MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: MUfan12 on May 03, 2022, 09:53:13 AM
-
https://www.bethedifferencenil.org/
Depending on the donor backing this could be a huge deal.
-
A new website was launched today with involvement from Travis Diener, Steve Novak, and Rob Jackson. They are looking to partner with local non-profits to help Marquette players earn NIL opportunities.
https://www.bethedifferencenil.org/
-
Setting it up as a not-for-profit is interesting. It is far from determined if that will hold up to IRS scrutiny. This is behind a paywall, but Matt Brown is a good read on the administrative stuff behind college sports, and he makes the same claim.
Glad they are pushing the envelope though.
https://www.extrapointsmb.com/nil-collective-non-profit-ohio-state-irs/
-
Awesome. Looking forward to seeing the kind of partners this group can line up.
-
Gives Mr. Lewis some incentive to return. Also this should make us competitive with most schools and every school in the Big East in terms of NIL dollars.
-
Gives Mr. Lewis some incentive to return. Also this should make us competitive with most schools and every school in the Big East in terms of NIL dollars.
Thats how Creighton keeps adding talent right now. They got in front of the game with NIL.
-
This will make us competitive with virtually every school and very competitive in the BE. This program will be a success and hopefully this calms some folks nerves out there.
-
Will keep up with the "Jones's".
-
This will make us competitive with virtually every school and very competitive in the BE. This program will be a success and hopefully this calms some folks nerves out there.
it will depend upon the amount of money they can raise, the structure for doing so, etc. Non-profits aren't exactly going to throw big money at players. I think you'll see more appearances and autographs sessions for a fee than a major deal. Tennessee's Spyre Sports, which runs the 1951 Club collective is running on a budget of $25 million per year, Florida's latest collective (they have three) raised $3 million in 24 hours, the Clark Field Collective at Texas (one of two at UT) started with an initial pledge of $10 million. Can this collective keep up with that?
The thing with NIL is we hear about the huge deals but overall, the average NIL deal across D1 per on the Opendorse platform was around $1300, with that number heavily skewed by deals given to SAs like the Cavinder Twins, Bryce Young, Olivia Dunne, Paige Buecker, Tshweibe, etc. The median deal was $51. A vast majority of NIL deals are for product.
-
it will depend upon the amount of money they can raise, the structure for doing so, etc. Non-profits aren't exactly going to throw big money at players. I think you'll see more appearances and autographs sessions for a fee than a major deal. Tennessee's Spyre Sports, which runs the 1951 Club collective is running on a budget of $25 million per year, Florida's latest collective (they have three) raised $3 million in 24 hours, the Clark Field Collective at Texas (one of two at UT) started with an initial pledge of $10 million. Can this collective keep up with that?
This collective doesn't have to. Just look at the list of players John Ruiz has signed up at Miami. Rather, look at the list of sports. It's 80% football. Tennessee, Florida, Texas, those will all be the same. Football is going to drive the bus on most of this, especially at the P5 schools. They won't need to raise nearly as much with an initial focus on 26 student-athletes.
-
https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaafb/report-texas-wide-receiver-turned-down-7-figure-offer/ar-AAWSHin?li=BBnbfcL
Ridiculous......
-
https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaafb/report-texas-wide-receiver-turned-down-7-figure-offer/ar-AAWSHin?li=BBnbfcL
Ridiculous......
What's ridiculous about it?
-
Texas boosters gave him a million reasons to stay.
-
What's ridiculous about it?
A million dollar NIL for a wide receiver, heck any player. What isBryce Young, CJ Stroud, and other Heisman potential players getting. College coaches are re-recruiting their current players.
If you feel that it’s a good thing for sports, so be it. College sports now is out of control.
-
So can someone explain how exactly this would work? I'm struggling to understand where the NIL fund fits between its partners and student athletes.
-
A million dollar NIL for a wide receiver, heck any player. What isBryce Young, CJ Stroud, and other Heisman potential players getting. College coaches are re-recruiting their current players.
If you feel that it’s a good thing for sports, so be it. College sports now is out of control.
Fans refusing to enjoy players legally capitalizing off their fair market value even though this has been going on under the table for an eternity.
What a strange, head in the sand, take.
-
A million dollar NIL for a wide receiver, heck any player. What isBryce Young, CJ Stroud, and other Heisman potential players getting. College coaches are re-recruiting their current players.
If you feel that it’s a good thing for sports, so be it. College sports now is out of control.
I still don't get your complaint. He shouldn't be able to make a million dollars off his talents and ability? Should theatre majors not be allowed to act in movies if given the opportunity? Should broadcasting majors not be allowed to profit off podcasts they start?
And who are you mad at? The player, for making the money? The booster that wants him to play for their school? The coach that fails to re-recruit the talent? Just a very strange gripe with no seeming target.
-
I still don't get your complaint. He shouldn't be able to make a million dollars off his talents and ability? Should theatre majors not be allowed to act in movies if given the opportunity? Should broadcasting majors not be allowed to profit off podcasts they start?
And who are you mad at? The player, for making the money? The booster that wants him to play for their school? The coach that fails to re-recruit the talent? Just a very strange gripe with no seeming target.
The romance is gone... :'(
-
I still don't get your complaint. He shouldn't be able to make a million dollars off his talents and ability? Should theatre majors not be allowed to act in movies if given the opportunity? Should broadcasting majors not be allowed to profit off podcasts they start?
And who are you mad at? The player, for making the money? The booster that wants him to play for their school? The coach that fails to re-recruit the talent? Just a very strange gripe with no seeming target.
I'll step in this. Was it legal? Kid wasn't in the portal so how was he contacted? Depending on which P-5 school it was, and what their state law allows. I am sure he has an agent, so what is the agent's duty? Get the best deal for his client, or the best deal for his client at the school he is currently enrolled in? If he is a NCAA certified agent, curious on what their regs state about agents reaching out to other schools.
-
The romance is gone... :'(
More like, the illusion is gone. People like magic shows though.
-
More like, the illusion is gone. People like magic shows though.
This is exactly right. Do people really think this hasn't been the way of the world for the past 50 years? Do people really think when Al said "I don't think any decent human being enjoys recruiting" he was talking about the moms making inedible cookies when he was on in-home visits? The only difference is today it's transparent. Welcome to the sport you've always been watching, the only thing that's changed is we're being honest about it.
And again...who are we mad at? Because if the answer is anyone other than the NCAA and its member institutions, you're doing it wrong.
-
I do not care how much money these guys get paid and it is up to MU get the funds needed. If MU wants to compete at a high level, they need to compete in the NIL. I am very surprised by all of the talk on this topic over the past weeks on Scoop. NIL is just another piece of the puzzle, no different than having proper budget for a coaching staff, recruiting, travel, etc. If MU cannot figure this out, they should turn over the keys to FF and play NAIA ball.
-
I do not care how much money these guys get paid and it is up to MU get the funds needed. If MU wants to compete at a high level, they need to compete in the NIL. I am very surprised by all of the talk on this topic over the past weeks on Scoop. NIL is just another piece of the puzzle, no different than having proper budget for a coaching staff, recruiting, travel, etc. If MU cannot figure this out, they should turn over the keys to FF and play NAIA ball.
(https://i.giphy.com/media/duM6JZemPlOjUyqmxd/giphy.webp)
-
A million dollar NIL for a wide receiver, heck any player. What isBryce Young, CJ Stroud, and other Heisman potential players getting. College coaches are re-recruiting their current players.
If you feel that it’s a good thing for sports, so be it. College sports now is out of control.
(https://media2.giphy.com/media/J7ELgivV8lsytctgO7/giphy.gif?cid=790b7611358411866a9d62cb171377ddb3ea982651502043&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g)
-
I do not care how much money these guys get paid and it is up to MU get the funds needed. If MU wants to compete at a high level, they need to compete in the NIL. I am very surprised by all of the talk on this topic over the past weeks on Scoop. NIL is just another piece of the puzzle, no different than having proper budget for a coaching staff, recruiting, travel, etc. If MU cannot figure this out, they should turn over the keys to FF and play NAIA ball.
Agreed Goose.
-
Ross Dellenger
@RossDellenger
· 58m
News: College leaders plan a crackdown on NIL collectives, sources tell @SINow.
Officials are exploring guidelines that reinforce that boosters are prohibited from recruiting. Schools not monitoring donors will be sanctioned for violating existing bylaws
https://bit.ly/3kIhkct
-
Ross Dellenger
@RossDellenger
· 58m
News: College leaders plan a crackdown on NIL collectives, sources tell @SINow.
Officials are exploring guidelines that reinforce that boosters are prohibited from recruiting. Schools not monitoring donors will be sanctioned for violating existing bylaws
https://bit.ly/3kIhkct
It’s over. The presidents and the NCAA kicked the can so far down the road, they have little to no recourse. They can try and put the cat back in the box but there are about 25-30 schools that will walk away from the NCAA. They’ll get their tails kicked in court.
-
Ross Dellenger
@RossDellenger
· 58m
News: College leaders plan a crackdown on NIL collectives, sources tell @SINow.
Officials are exploring guidelines that reinforce that boosters are prohibited from recruiting. Schools not monitoring donors will be sanctioned for violating existing bylaws
https://bit.ly/3kIhkct
College sports are doomed
-
More like, the illusion is gone. People like magic shows though.
It was an illusion for sure, except there are those who think magic is real. If the MBB NIL fund truly will be non-prophet status, tightwads like me are more likely to donate simply for tax purposes. 🤷🏻♂️
-
What next? Wrestling isn't real?
-
It’s over. They can try and put the cat back in the box
(https://www.rd.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Why-Your-Cat-Loves-Boxes-According-to-Science-318174692-kmsh.jpg?resize=1024,683)
-
Schrodinger's cat? College basketball is both alive and dead and we won't know until we open the box?
Then will it be like 'Seven'? What's in the box?
-
(https://www.rd.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Why-Your-Cat-Loves-Boxes-According-to-Science-318174692-kmsh.jpg?resize=1024,683)
READY TO JUMP OUT
-
How long before we start seeing contracts?
Stay for X amount of years or you don't receive your funds.
or
Stay for X amount of years and get this bonus. Etc.
-
How long before we start seeing contracts?
Stay for X amount of years or you don't receive your funds.
or
Stay for X amount of years and get this bonus. Etc.
Hopefully soon!
-
Golden
I think we will see guys lose NIL before we have contracts. I am 99% certain there will be guys who cannot handle the money and things will get readjusted.
-
How long before we start seeing contracts?
Stay for X amount of years or you don't receive your funds.
or
Stay for X amount of years and get this bonus. Etc.
How long? Last week. Nijel Pack signed a two year, $800k deal.
-
I hope Diener & Co. don’t waste Scoop’s $3.5 million contribution.
-
How long? Last week. Nijel Pack signed a two year, $800k deal.
That was wasn't a mandatory 2 years though I don't think. I guess I meant like contracts that prevent earnings if the backtrack on their commitment during the contract.
-
I do not care how much money these guys get paid and it is up to MU get the funds needed. If MU wants to compete at a high level, they need to compete in the NIL. I am very surprised by all of the talk on this topic over the past weeks on Scoop. NIL is just another piece of the puzzle, no different than having proper budget for a coaching staff, recruiting, travel, etc. If MU cannot figure this out, they should turn over the keys to FF and play NAIA ball.
This.
-
I do not care how much money these guys get paid and it is up to MU get the funds needed. If MU wants to compete at a high level, they need to compete in the NIL. I am very surprised by all of the talk on this topic over the past weeks on Scoop. NIL is just another piece of the puzzle, no different than having proper budget for a coaching staff, recruiting, travel, etc. If MU cannot figure this out, they should turn over the keys to FF and play NAIA ball.
