the swim team, put that money into academic scholarships (And I am aware it is not that simple, I am merely making a simple argument to make a point).

Change is coming to higher education. The blank check that is federal student loans will be reformed and be much harder to come by in the near future. Colleges are going to have to tighten their belts across all of their departments. Athletics is probably the department that most consistently has an over inflated budget across multiple universities. They should be one of the departments that takes the greatest hit. And I say this as someone who works in college athletics.

[Tugg Speedman]

See my response to Heisenberg. I think you find that very few football and basketball programs have a true negative ROI. And if they did, my response would be the same as it is to the sand volleyball team, cut it.

And sure, there are many kids who are on a swimming scholarship or something similar that go on to do great things. I would argue that there is just as much likelihood that a kid on an academic scholarship would do the same thing. Only difference is that the academic scholarship doesn't come with the extra cost of coaches, facilities, travel budgets, tutors, etc. My response? Cut the swim team, put that money into academic scholarships (And I am aware it is not that simple, I am merely making a simple argument to make a point).

Kids that qualify for academic scholarships get them from lots of schools.  And the one they pick often is the one that sunk a ton of money into labs, buildings and facility.  So, it's a as "cheap" when compared to sports scholarships.  In many cases it a lot more money that paying for a cross country or tennis team.

The largest source of scholarships was the GI bill following WW2.  Following that is sports scholarships, especially non-revenue sports.  Again, why is that?  Non-revenue sports athletes have proven themselves as "more desirable" students than the general population.  It is for this reason the non-revenue sports athletes will be fine ... Like they were from the 1940s to early 1990s when revenue sports did not "pay for them."

[forgetful]

Kids that qualify for academic scholarships get them from lots of schools.  And the one they pick often is the one that sunk a ton of money into labs, buildings and facility.  So, it's a as "cheap" when compared to sports scholarships.  In many cases it a lot more money that paying for a cross country or tennis team.

The largest source of scholarships was the GI bill following WW2.  Following that is sports scholarships, especially non-revenue sports.  Again, why is that?  Non-revenue sports athletes have proven themselves as "more desirable" students than the general population.  It is for this reason the non-revenue sports athletes will be fine ... Like they were from the 1940s to early 1990s when revenue sports did not "pay for them."

The labs and facilities make a profit for the University from research alone.  If they didn't Universities wouldn't invest in them…

Strangely, the will invest in football/basketball facilities and teams knowing they will lose money on them.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Kids that qualify for academic scholarships get them from lots of schools.  And the one they pick often is the one that sunk a ton of money into labs, buildings and facility.  So, it's a as "cheap" when compared to sports scholarships.  In many cases it a lot more money that paying for a cross country or tennis team.

Yes, but labs, buildings, and facilities are essential to the functioning of an institution of higher learning. A tennis team is not. Plus, those buildings, labs, and facilities have a much higher ROI (in most cases) than a non-revenue sports team.

[Tugg Speedman]

Actually they don't ... They are huge money sucks and survive because they get federal grants for research.

Just like most sports programs are money sucks and survive because they get state funding.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Actually they don't ... They are huge money sucks and survive because they get federal grants for research.

Just like most sports programs are money sucks and survive because they get state funding.

Getting federal research grants is part of ROI....universities compete for these grants and the facilities help them do it. And again, you are looking too small. These facilities attract students, increase prestige, and encourage donations. And they do it a lot better than a equestrian team does.

[Boozemon Barro]

All D1 football programs make money. Like, a whole lot of money. Anyone who thinks differently is brain dead.

[ChicosBailBonds]

As suspected, NCAA announced today they will appeal.  Some politicians in some states are coming around to supporting anti-trust exemption for the NCAA. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

All D1 football programs make money. Like, a whole lot of money. Anyone who thinks differently is brain dead.

Before I answer your question with actual data, and since you introduced the idea of "brain dead" and anyone not agreeing with your view as apparently not having a brain that is functioning....please define "make money and whole lot of money for us".

I've seen on way too many occasions on this site and much more on the general internet this notion of "making money" equated to revenue.  It's as if a bunch of people never took a business 101 class.  Revenue earned is not "made" money.  When you "make money", you are making a profit, that is what is left over after expenses are deducted from revenues.  So, again, I'd ask for you to define for us what you mean by make money and a whole lot of money so the appropriate answer can be given to you.  I'd also ask you to take a pretty sharp look at what entails Division I football.   

[Tugg Speedman]

Before I answer your question with actual data, and since you introduced the idea of "brain dead" and anyone not agreeing with your view as apparently not having a brain that is functioning....please define "make money and whole lot of money for us".

I've seen on way too many occasions on this site and much more on the general internet this notion of "making money" equated to revenue.  It's as if a bunch of people never took a business 101 class.  Revenue earned is not "made" money.  When you "make money", you are making a profit, that is what is left over after expenses are deducted from revenues.  So, again, I'd ask for you to define for us what you mean by make money and a whole lot of money so the appropriate answer can be given to you.  I'd also ask you to take a pretty sharp look at what entails Division I football.  