Goose, in the ballroom, with the goods.
-
That was wasn't a mandatory 2 years though I don't think. I guess I meant like contracts that prevent earnings if the backtrack on their commitment during the contract.
Until we see NIL deals that are more than the NBA can pay, this feels unlikely. And what high profile recruit/transfer would agree to multiple years if the NBA was an option after the first year?
Only way you see this is with an Emoni Bates/Markus Howard type that will be too young after their freshman year to declare for the league.
-
It seems that all the schools are forming these collectives and are competing against each other. We could still have individual school collective, but could the Big East start its own collective to benefit the conference as a whole.
-
It seems that all the schools are forming these collectives and are competing against each other. We could still have individual school collective, but could the Big East start its own collective to benefit the conference as a whole.
What donor would fund their alma mater's conference's collective over their alma mater's collective?
-
What donor would fund their alma mater's conference's collective over their alma mater's collective?
Tv networks
-
panda
Good call on the TV networks. That said, I think have a conference pool is not an idea that I would be in favor of supporting.
-
panda
Good call on the TV networks. That said, I think have a conference pool is not an idea that I would be in favor of supporting.
I don’t know if it could really hurt. Would you be able to distribute it any other way than equally across members?
It would possibly bring more talent to opposing schools versus other conferences, but even that could be a positive as it raises the profile of the conference and MU’s resume.
-
So can someone explain how exactly this would work? I'm struggling to understand where the NIL fund fits between its partners and student athletes.
Anyone?
-
Collectives are set up differently. From what I understand about this one, donations into the fund are used to pay SA for appearances at specific community organizational events.
Other collectives are set up as superfan clubs. For example if we all paid 20/mo for MUscoop fees (1000 X 20)=20K a month, this collective could pay Justin Lewis 10K a month to post here, and pay willie warrior 10K a month to argue with him.
-
Collectives are set up differently. From what I understand about this one, donations into the fund are used to pay SA for appearances at specific community organizational events.
Other collectives are set up as superfan clubs. For example if we all paid 20/mo for MUscoop fees (1000 X 20)=20K a month, this collective could pay Justin Lewis 10K a month to post here, and pay willie warrior 10K a month to argue with him.
Won internet today
-
Collectives are set up differently. From what I understand about this one, donations into the fund are used to pay SA for appearances at specific community organizational events.
Other collectives are set up as superfan clubs. For example if we all paid 20/mo for MUscoop fees (1000 X 20)=20K a month, this collective could pay Justin Lewis 10K a month to post here, and pay willie warrior 10K a month to argue with him.
Christ, Clarissa would be paid $500 million per month, just based on # of posts.
-
Collectives are set up differently. From what I understand about this one, donations into the fund are used to pay SA for appearances at specific community organizational events.
Other collectives are set up as superfan clubs. For example if we all paid 20/mo for MUscoop fees (1000 X 20)=20K a month, this collective could pay Justin Lewis 10K a month to post here, and pay willie warrior 10K a month to argue with him.
The first paragraph gave me good information.
The second gave me my best laugh today. You da dog!
-
Christ, Clarissa would be paid $500 million per month, just based on # of posts.
Topper keeps telling me "the check's in the mail..."
-
panda
Good call on the TV networks. That said, I think have a conference pool is not an idea that I would be in favor of supporting.
I initially scoffed as well - but there is an opportunity from the conference standpoint to use it's best performers as promotional vehicles. But yes, focus on teams first.
-
Got to talk with Travis to break down the collective a bit more. MU is only the 3rd non-football school to organize one and one of only a few to be a chartered 501(c)(3) so far.
http://painttouches.com/2022/05/04/marquette-to-benefit-from-one-of-the-first-non-football-collectives/ (http://painttouches.com/2022/05/04/marquette-to-benefit-from-one-of-the-first-non-football-collectives/)
-
Topper keeps telling me "the check's in the mail..."
It's hard work collecting enough Arby's coupons.
-
Local News Story: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwFcuLX2Y88
-
Got to talk with Travis to break down the collective a bit more. MU is only the 3rd non-football school to organize one and one of only a few to be a chartered 501(c)(3) so far.
http://painttouches.com/2022/05/04/marquette-to-benefit-from-one-of-the-first-non-football-collectives/ (http://painttouches.com/2022/05/04/marquette-to-benefit-from-one-of-the-first-non-football-collectives/)
hmm... so now the players are considered charity cases.
-
hmm... so now the players are considered charity cases.
All of the donations to the fund will be to the charities associated with it. Players will be brand ambassadors for the charities in it. Cristo Rey, Boys and Girls, a literacy program, and a few others..
-
hmm... so now the players are considered charity cases.
No, but they are being paid to give back to local charities.
-
hmm... so now the players are considered charity cases.
You'd have known the plan if you'd have read the article.
-
hmm... so now the players are considered charity cases.
No...not at all. 501(c)(3) organizations make compensation payments to employees and non-employees all of the time. They aren't "charity cases." They are compensated for conducting the exempt work of the organization.
The real question is if these collectives will be judged to have an exempt purpose.
-
All of the donations to the fund will be to the charities associated with it. Players will be brand ambassadors for the charities in it. Cristo Rey, Boys and Girls, a literacy program, and a few others..
So the NIL pays the player to be a fund raiser (brand ambassador) for that charity or will the charity actually get some money from the NIL collective or both?
-
So the NIL pays the player to be a fund raiser (brand ambassador) for that charity or will the charity actually get some money from the NIL collective or both?
The NIL pays the player to be a brand ambassador who in turn raises money for or provides a service to the charity.
-
The Athletic has a good overview on NIL collectives and the NCAA losing its mind about them:
https://theathletic.com/3300616/2022/05/09/as-ncaa-prepares-to-crack-down-on-booster-involvement-in-nil-lawyers-and-sports-agents-say-bring-it/?source=pulsenewsletter&campaign=4217097
Bottom line: The NCAA is talking about getting tough and "drawing a line in the sand," but they face relentless lawsuits if they do, and legal experts think the NCAA will lose those lawsuits based on legal precedence that goes all the way up to the Supreme Court.
-
The Athletic has a good overview on NIL collectives and the NCAA losing its mind about them:
https://theathletic.com/3300616/2022/05/09/as-ncaa-prepares-to-crack-down-on-booster-involvement-in-nil-lawyers-and-sports-agents-say-bring-it/?source=pulsenewsletter&campaign=4217097
Bottom line: The NCAA is talking about getting tough and "drawing a line in the sand," but they face relentless lawsuits if they do, and legal experts think the NCAA will lose those lawsuits based on legal precedence that goes all the way up to the Supreme Court.
The failure of the NCAA is complete. The failure of university presidents is complete.
-
I wouldn't be too sure the NCAA doesn't win lawsuits involving booster-sponsored NIL programs. The Supreme Court's majority opinion in Alston did not address NIL or pay-for-play at all, though Kavanaugh's concurrence most certainly did. I can most certainly see the Court affirming the NCAA's rules over pay for play. I can also see the IRS denying exempt status for the 501(c)(3) collectives.
That being said, it is a fool's errand to allow NIL but then keep boosters out of the NIL business. That will never work. It will just drive things underground once again. Just to be clear where I stand, NIL is basically pay-for-play, and that should all be within the rules.
-
I wouldn't be too sure the NCAA doesn't win lawsuits involving booster-sponsored NIL programs. The Supreme Court's majority opinion in Alston did not address NIL or pay-for-play at all, though Kavanaugh's concurrence most certainly did. I can most certainly see the Court affirming the NCAA's rules over pay for play. I can also see the IRS denying exempt status for the 501(c)(3) collectives.
That being said, it is a fool's errand to allow NIL but then keep boosters out of the NIL business. That will never work. It will just drive things underground once again. Just to be clear where I stand, NIL is basically pay-for-play, and that should all be within the rules.
We might get to see soon enough if you're right about the NCAA winning lawsuits. I have no idea what will happen, but I do know it's usually tough to put the genie back in the bottle.
-
We might get to see soon enough if you're right about the NCAA winning lawsuits. I have no idea what will happen, but I do know it's usually tough to put the genie back in the bottle.
A business model where you allow pay for play, along with free transfers is not a sustainable model for athletics. I think if schools were allowed to sign SA's to multiyear contracts that would solve it.
-
A business model where you allow pay for play, along with free transfers is not a sustainable model for athletics. I think if schools were allowed to sign SA's to multiyear contracts that would solve it.
Well, *one* free transfer. But I do think your idea makes sense. Multi-year contracts between the school, athlete and NIL entity makes perfect sense to me. You could include items like buy outs and performance escalators as well.
-
A business model where you allow pay for play, along with free transfers is not a sustainable model for athletics. I think if schools were allowed to sign SA's to multiyear contracts that would solve it.
Interesting take, but would this be any different from coaches on multi-year contracts whose contracts are bought out by other schools? And currently, a signed recruit who changes his mind and decides to go to another school is allowed to do so as the school he is seeking a release from does not want to have a reputation of enforcing letters of intent.
Maybe I'm being the Devil's advocate here, but I would like to hear your thoughts.
Edit: Posted before I read Clarrisa's post.
-
A business model where you allow pay for play, along with free transfers is not a sustainable model for athletics. I think if schools were allowed to sign SA's to multiyear contracts that would solve it.
dog,
This has been my point all along. No professional team sport’s league would allow the top players to enter as free agents let alone become free agents again after one season.
-
A business model where you allow pay for play, along with free transfers is not a sustainable model for athletics. I think if schools were allowed to sign SA's to multiyear contracts that would solve it.
One free transfer, possibly two if they graduate. Honest question, why would it not be sustainable?
-
dog,
This has been my point all along. No professional team sport’s league would allow the top players to enter as free agents ...
You don't think there are any in the world like this?
-
This new NIL non profit for MBB and Wbb states that it is a 501(c)(3). That means they have gone to the IRS and received an approval. That usually takes time. Why are they saying to consult with your tax adviser. If it truly is a 501(c)(3) the donation is deductible. There are a lot of hurdles. I don't understand what is going on here.
https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/exemption-requirements-501c3-organizations
-
How long does it take for the IRS to approve 501c3 status?
If you file Form 1023, the average IRS processing time is 3-6 months. Processing times of 9 or 12 months are not unheard of. The IRS closely scrutinizes these applications, as the applicants are typically large or complex organizations.
-
How long does it take for the IRS to approve 501c3 status?
If you file Form 1023, the average IRS processing time is 3-6 months. Processing times of 9 or 12 months are not unheard of. The IRS closely scrutinizes these applications, as the applicants are typically large or complex organizations.
If you file 1023-EZ, the processing time is only 2-4 weeks.
https://www.boardeffect.com/blog/how-long-does-it-take-to-get-501c3-status-from-the-irs/#:~:text=The%20average%20processing%20time%20for,take%20up%20to%20a%20year. (https://www.boardeffect.com/blog/how-long-does-it-take-to-get-501c3-status-from-the-irs/#:~:text=The%20average%20processing%20time%20for,take%20up%20to%20a%20year.)
"Also, nonprofits that choose to file Form 1023-EZ may put themselves at a disadvantage when it comes to fundraising. Major donors are often familiar with the difference between Form 1023 and Form 1023-EZ. Some donors are looking for assurance that the nonprofits they support have been thoroughly vetted by the IRS."
My guess is that the type of individual who would donate to an MU NIL fund isn't the type that will be looking for assurances that it has been thoroughly vetted by the IRS.
-
This group is calling themselves a Wisconsin 501(c)(3). They probably have filed with Wisconsin as a non profit but that does not mean they are a 501(c)3). As to the short EZ I doubt very much that has been approved if it was ever filed. Lots of people who think they have this all figured out. I hope they are right but it looks like a major stretch.
-
Just because an organization files and was granted a 501(c)(3) exempt status, doesn't mean that they are beyond reproach afterwards. If "Be the Difference" rakes in a bunch of money and distributes it to the players, BUT then only does a couple of events where the players actually show, the IRS could most certainly audit the organization and declare that it is in violation of their exempt status. That its primary purpose is not charitable in nature, but to enrich its employees. The IRS tends to look with scrutiny at emerging types of organizations to make sure they indeed charitable. I would expect them to do so in the case of NIL collectives.
-
This has been my point all along. No professional team sport’s league would allow the top players to enter as free agents let alone become free agents again after one season.
Actually, "free agency" after one year takes place in every professional league for every athlete who has a 1-year contract -- which is exactly what a National Letter of Intent is.
It is quite common for NFL, NBA, MLB and NHL teams to sign all but the top free agents to 1-year contracts ... after which the athletes become free agents again.
Edit:
Lenny, although my point stands about it being common for many pros to be on 1-year contracts, I somehow didn't see your reference to "top players." And no, most aren't on 1-year contracts, you're right about that.
Still, the NFL has many, many high-level players on 1-year contracts. And Michael Jordan and Dennis Rodman each played his last two seasons with the Bulls on 1-year contracts.
-
Typically not the Top Players on one year deals
-
Actually, "free agency" after one year takes place in every professional league for every athlete who has a 1-year contract -- which is exactly what a National Letter of Intent is.
It is quite common for NFL, NBA, MLB and NHL teams to sign all but the top free agents to 1-year contracts ... after which the athletes become free agents again.
I think that's the point. EVERYONE being on a one year contract, with no salary cap, and being tampered with by other teams/agents/players is not a sustainable model.
-
I think that's the point. EVERYONE being on a one year contract, with no salary cap, and being tampered with by other teams/agents/players is not a sustainable model.
Everyone isn't on a one year contract. Players can only transfer without sitting out a year once.
-
Everyone isn't on a one year contract. Players can only transfer without sitting out a year once.
1. They can still transfer
2. Those that have already transferred can still apply for an arbitrary waiver (see Garcia, Dawson)
Everyone is on a one year contract (as MU82 indicated)
-
1. They can still transfer
2. Those that have already transferred can still apply for an arbitrary waiver (see Garcia, Dawson)
Everyone is on a one year contract (as MU82 indicated)
1. Sure they can still transfer, but sitting out a year makes them both less valuable for NIL reasons and less apt to wanting to do so.
2. Not terribly likely.
-
I think that's the point. EVERYONE being on a one year contract, with no salary cap, and being tampered with by other teams/agents/players is not a sustainable model.
You saying it’s not sustainable repeatedly doesn’t make it true, dog. Nor would it be true if I claimed it was sustainable (which I haven’t; I’ve said I don’t know). The only truth today is that we don’t know if it’s a sustainable model or not yet. We’ll see!
-
I think that's the point. EVERYONE being on a one year contract, with no salary cap, and being tampered with by other teams/agents/players is not a sustainable model.
I asked earlier but you may have missed it. Why do you think it is not a sustainable model?
-
You saying it’s not sustainable repeatedly doesn’t make it true, dog. Nor would it be true if I claimed it was sustainable (which I haven’t; I’ve said I don’t know). The only truth today is that we don’t know if it’s a sustainable model or not yet. We’ll see!
If you could name me any successful professional sports league where everyone is on one year contracts, I'm all years.
-
If you could name me any successful professional sports league where everyone is on one year contracts, I'm all years.
I can't name one professional sports league where everyone is on one year contracts.
-
If you could name me any successful professional sports league where everyone is on one year contracts, I'm all years.
I didn't at first see Lenny's reference to top players, and I have amended what I said to him.
The NFL is the only of the major leagues where lots of very good players are on 1-year contracts every year.
-
I didn't at first see Lenny's reference to top players, and I have amended what I said to him.
The NFL is the only of the major leagues where lots of very good players are on 1-year contracts every year.
It's not that simple. Players with 3 years or less experience are Restricted Free Agents.
-
I asked earlier but you may have missed it. Why do you think it is not a sustainable model?
Complete free agency year after year, with no cap on spending is going to widen the already large gap between the haves and the have nots. Donors are going to decrease the money they give to schools, and donate to a collective. Most schools dont have enough donor cash to support both. I think you'll see it in football even more. Attendance in football is decreasing. I don't think you can have both one year free agents and pay to play.
-
I can't name one professional sports league where everyone is on one year contracts.
Boxing, horse racing, auto racing, golf, bowling, swimming, bull fighting, tennis. They get paid for performance, just like the NIL.
-
https://www.ncaa.org/news/2022/5/9/media-center-di-board-of-directors-issues-name-image-and-likeness-guidance-to-schools.aspx
-
https://www.ncaa.org/news/2022/5/9/media-center-di-board-of-directors-issues-name-image-and-likeness-guidance-to-schools.aspx
Rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Just hastening the eventual split
-
Boxing, horse racing, auto racing, golf, bowling, swimming, bull fighting, tennis. They get paid for performance, just like the NIL.
All boxers dont have one year deals-its usually based on a number of fights,
Horses or jockeys? Nope
Auto racing, nope, many have longer deals
Man, talk about apples to oranges. you've just named individual sports
Bullfighting? The bulls are on one fight terms
-
It's not that simple. Players with 3 years or less experience are Restricted Free Agents.
Good point.
-
Complete free agency year after year, with no cap on spending is going to widen the already large gap between the haves and the have nots. Donors are going to decrease the money they give to schools, and donate to a collective. Most schools dont have enough donor cash to support both. I think you'll see it in football even more. Attendance in football is decreasing. I don't think you can have both one year free agents and pay to play.
I agree it will widen the gap though would argue that the gap can only widen so much farther. I think we're well beyond the point of diminishing returns in football and are at that point in basketball. Throwing more and more money at a program can only help so much.
Donors may decrease how much they donate to the school, though I'm skeptical that it will be significant, but to me that was happening no matter what once NIL passed. I don't think "free agency" has anything to do with it.
I'm not sure the attendance decrease has anything to do with NIL or "free agency". I'm also not sure it's relevant as revenues seem to be going back up above pre-pandemic levels after the COVID dip.
We'll see. I think college sports will endure and thrive even if we have pay to play and "free agency".
-
All boxers dont have one year deals-its usually based on a number of fights,
Horses or jockeys? Nope
Auto racing, nope, many have longer deals
Man, talk about apples to oranges. you've just named individual sports
Bullfighting? The bulls are on one fight terms
The USFL? ;D
(I meant that as a joke, but looking it up, it appears they're really just paid per game played, so no contract whatsoever)
-
NC sportswriter Andrew Carter, looking ahead to the discussion of NIL at the ACC annual spring meeting:
For years and years the NCAA fought the inevitability that college athletes would win the right, one way or another, to profit off of their name, image and likeness. Instead of facing this issue head-on and preparing for a new reality, a defeated and beleaguered NCAA last summer more or less opened the floodgates, threw up its collective hands and said: “OK. You win. College athletes can now profit off of their NIL.”
Who could’ve predicted — except absolutely everyone — we would’ve so quickly devolved into what’s essentially become a pay-for-play model. Sure, there is the impossible-to-enforce, half-hearted legislation, both at the state level and nationally via the NCAA, that says, in effect, NIL cannot be used as a recruiting inducement; that schools and their boosters can’t use prospective NIL deals to woo recruits. That’d be a no-no, according to the rules.
Of course, it’s happening, and happening all over. Many a school these days have formed so-called NIL collectives, through which those schools are making sure their athletes, especially in football and men’s basketball, are being taken care of. Which is smart. It’d be a competitive disadvantage in this environment not to have an NIL collective. But the question now has become how to control any of this.
Sports Illustrated last week reported that the NCAA intends to put a stop to boosters who’re using NIL as a cover to pay athletes a lot of money to play for a particular school. Meanwhile, a prominent agent representing dozens of college athletes told The Athletic in a story published earlier on Monday: “I think it’s adorable that the NCAA is acting as if they’re going to crack down on anything.”
You have to tend to believe the agent(s) here. The NCAA — which, remember, is nothing but a collection of the schools it represents — had a long time to come up with a workable framework for all of this. It didn’t. And this is the result, with schools and coaches and others who are losing power bemoaning a perceived problem that none of them wanted to confront in the first place.
https://www.charlotteobserver.com/sports/college/article261246027.html#storylink=cpy
-
All boxers dont have one year deals-its usually based on a number of fights,
Horses or jockeys? Nope
Auto racing, nope, many have longer deals
Man, talk about apples to oranges. you've just named individual sports
Bullfighting? The bulls are on one fight terms
They have sponsorship deals (NIL) and pay for performance (winnings). The question is name a professional sport. I did. Some of these are team. Is the PGA (aka NCAA) paying a golfer a salary or sponsorship deal? No, they are collecting winnings paid by entry fees and sponsors. Btw, the NCAA also has individual sports.
In terms of bullfighting, humor evades you.
-
They have sponsorship deals (NIL) and pay for performance (winnings). The question is name a professional sport. I did. Some of these are team. Is the PGA (aka NCAA) paying a golfer a salary or sponsorship deal? No, they are collecting winnings paid by entry fees and sponsors. Btw, the NCAA also has individual sports.
In terms of bullfighting, humor evades you.
You still didn't name a league where everyone is on one year contracts.
In terms of individual sports for the NCAA, most are individual events in the confines of a team, and most dont really make money for the school.
-
You still didn't name a league where everyone is on one year contracts.
In terms of individual sports for the NCAA, most are individual events in the confines of a team, and most dont really make money for the school.
Again just cause you can’t name such a league doesn’t mean they are bad. So you kind of are making an assertion that isn’t provable.
Second while everyone might be on one year contracts, there are switching costs that make any player transfer more than once an unlikely option.
-
Again just cause you can’t name such a league doesn’t mean they are bad. So you kind of are making an assertion that isn’t provable.
Second while everyone might be on one year contracts, there are switching costs that make any player transfer more than once an unlikely option.
Ok, so you think this new business model that the NCAA created is a good option. Gotcha, the NCAA?
Something will have to give, in my opinion. Either the NCAA will have to crack down on the pay to play (doubtful), the NCAA will allow multi year contracts with SAs (doubtful until they are deemed employees), or the haves will break off from the have nots (that idea is being floated around).
-
Ok, so you think this new business model that the NCAA created is a good option. Gotcha, the NCAA?
Who is crediting the NCAA with handling any of this well? :o
-
Who is crediting the NCAA with handling any of this well? :o
Not that they handled it well, but the implication is that this is going to work.
-
Something will have to give, in my opinion. Either the NCAA will have to crack down on the pay to play (doubtful), the NCAA will allow multi year contracts with SAs (doubtful until they are deemed employees), or the haves will break off from the have nots (that idea is being floated around).
So your first two options you say are doubtful, which I agree with, at least in the near future. So that would mean that you think the third option is the most likely. Why would NLI/free agency cause the haves to break off from the have nots? If anything, I think this helps solidify the NCAA and will keep the haves from breaking off. The haves have wanted this for a long time.
-
Ok, so you think this new business model that the NCAA created is a good option. Gotcha, the NCAA?
Something will have to give, in my opinion. Either the NCAA will have to crack down on the pay to play (doubtful), the NCAA will allow multi year contracts with SAs (doubtful until they are deemed employees), or the haves will break off from the have nots (that idea is being floated around).
The NCAA did not in any sense "create" this business model, it was created by their inaction and stubbornness.
-
The NCAA did not in any sense "create" this business model, it was created by their inaction and stubbornness.
Oh, I agree. they still "created" it though.