+1

Every D1 football program generates revenue,  but all but the top 20 to 25 have expenses greater than their revenues.

[Texas Western]

I'm at a volleyball camp right now with my son...run by former gold medalist Pat Powers....they're talking up scholarships and all that stuff.  Talking about all the growing opportunities for sand volleyball and indoor in college, but yesterday's ruling has them worried as some schools that were looking to add may not any longer.  Others may drop.  For some of these people investing 1000's of dollars a year in training, camps, club, etc, the reality was sinking in a bit with the talk this morning.

Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

My sense is the combination of the O'Bannon Ruling and The Power 5 deal  will cost Marquette 150k more a year to compete in men's and woman's basketball (making the Title IX assumption) I don't believe it will have a material impact on other sports at Marquette. Players currently sign waivers to allow Marquette to use their images. So most of this cost will be in the form of enhanced scholarship value.

I don't think there are many college athletes that can truly command image marketing dollars. It is the school brand they care about. In some rare circumstances there may be the iconic college athlete such as a Doug Flutie Herschel Walker Bo Jackson etc that transcends their school and they will be compensated for their use of their images post graduation for sure. In general I dont think this will be a big deal, the ruling will be appealed and subsequently modified to keep the collegiate model intact.

I think the Olympic sports will all be fine. I truly believe the cost of these sports is in the eyes of the beholder. The big D1 schools tend to label them non revenue etc for their own parochial reasons. On the other hand D3 can't add these sports fast enough. As they attract tuition paying students and don't have very much attendant costs. Even in D1 do the math on a typical Mens Lacrosse program. They have around 48 guys on a team and 12.6 scholarships. So your looking at 35 full tuition's. All of the equipment apparel is provided by the manufacturers who sponsor the teams. So your net cost is a few coaches, a travel budget for the team and recruiting. The fields etc are already there. The same math applies to soccer baseball etc.

Some smaller schools have almost 20 percent of their students involved in intercollegiate athletics. Having a broad range of sports adds to the fabric of the schools and over a long period of time is a tremendous investment. These student athletes tend to have above average post graduate career trajectory.

The other reality is that in most Olympic sports students are generally using them to get into schools that they would ordinarily not be able to gain acceptance to.  If for some reason the scholarships were reduced because of these rulings and agreements, you would simply see a a handful but not all students who play these sports, matriculating to their in state schools  or those with lower admissions standards.  

Bottom Line is we need to raise a few more dollars for our athletic department and there is a possibility if we are smart about it we can use these rulings to our advantage. We don't have to feed the football monster and that makes a huge difference.

[Tugg Speedman]

I don't think there are many college athletes that can truly command image marketing dollars. It is the school brand they care about. In some rare circumstances there may be the iconic college athlete such as a Doug Flutie Herschel Walker Bo Jackson etc that transcends their school and they will be compensated for their use of their images post graduation for sure. In general I dont think this will be a big deal, the ruling will be appealed and subsequently modified to keep the collegiate model intact.

Good post

One small quibble, the iconic athletes are not just guys who played 30 years ago but more current ... Johnny Manziel, Jamies Winston, Denard Robinson, Tim Tebow, Doug McDermott, Anthony Davis, etc.  So I think the issue matters to current players not just to players from 30 years ago.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I think the Olympic sports will all be fine. I truly believe the cost of these sports is in the eyes of the beholder. The big D1 schools tend to label them non revenue etc for their own parochial reasons. On the other hand D3 can't add these sports fast enough. As they attract tuition paying students and don't have very much attendant costs. Even in D1 do the math on a typical Mens Lacrosse program. They have around 48 guys on a team and 12.6 scholarships. So your looking at 35 full tuition's. All of the equipment apparel is provided by the manufacturers who sponsor the teams. So your net cost is a few coaches, a travel budget for the team and recruiting. The fields etc are already there. The same math applies to soccer baseball etc.

D3 is adding them because they don't fund any scholarships for them.  So the expenses are $0 while revenue on the academic side is through the roof for tuition.  For D1, it's the exact opposite.  For women's sports, it is more pronounced.  I understand and agree with your Lacrosse example, but I would not agree with it for women's volleyball, women's tennis, women's basketball, so on and so forth.

For example, women's volleyball has 12 full head count scholarships...the team has 16 players. 

Women's basketball, 15 full head count scholarships...the team has 14 players on the roster currently

Women's tennis, 8 scholarships....the MU team has 6 players on the roster

Etc, etc.  So yes, it works out with the math in some sports, but much differently in others. 


The next question you would have to ask in your model is how many of those lacrosse players are accretive to the university?  In other words, if MU didn't have a lacrosse program, would those slots have been unfilled or would other students (non lacrosse players) been admitted anyway and chosen to come to MU to pay tuition?

[dgies9156]

Per the actual ruling, they could actually just reduce the value of a scholarship by $5000 and then impose a $5000 maximum cap on the payments.

The athletes would then have no additional benefit from the ruling.

Fine. Then we acknowledge what the scholarship is AND TAX IT.

It is a barter transaction. And under IRS rules, it is taxable!