-
So your first two options you say are doubtful, which I agree with, at least in the near future. So that would mean that you think the third option is the most likely. Why would NLI/free agency cause the haves to break off from the have nots? If anything, I think this helps solidify the NCAA and will keep the haves from breaking off. The haves have wanted this for a long time.
The Ohio State AD has already thrown ideas out there to move away from the NCAA governance. It's inevitable.
-
Not that they handled it well, but the implication is that this is going to work.
I think it will work just fine. People are panicking because they don't like change and because power is being transferred from the athletic administration and coaches to the student athletes. But once things settle down, the product will be remarkably similar to what it has always been.
-
The Ohio State AD has already thrown ideas out there to move away from the NCAA governance. It's inevitable.
I didn't know that the Ohio State AD could speak things into existence.
Again, what does NIL/free agency have to do with the haves breaking off from the NCAA? They have wanted this for a long time, if anything this helps keep them in the fold. Trying to limit it is what would push them to break off. You may be right that they will one day break away from the NCAA but it will have nothing to do with NIL/free agency.
-
I didn't know that the Ohio State AD could speak things into existence.
He swings a pretty big stick, however, and he was adamant against pay for play.
-
I didn't know that the Ohio State AD could speak things into existence.
Again, what does NIL/free agency have to do with the haves breaking off from the NCAA? They have wanted this for a long time, if anything this helps keep them in the fold. Trying to limit it is what would push them to break off. You may be right that they will one day break away from the NCAA but it will have nothing to do with NIL/free agency.
The split is happening
-
He swings a pretty big stick, however, and he was adamant against pay for play.
1. A lot of ADs said they were against pay for play while quietly dancing for joy.
2. That was three years ago, lots has changed since then. The haves are not going to break off and then create a league where athletes can't profit off of their NIL. If anything, they would increase the freedom of NIL.
3. The only reason Gene Smith was against pay for play was because he already had the biggest pay for play operation in college sports and didn't want more competition.
The split is happening
Maybe, but not because of NIL. I've always been skeptical of the rumored split. It would require a lot of people who are historically adverse to change to sign off on a A LOT of change. That works when the status quo isn't benefitting those in power, but I don't think that's the case in college sports.
-
Maybe, but not because of NIL. I've always been skeptical of the rumored split. It would require a lot of people who are historically adverse to change to sign off on a A LOT of change. That works when the status quo isn't benefitting those in power, but I don't think that's the case in college sports.
Yeah I have no idea why a split would be in the interests of the P5 conferences. They don't share football revenue. They have gained an increasing share of basketball revenue through tourney shares and the use of a metric (NET) that seemingly gives them more bids than they might have historically. They have the NCAA to handle the costly bureaucratic stuff but also be used as a convenient punching bag when the time comes. And now each of the divisions have more autonomy than ever before.
At no point do I see the other D1 schools or other divisions taking more $$ at the expense of the P5. Why would they leave that sweetheart deal and suffer all the PR nightmares that come from it?
-
Yeah I have no idea why a split would be in the interests of the P5 conferences. They don't share football revenue. They have gained an increasing share of basketball revenue through tourney shares and the use of a metric (NET) that seemingly gives them more bids than they might have historically. They have the NCAA to handle the costly bureaucratic stuff but also be used as a convenient punching bag when the time comes. And now each of the divisions have more autonomy than ever before.
At no point do I see the other D1 schools or other divisions taking more $$ at the expense of the P5. Why would they leave that sweetheart deal and suffer all the PR nightmares that come from it?
Here's a theory:
https://www.sportico.com/leagues/college-sports/2022/purchasing-nil-rights-1234667232/ (https://www.sportico.com/leagues/college-sports/2022/purchasing-nil-rights-1234667232/)
-
Here's a theory:
https://www.sportico.com/leagues/college-sports/2022/purchasing-nil-rights-1234667232/ (https://www.sportico.com/leagues/college-sports/2022/purchasing-nil-rights-1234667232/)
Behind a paywall so I can't really see it.
-
Behind a paywall so I can't really see it.
.
“Some of the bigger schools with larger budgets, that are frustrated by the lack of innovation across the board, could get to a point over the next year or so where they say rather than have outside forces manage and control [NIL], we’ll just go in and manage the athletes’ rights [ourselves].” Felt said he could “see [that] happening at the larger programs, which is where it makes sense” based on the number and size of deals at such programs.
Should that occur, Donovan believes it would lead to a split in Division I. “In order for [college sports] to move forward in a way where some of these benefits are being provided in a more equitable fashion, there has to be a shift,” he said. It is simply not possible for a school with a $50 million budget to manage its athletics department in the same (or an equitable) way to a school with a $200 million budget, never mind compete on the field. The NCAA’s new constitution, which gives each division (and by proxy, the schools) control over a portion of their bylaws, opens the door for it to happen.
Donovan isn’t necessarily advocating for that outcome. But he says, “It is prudent for schools to recognize the possibility and consider how they may operate and maintain and enhance success under such a model.”
It should be noted there could be some unintended consequences associated with athletic departments buying and managing student athletes’ NIL rights. “What would it mean for the nonrevenue sports? Are they still competing at the Division I level or do they become club sports on campus?” Donovan wondered. Some schools may decide not to incur the expense if they cannot turn a profit on the athlete’s rights.
Here's the gist of the article
-
.
“Some of the bigger schools with larger budgets, that are frustrated by the lack of innovation across the board, could get to a point over the next year or so where they say rather than have outside forces manage and control [NIL], we’ll just go in and manage the athletes’ rights [ourselves].” Felt said he could “see [that] happening at the larger programs, which is where it makes sense” based on the number and size of deals at such programs.
Should that occur, Donovan believes it would lead to a split in Division I. “In order for [college sports] to move forward in a way where some of these benefits are being provided in a more equitable fashion, there has to be a shift,” he said. It is simply not possible for a school with a $50 million budget to manage its athletics department in the same (or an equitable) way to a school with a $200 million budget, never mind compete on the field. The NCAA’s new constitution, which gives each division (and by proxy, the schools) control over a portion of their bylaws, opens the door for it to happen.
Donovan isn’t necessarily advocating for that outcome. But he says, “It is prudent for schools to recognize the possibility and consider how they may operate and maintain and enhance success under such a model.”
It should be noted there could be some unintended consequences associated with athletic departments buying and managing student athletes’ NIL rights. “What would it mean for the nonrevenue sports? Are they still competing at the Division I level or do they become club sports on campus?” Donovan wondered. Some schools may decide not to incur the expense if they cannot turn a profit on the athlete’s rights.
Here's the gist of the article
Could the bolded part result in Gonzaga to the Big East?
-
Yeah I have no idea why a split would be in the interests of the P5 conferences. They don't share football revenue. They have gained an increasing share of basketball revenue through tourney shares and the use of a metric (NET) that seemingly gives them more bids than they might have historically. They have the NCAA to handle the costly bureaucratic stuff but also be used as a convenient punching bag when the time comes. And now each of the divisions have more autonomy than ever before.
At no point do I see the other D1 schools or other divisions taking more $$ at the expense of the P5. Why would they leave that sweetheart deal and suffer all the PR nightmares that come from it?
I don't think you're looking at it from the right perspective.
This year, the P5 took 29 of the 68 spots in the first round of the NCAA tournament, From the P5's perspective, they feel they deserve them all.
I think they look at the NCAA tournament cash cow as being sucked on to support the athletic departments at 275 to 300 programs that nobody would miss if they went away. They're convinced that the value of their own tournament TV contract would be as large or larger than what the NCAA currently generates, and would only be split across 60 teams rather than 350.
-
.
“Some of the bigger schools with larger budgets, that are frustrated by the lack of innovation across the board, could get to a point over the next year or so where they say rather than have outside forces manage and control [NIL], we’ll just go in and manage the athletes’ rights [ourselves].” Felt said he could “see [that] happening at the larger programs, which is where it makes sense” based on the number and size of deals at such programs.
Should that occur, Donovan believes it would lead to a split in Division I. “In order for [college sports] to move forward in a way where some of these benefits are being provided in a more equitable fashion, there has to be a shift,” he said. It is simply not possible for a school with a $50 million budget to manage its athletics department in the same (or an equitable) way to a school with a $200 million budget, never mind compete on the field. The NCAA’s new constitution, which gives each division (and by proxy, the schools) control over a portion of their bylaws, opens the door for it to happen.
Donovan isn’t necessarily advocating for that outcome. But he says, “It is prudent for schools to recognize the possibility and consider how they may operate and maintain and enhance success under such a model.”
It should be noted there could be some unintended consequences associated with athletic departments buying and managing student athletes’ NIL rights. “What would it mean for the nonrevenue sports? Are they still competing at the Division I level or do they become club sports on campus?” Donovan wondered. Some schools may decide not to incur the expense if they cannot turn a profit on the athlete’s rights.
Here's the gist of the article
So schools would no longer offer scholarships. That is going to go over well with a lot of coaches and parents. I could see a lot of letters to congress.
-
I don't think you're looking at it from the right perspective.
This year, the P5 took 29 of the 68 spots in the first round of the NCAA tournament, From the P5's perspective, they feel they deserve them all.
I think they look at the NCAA tournament cash cow as being sucked on to support the athletic departments at 275 to 300 programs that nobody would miss if they went away. They're convinced that the value of their own tournament TV contract would be as large or larger than what the NCAA currently generates, and would only be split across 60 teams rather than 350.
I personally wouldn’t watch an all P5 tournament and I believe a couple hundred million would be with me. I don’t think they are so short sighted that they would throw the baby out with the bath water.
-
I personally wouldn’t watch an all P5 tournament and I believe a couple hundred million would be with me. I don’t think they are so short sighted that they would throw the baby out with the bath water.
Yeah, I certainly would not have any where near the interest I do now. Might catch an interesting game if I had nothing better to do.
-
I personally wouldn’t watch an all P5 tournament and I believe a couple hundred million would be with me. I don’t think they are so short sighted that they would throw the baby out with the bath water.
he biggest names in college basketball draw the biggest eyeballs in viewership. Again, people like the idea of cindarellas more than they like watching them. I think they would do just fine numbers wise.
Most certainly the viewership would decrease, but with the undervalued TV contract getting even more undervalued in the future, I guess I can see why the P5 think they would be better off.
-
he biggest names in college basketball draw the biggest eyeballs in viewership. Again, people like the idea of cindarellas more than they like watching them. I think they would do just fine numbers wise.
Most certainly the viewership would decrease, but with the undervalued TV contract getting even more undervalued in the future, I guess I can see why the P5 think they would be better off.
I think there are other factors besides just missing out on the cinderellas. For one, there are thousands of viewers who watch the NCAAT tournament because they are a fan of one of the non-P5 schools. I think there is a significant population of these people who would not watch a league that their school was not a part of. Especially if the NCAA persisted in direct competition. A P5 only tournament would also either have to be smaller (32 teams) or would have to include all P5 teams regardless of record. I think an "everyone gets into the postseason approach" would significantly impact interest and I think reducing the size of the tournament would be a non-starter. Maybe the money still makes sense but I again question a bunch of change averse entities who currently have immense power in the status quo coming together to take this large of a risk.
This is why I tend to think that if the P5 were to break off, they would either take some of the other leagues with them in basketball, including the Big East...or just break off in football and keep the remaining sports in the NCAA. P5 football by itself could absolutely thrive, but basketball is so driven by March Madness that I think they would want to preserve that somehow. I also don't think they would risk the remaining NCAA schools setting up a tournament that leeched viewers from them when taking just a few more of the top leagues would kill any chance of that.
-
I think there are other factors besides just missing out on the cinderellas. For one, there are thousands of viewers who watch the NCAAT tournament because they are a fan of one of the non-P5 schools. I think there is a significant population of these people who would not watch a league that their school was not a part of. Especially if the NCAA persisted in direct competition. A P5 only tournament would also either have to be smaller (32 teams) or would have to include all P5 teams regardless of record. I think an "everyone gets into the postseason approach" would significantly impact interest and I think reducing the size of the tournament would be a non-starter. Maybe the money still makes sense but I again question a bunch of change averse entities who currently have immense power in the status quo coming together to take this large of a risk.
This is why I tend to think that if the P5 were to break off, they would either take some of the other leagues with them in basketball, including the Big East...or just break off in football and keep the remaining sports in the NCAA. P5 football by itself could absolutely thrive, but basketball is so driven by March Madness that I think they would want to preserve that somehow. I also don't think they would risk the remaining NCAA schools setting up a tournament that leeched viewers from them when taking just a few more of the top leagues would kill any chance of that.
I agree with this assessment.
-
I think there are other factors besides just missing out on the cinderellas. For one, there are thousands of viewers who watch the NCAAT tournament because they are a fan of one of the non-P5 schools. I think there is a significant population of these people who would not watch a league that their school was not a part of. Especially if the NCAA persisted in direct competition. A P5 only tournament would also either have to be smaller (32 teams) or would have to include all P5 teams regardless of record. I think an "everyone gets into the postseason approach" would significantly impact interest and I think reducing the size of the tournament would be a non-starter. Maybe the money still makes sense but I again question a bunch of change averse entities who currently have immense power in the status quo coming together to take this large of a risk.
This is why I tend to think that if the P5 were to break off, they would either take some of the other leagues with them in basketball, including the Big East...or just break off in football and keep the remaining sports in the NCAA. P5 football by itself could absolutely thrive, but basketball is so driven by March Madness that I think they would want to preserve that somehow. I also don't think they would risk the remaining NCAA schools setting up a tournament that leeched viewers from them when taking just a few more of the top leagues would kill any chance of that.
This makes sense.
-
I nominate TAMU for NCAA president.
-
I also don't think they would risk the remaining NCAA schools setting up a tournament that leeched viewers from them when taking just a few more of the top leagues would kill any chance of that.
Great post TAMU, I agree and especially agree with the excerpted part above. The P5 is even more top heavy in basketball than football, if that makes any sense. The #3 SEC team vs #2 Big 10 team is a huge draw for me in football compared to any non-P5 game. But am I dramatically more likely to tune into an LSU-Purdue basketball game than I am Cincinnati-UConn? Sure the P5 games would get some more eyeballs, but probably not enough to scale to the cost of splitting off.
-
In my humble opinion, I see a lot of wishful thinking on this thread. P5 schools and conferences do nothing in the best interest of the sports or other schools. Every decision is based upon what is best for that school or conference. They don't care about anything but making more money. They don't care about wins or loses as long as they can make more money. They don't care about the health of college sports they only care about money. Will Texas and OU win more or less in the SEC? Will they have a better chance at the playoffs? BUT, will they make more money?
With no one in charge and looking out for the best interest of college sports, this is the default of almost any person or organization.
The P5 schools don't care at all if the post season basketball tournament has fewer viewers and lower revenues. If the revenues to each P5 school goes up, that is a win. A bigger slice of a smaller pie is OK with them.
If NFL teams lived in the same competitive structure as the NCAA, the Cowboys, Giants, Bears, Rams, etc. would happily let the Bills, Bengals and Packers fold. I think the NFL, through strong leadership and concern for the greater good of the game, have a structure that allows revenue sharing and salary caps.
I'd be welcome to any valid examples of the P5 doing something that is beneficial to others at their expense.
-
In my humble opinion, I see a lot of wishful thinking on this thread. P5 schools and conferences do nothing in the best interest of the sports or other schools. Every decision is based upon what is best for that school or conference. They don't care about anything but making more money. They don't care about wins or loses as long as they can make more money. They don't care about the health of college sports they only care about money. Will Texas and OU win more or less in the SEC? Will they have a better chance at the playoffs? BUT, will they make more money?
With no one in charge and looking out for the best interest of college sports, this is the default of almost any person or organization.
The P5 schools don't care at all if the post season basketball tournament has fewer viewers and lower revenues. If the revenues to each P5 school goes up, that is a win. A bigger slice of a smaller pie is OK with them.
If NFL teams lived in the same competitive structure as the NCAA, the Cowboys, Giants, Bears, Rams, etc. would happily let the Bills, Bengals and Packers fold. I think the NFL, through strong leadership and concern for the greater good of the game, have a structure that allows revenue sharing and salary caps.
I'd be welcome to any valid examples of the P5 doing something that is beneficial to others at their expense.
**Continuing with autobid conference winners in championships.
**Not increasing scholarship limits.
**Keeping basketball championship one loss and you’re out.
-
The P5 schools don't care at all if the post season basketball tournament has fewer viewers and lower revenues. If the revenues to each P5 school goes up, that is a win. A bigger slice of a smaller pie is OK with them.
The P5 already gets massive slices of a massive pie in college basketball. Splitting off won't increase the size of their slices by much and may decrease the size of the pie substantially. Football? Makes absolute sense to split. Basketball, I'm less certain. I think the most likely scenario is that the status quo remains and the second most likely scenario is that P5 football splits from the NCAA while leaving everything else in the NCAA.
You are also thinking about universities like they are businesses. Universities are MUCH more resistant to change. As my old boss used to say, "If you want to take a sh*t on campus you have to get at least three committees to agree on recommendations for size, consistency, and odor."
-
**Continuing with autobid conference winners in championships.
**Not increasing scholarship limits.
**Keeping basketball championship one loss and you’re out.
All excellent examples of the 340+ schools NCAA choices.
-
All excellent examples of the 340+ schools NCAA choices.
Ah I see we have gone the shifting goalposts route. Carry on...
-
The P5 already gets massive slices of a massive pie in college basketball. Splitting off won't increase the size of their slices by much and may decrease the size of the pie substantially. Football? Makes absolute sense to split. Basketball, I'm less certain. I think the most likely scenario is that the status quo remains and the second most likely scenario is that P5 football splits from the NCAA while leaving everything else in the NCAA.
You are also thinking about universities like they are businesses. Universities are MUCH more resistant to change. As my old boss used to say, "If you want to take a sh*t on campus you have to get at least three committees to agree on recommendations for size, consistency, and odor."
I hope you are right but every decision made by the P5 is a revenue driven. They do not care about anything but money. A reduction in opportunities for college athletes is just fine with them. It took federal regulations to provide "equal" opportunities for women. Remove Title IX and you'll see sports for women shrink so fast your head will spin.
I'm not saying I blame them. I'd probably do the exact same thing. This is a pure money grab. Not one athlete, coach, AD or school president cares about what college sports will look like 10, 20 or 30 years from now. I can't think of one decision in the past 20 or 30 years that has helped college sports at some short term expense to a school or conference.
In pro sports we have the Yankees and Cowboys shifting revenue to the Royals and Packers and a salary cap; and we all applaud the NFL and MLB at the massive revenue growth of the leagues. Try asking the SEC to move revenue to CUSA and for all schools to have the same budget. That would be funny.
I know it has been proposed before, but maybe, in football, the non-P5 schools need to move to the spring season and pull the "payday" games from the P5. I'd be interested to see how Big 10 fans would react to loosing home games against the MAC.
-
Ah I see we have gone the shifting goalposts route. Carry on...
Huh?
I guess your playing chess and I'm playing checkers.
-
I hope you are right but every decision made by the P5 is a revenue driven. They do not care about anything but money. A reduction in opportunities for college athletes is just fine with them. It took federal regulations to provide "equal" opportunities for women. Remove Title IX and you'll see sports for women shrink so fast your head will spin.
I'm not saying I blame them. I'd probably do the exact same thing. This is a pure money grab. Not one athlete, coach, AD or school president cares about what college sports will look like 10, 20 or 30 years from now. I can't think of one decision in the past 20 or 30 years that has helped college sports at some short term expense to a school or conference.
I don't know if you are missing or just not agreeing with my point. I believe that the P5 breaking off in anything but football will result in lower revenues, ergo they will stay. Breaking off in football will lead to higher revenues. Therefore if they were to break off, breaking off in football alone would lead to the highest revenues.
-
In my humble opinion, I see a lot of wishful thinking on this thread. P5 schools and conferences do nothing in the best interest of the sports or other schools. Every decision is based upon what is best for that school or conference. They don't care about anything but making more money. They don't care about wins or loses as long as they can make more money. They don't care about the health of college sports they only care about money. Will Texas and OU win more or less in the SEC? Will they have a better chance at the playoffs? BUT, will they make more money?
With no one in charge and looking out for the best interest of college sports, this is the default of almost any person or organization.
The P5 schools don't care at all if the post season basketball tournament has fewer viewers and lower revenues. If the revenues to each P5 school goes up, that is a win. A bigger slice of a smaller pie is OK with them.
If NFL teams lived in the same competitive structure as the NCAA, the Cowboys, Giants, Bears, Rams, etc. would happily let the Bills, Bengals and Packers fold. I think the NFL, through strong leadership and concern for the greater good of the game, have a structure that allows revenue sharing and salary caps.
I'd be welcome to any valid examples of the P5 doing something that is beneficial to others at their expense.
..and have sucked the last 10 years or so; maybe joining the NCAA would improve their fortunes.
...spoken as a Giants fan. I always wonder how fans throw good money at a mediocre organization like the Detroit Lions. They would have to pay me to watch a game after so may years of failure.
-
And we fired buzz over a t shirt. #jokerworld
-
Buzz wasn't fired.
-
Maybe. We gave him heat in the least.
-
No maybe. He got suspended for the t-shirt. He chose to leave for Virginia Tech.
-
And we fired buzz over a t shirt. #jokerworld
I believe it was Monarch who was fired for the t-shirt. But you aren’t the first to mix those two up.
https://mobile.twitter.com/MattNorlander/status/447427749842788352?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E447427749842788352%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-1863870272425591570.ampproject.net%2F2204292129000%2Fframe.html
-
**Continuing with autobid conference winners in championships.
**Not increasing scholarship limits.
**Keeping basketball championship one loss and you’re out.
**the Autonomy conferences want to cut down on auto bids. Think the World Cup playoffs where conference champs from low major conferences have to play their way in. St Peters’s would have been forced to win a play in game under their proposed scenario. Minimum number of bids for Autonomy conferences too. Only in the early stages right now, nothing formal.
**for now, increasing scholarships in headcount sports is not on the table. It is in equivalency sports. However, getting rid of coaching limits is in the table.
-
Raleigh/Charlotte newspaper article about how UNC set the tone for NIL, including these collectives ...
https://www.charlotteobserver.com/sports/college/article261375882.html?ac_cid=DM646192&ac_bid=-131990657
The main gist:
Carolina partnered with TBG, signing a multi-year agreement announced in April 2021 to create a group licensing deal with alumni of its men’s basketball and women’s soccer teams. It was the first deal of its kind nationally and explains why more fans were spotted wearing jerseys of Tyler Hansbrough, Vince Carter and the like at the Dean E. Smith Center this season during basketball games.
It ultimately was praised by other NCAA schools for providing a template for how NIL could work once it was approved for current collegiate athletes.
It’s one of the reasons why UNC has been viewed as the prototype in how it has prepared for NIL, which has arguably become the biggest challenge for athletic departments this century.
The one-year anniversary of the NCAA approving NIL is coming up on July 1. But not every school is on equal footing in being equipped to handle everything it entails. Some smaller schools just don’t have the resources to devote to it. Even some schools in the Power Five conferences are behind because they didn’t prioritize it based on how slowly the NCAA moved to approve legislation.
-
The P5 already gets massive slices of a massive pie in college basketball. Splitting off won't increase the size of their slices by much and may decrease the size of the pie substantially. Football? Makes absolute sense to split. Basketball, I'm less certain. I think the most likely scenario is that the status quo remains and the second most likely scenario is that P5 football splits from the NCAA while leaving everything else in the NCAA.
You are also thinking about universities like they are businesses. Universities are MUCH more resistant to change. As my old boss used to say, "If you want to take a sh*t on campus you have to get at least three committees to agree on recommendations for size, consistency, and odor."
I don't think the slice is as massive as you think, given the way tournament revenues are allocated
In 2022, P5 teams received 70 of the 132 tourament units, or about 53%.
3 of 8 in the First Four
28 of 64 first round teams
20 of 32 second round teams
11 of 16 in the sweet 16
5 of the elite eight
3 of the final four
And then you have to consider that this is just the allocation of the 60% of the tournament revenue that gets distributed to the participating teams. 40% goes to the NCAA to fund their operations. So the P5 actually only gets about 32% of the basketball tournament revenue.
Even if you're right in that there would be a decline in revenue if the P5 splits, the decline would have to be absolutely massive before it would be a net loss. A small to moderate decline in overall revenue would mean a massive increase going to the P5. And I can't imagine they would continue to fund a bloated NCAA bureaucracy, so the % off the top to whatever governing body is set up would be much smaller.
-
I don't think the slice is as massive as you think, given the way tournament revenues are allocated
In 2022, P5 teams received 70 of the 132 tourament units, or about 53%.
3 of 8 in the First Four
28 of 64 first round teams
20 of 32 second round teams
11 of 16 in the sweet 16
5 of the elite eight
3 of the final four
And then you have to consider that this is just the allocation of the 60% of the tournament revenue that gets distributed to the participating teams. 40% goes to the NCAA to fund their operations. So the P5 actually only gets about 32% of the basketball tournament revenue.
Even if you're right in that there would be a decline in revenue if the P5 splits, the decline would have to be absolutely massive before it would be a net loss. A small to moderate decline in overall revenue would mean a massive increase going to the P5. And I can't imagine they would continue to fund a bloated NCAA bureaucracy, so the % off the top to whatever governing body is set up would be much smaller.
Many people like me watch out of conference basketball games because of the context it brings to their own team and conference. How good are the best teams in other conferences compared to ours? Maybe we’ll play this team or that player down the road in the tournament. If the P5 had there own tournament these games and their regular season games would become exponentially less interesting to me and millions of fans.
Are the P5 really making NCAA type money on their conference tournaments? Because that is what it would be. A glorified conference tournament with much less national interest. I think it would ruin college basketball.
-
I don't think the slice is as massive as you think, given the way tournament revenues are allocated
In 2022, P5 teams received 70 of the 132 tourament units, or about 53%.
3 of 8 in the First Four
28 of 64 first round teams
20 of 32 second round teams
11 of 16 in the sweet 16
5 of the elite eight
3 of the final four
And then you have to consider that this is just the allocation of the 60% of the tournament revenue that gets distributed to the participating teams. 40% goes to the NCAA to fund their operations. So the P5 actually only gets about 32% of the basketball tournament revenue.
Even if you're right in that there would be a decline in revenue if the P5 splits, the decline would have to be absolutely massive before it would be a net loss. A small to moderate decline in overall revenue would mean a massive increase going to the P5. And I can't imagine they would continue to fund a bloated NCAA bureaucracy, so the % off the top to whatever governing body is set up would be much smaller.
You're ignoring everything outside the tournament, the fact that the later round ncaat units are worth exponentially more, and the massive costs they would have to take on without the NCAA bureaucracy.
-
40% goes to the NCAA to fund their operations.
And I can't imagine they would continue to fund a bloated NCAA bureaucracy
They'd have their own bloated bureaucracy, whose operations would be funded by a seems-too-effen-large percentage of the take.
-
From the Raleigh newspaper:
Mike Brey, the Notre Dame head coach, said last week that he has found it “really intriguing” to follow the effects of NIL, particularly when it comes to keeping players in college who otherwise would’ve likely departed. As a result, he said, college basketball has become “older, and better.”
For players on the margin of the NBA draft, Brey said, “instead of saying, ‘I’m getting old, I might as well go and at least go to Europe and start to make money,’ they go, ‘Well, wait a minute.’ And to the credit of their universities and their coaches, they say, ‘Well here’s what we can put together for you,’ and I can come back one more year.”
He added: “Like, this is the world we’re in. Last time I checked, you make pretty good money. So everybody should shut up and adjust. You know, that’s just the world we’re in now. And, you know, I’m not in it as long as the Josh Pastners and some of these young guys. So good luck to y’all — I’ll be back in five years to see what’s up. Just remember, man, we’ve had it pretty good here.”
-
From the Raleigh newspaper:
For players on the margin of the NBA draft, Brey said, “instead of saying, ‘I’m getting old, I might as well go and at least go to Europe and start to make money,’ they go, ‘Well, wait a minute.’ And to the credit of their universities and their coaches, they say, ‘Well here’s what we can put together for you,’ and I can come back one more year.”
How many underclassmen actually forgo eligibility to play in Europe?
-
How many underclassmen actually forgo eligibility to play in Europe?
The article made a point of saying that, without NIL, Bacot and Love would have left UNC to try to make the NBA but could have ended up in Europe or elsewhere a year or three down the line.
Without the promise of NIL deals, both likely would’ve found it easier to leave to begin their professional careers.
So I'm not sure how many guys, pre-NIL, were saying, "I'm leaving to go to Europe." They were saying, "I'm leaving to start my pro career even though I probably won't get drafted. I'm confident I can make it in the NBA, but I have options if I can't."
From Marquette's recent history: DJ Carton and Vander Blue.
-
From the Raleigh newspaper:
Mike Brey, the Notre Dame head coach, said last week that he has found it “really intriguing” to follow the effects of NIL, particularly when it comes to keeping players in college who otherwise would’ve likely departed. As a result, he said, college basketball has become “older, and better.”
For players on the margin of the NBA draft, Brey said, “instead of saying, ‘I’m getting old, I might as well go and at least go to Europe and start to make money,’ they go, ‘Well, wait a minute.’ And to the credit of their universities and their coaches, they say, ‘Well here’s what we can put together for you,’ and I can come back one more year.”
He added: “Like, this is the world we’re in. Last time I checked, you make pretty good money. So everybody should shut up and adjust. You know, that’s just the world we’re in now. And, you know, I’m not in it as long as the Josh Pastners and some of these young guys. So good luck to y’all — I’ll be back in five years to see what’s up. Just remember, man, we’ve had it pretty good here.”
Irritating that the Notre Dame coach has been so consistently right of late.
-
You're ignoring everything outside the tournament, the fact that the later round ncaat units are worth exponentially more, and the massive costs they would have to take on without the NCAA bureaucracy.
First, units aren't worth "exponentially" more in later rounds, they're worth exactly the same. A team that makes it to the final four earns more revenue because they earn more units to get there, not because the units themselves are more valuable. And I accounted for that by breaking down the units earned round by round. The P5 received 29 of the 68 first round units (43%), but 3 of the 4 in the final four (75%). 132 total units were awarded, and I accounted for all of them. The P5 earned 70, or 53%.
Second, the "massive costs" you refer to are today covered out of the 40% of the total revenue that the NCAA takes off the top. The NCAA's cut not only covers the cost of putting on the tournament but also 90% of the overall cost of the NCAA bureaucracy.
-
Irritating that the Notre Dame coach has been so consistently right of late.
He'll definitely be right when he says a few months from now: "We really had no chance to win. Marquette's just too much better than us."
-
First, units aren't worth "exponentially" more in later rounds, they're worth exactly the same. A team that makes it to the final four earns more revenue because they earn more units to get there, not because the units themselves are more valuable. And I accounted for that by breaking down the units earned round by round. The P5 received 29 of the 68 first round units (43%), but 3 of the 4 in the final four (75%). 132 total units were awarded, and I accounted for all of them. The P5 earned 70, or 53%.
I'm aware that each individual one is worth the same but every time you earn one, it comes with the ability to earn another (except the championship round obviously) which is what makes them worth exponentially more not to mention all the ancillary benefits of advancing in the tournament.
In 2021, here's the breakdown for what P5 vs. non-P5 earned from tourney units:
153,736,296 (58%)
113,279,376 (42%)
In 2022, your numbers were slightly off, the P5 earned 71 of the 132 units but it only makes a 1% difference.
You also have to factor that there are only 67 P5 teams (69 after the B12 adds 4 from AAC/BYU). So one of two things will need to happen, either everyone gets into the postseason, which I think would have a significant impact on interest and revenue, or they have to shrink the tournament to 32, meaning over half of the units go away. I think they will need at least 130 teams to keep March Madness as lucrative as it is now.
Second, the "massive costs" you refer to are today covered out of the 40% of the total revenue that the NCAA takes off the top. The NCAA's cut not only covers the cost of putting on the tournament but also 90% of the overall cost of the NCAA bureaucracy.
Again, I'm aware. But how you presented your post was that the P5 would get to pocket that 40% as revenue. What will actually happen is that they will spend most if not all of it taking on all the costs currently taken on by the NCAA.
Change averse organizations tend not to make paradigm shifting changes as long as the status quo currently benefits them. The P5 have a vast majority of the wealth and power at the moment so I don't see them breaking off any time soon. I can certainly see more negotiations to give them even more power within the NCAA. If they do break off, I think it will be in football only. If they break off in more than football, I think the Big East and others get taken along in basketball.
-
So one of two things will need to happen, either everyone gets into the postseason, which I think would have a significant impact on interest and revenue, or they have to shrink the tournament to 32, meaning over half of the units go away. I think they will need at least 130 teams to keep March Madness as lucrative as it is now.
In 2021, the "P5" schools earned 34 NCAA bids. So under this format, they could exclude the rest of the country and STILL earn fewer bids than they get with the current field. ;D
-
In 2021, here's the breakdown for what P5 vs. non-P5 earned from tourney units:
153,736,296 (58%)
113,279,376 (42%)
In 2022, your numbers were slightly off, the P5 earned 71 of the 132 units but it only makes a 1% difference.
So anywhere from 53% to 58% of revenue paid to teams goes to the P5, but that's only after the NCAA takes it's cut off the top. After the NCAA cut, the P5 nets only about 1/3 of the tournament revenue.
You also have to factor that there are only 67 P5 teams (69 after the B12 adds 4 from AAC/BYU). So one of two things will need to happen, either everyone gets into the postseason, which I think would have a significant impact on interest and revenue, or they have to shrink the tournament to 32, meaning over half of the units go away. I think they will need at least 130 teams to keep March Madness as lucrative as it is now.
You're stuck in a paradigm that says we have to have 64 or 68 teams in the tournament to be successful.
The P5 could break away and run a tournament of any size. And as long as they net more than the $153 million they're getting in the status quo, it's better for them.
Again, I'm aware. But how you presented your post was that the P5 would get to pocket that 40% as revenue. What will actually happen is that they will spend most if not all of it taking on all the costs currently taken on by the NCAA.
You're vastly overestimating the money the NCAA spends to host the tournament. I haven't yet found a more recent set of numbers, but in 2019, the revenue from the men's tournament was $864 million, and the expense was only $28 million.
https://theathletic.com/news/ncaa-document-highlights-mens-womens-tournament-budget-and-income-disparities/JCHqSquvJgwr/ (https://theathletic.com/news/ncaa-document-highlights-mens-womens-tournament-budget-and-income-disparities/JCHqSquvJgwr/)
So lets assume for the sake of argument that the P5 wanted to run their own 32-team tournament.
And let's even say that the rights payments are cut fully in half, from $864 to $432 million/year. After taking out $28 million in expenses, that's about $400 million to split between the 5 leagues / 32 teams.
$400 million is more than $153 million, and probably by enough of a margin to get even the most change-averse organization moving quickly.
-
So anywhere from 53% to 58% of revenue paid to teams goes to the P5, but that's only after the NCAA takes it's cut off the top. After the NCAA cut, the P5 nets only about 1/3 of the tournament revenue.
You're stuck in a paradigm that says we have to have 64 or 68 teams in the tournament to be successful.
The P5 could break away and run a tournament of any size. And as long as they net more than the $153 million they're getting in the status quo, it's better for them.
You're vastly overestimating the money the NCAA spends to host the tournament. I haven't yet found a more recent set of numbers, but in 2019, the revenue from the men's tournament was $864 million, and the expense was only $28 million.
https://theathletic.com/news/ncaa-document-highlights-mens-womens-tournament-budget-and-income-disparities/JCHqSquvJgwr/ (https://theathletic.com/news/ncaa-document-highlights-mens-womens-tournament-budget-and-income-disparities/JCHqSquvJgwr/)
So lets assume for the sake of argument that the P5 wanted to run their own 32-team tournament.
And let's even say that the rights payments are cut fully in half, from $864 to $432 million/year. After taking out $28 million in expenses, that's about $400 million to split between the 5 leagues / 32 teams.
$400 million is more than $153 million, and probably by enough of a margin to get even the most change-averse organization moving quickly.
The cost of running the tournament is only 28 million. Now do the cost of everything else the NCAA currently does that the P5 would have to take on. I don't know why you are only focused on the tournament. It's not like they are going to only break off for postseason play.
Also the rights payments would be cut by more than 50%. The first round is more than 50% of the games and I think it's a safe bet that the format change would cause a loss in viewership.
-
The cost of running the tournament is only 28 million. Now do the cost of everything else the NCAA currently does that the P5 would have to take on. I don't know why you are only focused on the tournament. It's not like they are going to only break off for postseason play.
Also the rights payments would be cut by more than 50%. The first round is more than 50% of the games and I think it's a safe bet that the format change would cause a loss in viewership.
Do you think the regular season tv contract money would increase if the non conference games were strictly against p5 teams instead of games against buy teams? Would that make up the difference in revenue?
-
Do you think the regular season tv contract money would increase if the non conference games were strictly against p5 teams instead of games against buy teams? Would that make up the difference in revenue?
No. If that was the case school's would already do that. Instead, schools schedule buy games for budgeting purposes. Rando p5 teams playing each other in the regular season in basketball also doesn't draw many more eyeballs than rando p5 teams playing buy games. It would make a difference in football
-
No. If that was the case school's would already do that. Instead, schools schedule buy games for budgeting purposes. Rando p5 teams playing each other in the regular season in basketball also doesn't draw many more eyeballs than rando p5 teams playing buy games. It would make a difference in football
There are numerous advantages to those buy games and the reason they pay tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to play them. Selling season ticket packages is part, and as you note people aren't making time to watch CBB in November and December when football is on pretty much every night. But there's also the simple win/loss factor. Every year we hear complaints about all the mediocre high-majors that make the field. Teams that are 19-15, 18-13, or some similarly mediocre record.
If it's all high-majors playing each other, then those 70 or so teams will have an average record of .500 because they only play each other. So in virtually every year, with a 32-team field, you'd be giving at-large bids to .500 teams or teams a game over, and in some years at-large bids to teams with losing records. Fattening up those records with cupcakes helps convince people the field is that much stronger. While you would only have high-majors, there would be strong sentiment that the field was actually weaker because the teams that were included had worse records and the teams that were excluded would have teams legitimately better than the ones in the field.
-
The cost of running the tournament is only 28 million. Now do the cost of everything else the NCAA currently does that the P5 would have to take on. I don't know why you are only focused on the tournament. It's not like they are going to only break off for postseason play.
You might have a point if you at least tried to be realistic. Clearly, the P5 would lose much of what the NCAA does starting wtih anything that supports 27 of 32 current conferences. Plus they would no longer pay for 100% of what is spent on D2 and D3. Maybe they have to pick up 10% of what the NCAA spends today.
If you want to argue about whether it's 8% or 10% or 12%, go ahead. It's nowhere near the "cost of everything the NCAA currently does."
Also the rights payments would be cut by more than 50%. The first round is more than 50% of the games and I think it's a safe bet that the format change would cause a loss in viewership.
The rights wouldn't be cut anywhere close to 50%. There are 32 first-round games and 31 subsequent games. While you'd lose 50.8% of the games if you eliminate the first round, you're maybe losing only 1/3 of the total audience, so those later round games are far more valuable.
The highest-rated first-round game drew just 5.5 million viewers. The highest-rated 2nd-round game drew 11.2 million. The average Sweet 16 game drew more than 9 million and the final four 17/18 million each game.
-
You might have a point if you at least tried to be realistic. Clearly, the P5 would lose much of what the NCAA does starting wtih anything that supports 27 of 32 current conferences. Plus they would no longer pay for 100% of what is spent on D2 and D3. Maybe they have to pick up 10% of what the NCAA spends today.
If you want to argue about whether it's 8% or 10% or 12%, go ahead. It's nowhere near the "cost of everything the NCAA currently does."
Reading comprehension. I didn't say that they would have to take on 100% of what the NCAA does. I said everything else the NCAA currently does that the P5 would have to take on. Obviously they wouldn't have to take on everything that the NCAA currently does, but it will cost them a lot more than $28 million it costs to run the tournament.
The rights wouldn't be cut anywhere close to 50%. There are 32 first-round games and 31 subsequent games. While you'd lose 50.8% of the games if you eliminate the first round, you're maybe losing only 1/3 of the total audience, so those later round games are far more valuable.
The highest-rated first-round game drew just 5.5 million viewers. The highest-rated 2nd-round game drew 11.2 million. The average Sweet 16 game drew more than 9 million and the final four 17/18 million each game.
There are 32 first round games and 4 play in games so you are losing 54% of the total games and that's a HUGE number. And while currently the round of 32 draws more than that round of 64, will that remain the case when it is the new first round? Same for the Sweet 16, will it continue to draw as many as it did when it only takes one win to get there? You aren't even factoring the attrition that will occur due to the format change. Hundreds of thousands of people who used to watch the tournament wouldn't anymore if the P5 split off. And even if you want to dispute any of these points, you have to admit they are risks. And trying to convince 69 change adverse universities that are currently massively benefitting from the status quo (and have the power to make sure they benefit even more in the future within the status quo) to take on that level of risk is just not something I see happening.
At this point, we are going to have to agree to disagree. I'm very confident that we won't see March Madness shrink anytime in the near future (I think it is more likely that it will grow than shrink) and that Marquette will be competing for a spot in March Madness for the foreseeable future.
-
There are numerous advantages to those buy games and the reason they pay tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to play them. Selling season ticket packages is part, and as you note people aren't making time to watch CBB in November and December when football is on pretty much every night. But there's also the simple win/loss factor. Every year we hear complaints about all the mediocre high-majors that make the field. Teams that are 19-15, 18-13, or some similarly mediocre record.
If it's all high-majors playing each other, then those 70 or so teams will have an average record of .500 because they only play each other. So in virtually every year, with a 32-team field, you'd be giving at-large bids to .500 teams or teams a game over, and in some years at-large bids to teams with losing records. Fattening up those records with cupcakes helps convince people the field is that much stronger. While you would only have high-majors, there would be strong sentiment that the field was actually weaker because the teams that were included had worse records and the teams that were excluded would have teams legitimately better than the ones in the field.
There's nothing that would stop the P5 from allowing their teams to continue to play outside the P5 during the non-conference season--similar to the BCS teams scheduling FCS opponents.
-
The highest-rated first-round game drew just 5.5 million viewers. The highest-rated 2nd-round game drew 11.2 million. The average Sweet 16 game drew more than 9 million and the final four 17/18 million each game.
These are disingenous numbers, however, because of game overlap. There are 3-4 games simultaneously in the first round, 2-3 in the second round, 1-2 in the Sweet 16, and no more than 1 on Final Four weekend. Is there more concentrated interest in the later rounds? Sure. But the numbers you provide indicate that most of the time, there are 12-18 million people watching NCAA games at any given time throughout the tournament. It's not like it quadruples from the first weekend to the Final Four.
-
There's nothing that would stop the P5 from allowing their teams to continue to play outside the P5 during the non-conference season--similar to the BCS teams scheduling FCS opponents.
Non- NCAA D1 games do nothing for your NCAA record. Kind of a waste of time for NCAA teams to play them. Maybe one per year would be OK.
-
These are disingenous numbers, however, because of game overlap. There are 3-4 games simultaneously in the first round, 2-3 in the second round, 1-2 in the Sweet 16, and no more than 1 on Final Four weekend. Is there more concentrated interest in the later rounds? Sure. But the numbers you provide indicate that most of the time, there are 12-18 million people watching NCAA games at any given time throughout the tournament. It's not like it quadruples from the first weekend to the Final Four.
You're saying that the first-round games COULD generate a bigger audience, but don't only because there are multiple games at the same time dividing the audience.
One tiny problem with your theory.
Rights payments aren't based on hypothetically what the audience could be if the games didn't overlap--they're based on the reality of what the audience actually IS given that they do overlap.
So who is really being disingenuous?
But let's settle this with the actual numbers.
Average first four game: 1.76 million
Average first round game audience: 2.03 million
Source: https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Daily/Issues/2022/03/23/Media/NCAA-viewers.aspx#:~:text=First%2Dround%20games%20averaged%202.11,that%20the%20First%20Four%20averaged (https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Daily/Issues/2022/03/23/Media/NCAA-viewers.aspx#:~:text=First%2Dround%20games%20averaged%202.11,that%20the%20First%20Four%20averaged)
4 games x 1.76 million each = total First Four viewership of 7.04 million
32 games x 2.03 million each = first round viewership of 64.96 million
Total viewers for the first four and First round = 72 million
Average 2nd round game: 5.15 million
Source: https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Daily/Issues/2022/03/23/Media/NCAA-viewers.aspx#:~:text=First%2Dround%20games%20averaged%202.11,that%20the%20First%20Four%20averaged (https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Daily/Issues/2022/03/23/Media/NCAA-viewers.aspx#:~:text=First%2Dround%20games%20averaged%202.11,that%20the%20First%20Four%20averaged)
16 x 5.15 million = 82.4 million
Average Sweet 16: 9 million
Source: https://tvline.com/2022/03/26/tv-ratings-ncaa-tournament-saint-peters-first-15-seed-in-elite-8/ (https://tvline.com/2022/03/26/tv-ratings-ncaa-tournament-saint-peters-first-15-seed-in-elite-8/)
8 games x 9 million = 72 million
Average Elite Eight: 10.3 million
Source; https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/tv/story/2022-03-29/tv-ratings-story-for-the-week-of-march-21-27-wed-march-30-2022#:~:text=The%20Elite%208%20game%20averaged,network%2C%20averaging%202.811%20million%20viewers (https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/tv/story/2022-03-29/tv-ratings-story-for-the-week-of-march-21-27-wed-march-30-2022#:~:text=The%20Elite%208%20game%20averaged,network%2C%20averaging%202.811%20million%20viewers)
4 games x 10.3 million = 41.2 million
Final Four:
Duke/UNC: 17.7 million
Villanova/Kansas: 11.7 million
UNC/Kansas: 17.1 million
Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1264872/march-madness-final-four-viewers/ (https://www.statista.com/statistics/1264872/march-madness-final-four-viewers/)
Final four total = 46.5 million
Total veiwers after the first round: 154.4 million
The first-four plus the first-round games combined only generate about 1/3 of the total viewership.
-
The first-four plus the first-round games combined only generate about 1/3 of the total viewership.
I don't really care about either of your arguments, but
1/3 = 0.3333333333333333
72/154 = 0.4675324675324675
0.4675324675324675 / 0.3333333333333333 = 1.40...
So your 1/3 number is only off by 40%. No big deal right? Rounding error. Except the first-four plus the first-round games are closer to 50% of the viewership.
-
I don't really care about either of your arguments, but
1/3 = 0.3333333333333333
72/154 = 0.4675324675324675
0.4675324675324675 / 0.3333333333333333 = 1.40...
So your 1/3 number is only off by 40%. No big deal right? Rounding error. Except the first-four plus the first-round games are closer to 50% of the viewership.
Edit: It was poorly presented, but it was 72 million first round, 154 after the first round, so 226 million total.
But again, doing the math, it's about 6-8 million at a time first round, 10 million second round, 9 million at a time Sweet 16, 10 million at a time Elite 8. So the weekday games draw 6-9 million viewers at a time, weekend draw 10 million at a time, then there's a big jump for the F4.
All that said, there's not some precipitous jump, and people ramping up interest as the tournament progresses doesn't exactly seem like revelatory information.
-
72% of all statistics are made up
-
72% of all statistics are made up
If the stat doesn’t have the number 69 or 420 in it, I ignore it
-
Can someone explain to me why Saban's comments on TA&M 'buying every player' is news worthy? That seems as news worthy as saying TA&M runs screen plays. Is there a DI school that doesn't? I'm serious, what's next, coach's complaining about the three point shot in basketball?
-
Edit: It was poorly presented, but it was 72 million first round, 154 after the first round, so 226 million total.
Whoops. I hate it when math gets in the way of a good point.
-
Can someone explain to me why Saban's comments on TA&M 'buying every player' is news worthy? That seems as news worthy as saying TA&M runs screen plays. Is there a DI school that doesn't? I'm serious, what's next, coach's complaining about the three point shot in basketball?
The idea that Alabama, which is in the only state that actually repealed its NIL legislation because it was more restrictive than what the NCAA allowed, isn't buying players the same way is ridiculous.
-
Can someone explain to me why Saban's comments on TA&M 'buying every player' is news worthy? That seems as news worthy as saying TA&M runs screen plays. Is there a DI school that doesn't? I'm serious, what's next, coach's complaining about the three point shot in basketball?
It's Saban sending a message to his boosters that they're going to have to start writing more and larger checks.
-
Saban makes $9.5 million a year. Cry me a river.
-
It's Saban sending a message to his boosters that they're going to have to start writing more and larger checks.
I think you hit the nail on the head.
Still not national news worthy, but well played by Saban.
IMO, this NIL thing is silly. The writing is on the wall, the players (who are not students) will be paid and have insurance, etc. along with endorsement deals. I think a HS draft would be unwieldy, so the highest bidder wins. We will all be cheering for the "Golden Eagles brought to you by Marquette University" within 10 years. Players, coaches, sponsors and the IRS will be happy. Just one man's opinion.
-
It's Saban sending a message to his boosters that they're going to have to start writing more and larger checks.
Yessir. Here's The Athletic's take:
Alabama’s Nick Saban is the best coach college football has ever seen. If you listen to him, though, you’d think the game was passing him by at each mile marker.
If you haven’t been through this cycle, welcome. This is classic Saban-speak. It goes something like this:
Saban: “This new trend in the sport is worrisome, and I don’t know if it’s the direction we want to go.”
Saban: Adapts to trend, becomes the best at said trend, pummels the entire sport into submission.
Saban complained to a crowd in Birmingham, Alabama, about Texas A&M “buying players” as opposed to Alabama’s NIL efforts, which have been done “the right way,” according to Saban. He specifically railed against the concept of NIL collectives instead of relying on players to create their own opportunities.
Let’s circle back on who he complained to: a group of business leaders in Alabama’s second-largest city. People who could form a NIL collective to benefit Alabama.
This is pitch-perfect Saban. He probably does believe what collectives do is unfair. But this was more a signal to local boosters who should get with the times, as well as a warning to competing schools that their “advantage” with collectives could be short-lived.
-
https://twitter.com/edsbs/status/1527309735078207489?s=20&t=EIPeCosB1otNeJn04XhSNQ
Oh my.
October 8 - A&M @ Alabama.
-
I don't really care about either of your arguments, but
1/3 = 0.3333333333333333
72/154 = 0.4675324675324675
0.4675324675324675 / 0.3333333333333333 = 1.40...
So your 1/3 number is only off by 40%. No big deal right? Rounding error. Except the first-four plus the first-round games are closer to 50% of the viewership.
I don't care much about your argument either, but . . .
First four + first round audience = 72 million
Subsequent rounds = 154 million
Total audience = 72 + 154 or 226 million
72 million / 226 million = 31.8%
The first four + the first round is nowhere near 50% of the viewership. It's 31.8%, which is a LOT closer to 1/3 I said than the 50% you claim.
All this to show the idiocy of your argument that rights payments would decline by more than 50% if you gave up the first four and first round--rights payments are based on audience size, and if you gave up 72 million of 226 million, your rights payments would decline by about 1/3--not, as you claimed "more than half."
-
Edit: It was poorly presented, but it was 72 million first round, 154 after the first round, so 226 million total.
But again, doing the math, it's about 6-8 million at a time first round, 10 million second round, 9 million at a time Sweet 16, 10 million at a time Elite 8. So the weekday games draw 6-9 million viewers at a time, weekend draw 10 million at a time, then there's a big jump for the F4.
All that said, there's not some precipitous jump, and people ramping up interest as the tournament progresses doesn't exactly seem like revelatory information.
Whether you consider the jump precipitous or not, the bottom line is that the first round (including the first four) only accounts for 1/3 of the total audience. Since rights payments are based on audience size, it's hard to reconcile TAMU's statement that rights for a hypothetical P5 32 team tournament would decline by more than half.
And the point of the whole exercise is to point out that with the current size of the revenue involved, the increasing concentration of power and influence in the P5, the fecklessness of the NCAA leadership, and the economic changes that NIL is bringing to the table, a breakaway P5 is not outside the realm of possibility.
I'm not saying it's likely. If I were to predict today, I would say that NCAA will probably keep the P5 as part of the organization, but at the cost of a significant shift of men's basketball tournament revenues to the P5.
-
I don't care much about your argument either, but . . .
First four + first round audience = 72 million
Subsequent rounds = 154 million
Total audience = 72 + 154 or 226 million
72 million / 226 million = 31.8%
The first four + the first round is nowhere near 50% of the viewership. It's 31.8%, which is a LOT closer to 1/3 I said than the 50% you claim.
All this to show the idiocy of your argument that rights payments would decline by more than 50% if you gave up the first four and first round--rights payments are based on audience size, and if you gave up 72 million of 226 million, your rights payments would decline by about 1/3--not, as you claimed "more than half."
You're mixing up your posters. Rocky did some bad math but he clearly stated that he didn't have a dog in this fight.
I was the one who argued that the rights would decrease by more than half and still hold that to be true. You are trying to do an apples to apples comparison when that clearly won't be what happens. First, there are many thousands of viewers who will not tune into the tournament anymore if the P5 were to split. Second, you can't copy/paste the current round of 32 numbers into the first round of your 32 team tournament and say they will be the same. The numbers will be a lot more similar to the current first round numbers. And the second round numbers will be more similar to the Round of 32 numbers. And even if you disagree, you have to admit that is a risk and universities are not known for taking big risks when they are currently thriving in the status quo.
I'm not saying it's likely. If I were to predict today, I would say that NCAA will probably keep the P5 as part of the organization, but at the cost of a significant shift of men's basketball tournament revenues to the P5.
So we disagree on the why but agree on what the ultimate result will be.
-
https://twitter.com/edsbs/status/1527309735078207489?s=20&t=EIPeCosB1otNeJn04XhSNQ
Oh my.
October 8 - A&M @ Alabama.
TAMU signed 4 of the top 5 defensive linemen in the 2022 class (and 5 out of the top 10). I hope Saban got himself some offensive linemen.
-
TAMU signed 4 of the top 5 defensive linemen in the 2022 class (and 5 out of the top 10). I hope Saban got himself some offensive linemen.
I hope not.
-
TAMU signed 4 of the top 5 defensive linemen in the 2022 class (and 5 out of the top 10). I hope Saban got himself some offensive linemen.
I believe in Saban's ability to coach way more than I believe in Jimbo's.
-
I believe in Saban's ability to coach way more than I believe in Jimbo's.
I 100% agree but with oil at $100+ per barrel, I like Jimbo's chances to make it close.
-
I 100% agree but with oil at $100+ per barrel, I like Jimbo's chances to make it close.
LOL, good point.
-
It's Saban sending a message to his boosters that they're going to have to start writing more and larger checks.
Ding! Ding!
-
I believe in Saban's ability to coach way more than I believe in Jimbo's.
I don’t know why. Now if you said you believe in Saban’s ability to coach more than Jimbo when Saban has better players, I would agree.
What makes Saban’s teams win more - the players or Saban’s coaching? When Saban rarely runs into a team with better players, like Georgia this year, why can’t his coaching overcome that?
-
I don’t know why. Now if you said you believe in Saban’s ability to coach more than Jimbo when Saban has better players, I would agree.
What makes Saban’s teams win more - the players or Saban’s coaching? When Saban rarely runs into a team with better players, like Georgia this year, why can’t his coaching overcome that?
No one is perfect. But cmon...the guy can coach obviously.
-
I believe in Saban's ability to coach way more than I believe in Jimbo's.
1000%, which is why I laughed when Jimbo got his latest contract. But the man can pull in talent. We'll see if he can outtalent everyone to a playoff appearance (and likely thrashing)
-
Boy, things are getting testy in SEC land. Kinda like if Bezo and Musk got into it.
Is all of this taking the luster off college sports? I've found myself gravitating more to pro sports in the past couple of years. Maybe that's just me. (maybe the Wojo effect ;))
-
I believe in Saban's ability to coach way more than I believe in Jimbo's.
He did not do very well with paid players in the NFL, maybe that is why he is worried.
-
Is all of this taking the luster off college sports?
Are you kidding? This stuff is awesome! Now the A&M AD called the Bama AD to complain that Saban's comments violate the SEC bylaws. (lol)
Nothing better than a nice feud.
-
He did not do very well with paid players in the NFL, maybe that is why he is worried.
Did you mean with "the other teams having paid players also"? (see Pitino, Calipari, Urban Myer)
-
Boy, things are getting testy in SEC land. Kinda like if Bezo and Musk got into it.
Is all of this taking the luster off college sports? I've found myself gravitating more to pro sports in the past couple of years. Maybe that's just me. (maybe the Wojo effect ;))
Personally, the athletes being poor had zero impact on my interest in college sports.
-
Are you kidding? This stuff is awesome! Now the A&M AD called the Bama AD to complain that Saban's comments violate the SEC bylaws. (lol)
Nothing better than a nice feud.
The SEC Bylaws:
1. If you ain't cheating, you ain't trying.
2. If someone asks about 'Student' athletes, talk about Vanderbilt.
3. Payday is on Friday.
-
Are you kidding? This stuff is awesome! Now the A&M AD called the Bama AD to complain that Saban's comments violate the SEC bylaws. (lol)
Nothing better than a nice feud.
College sports need coaches feuding. It’s awesome. Would love Shaka telling Sean Miller he cheats and then Miller and X get mad and have some bad blood
-
College sports need coaches feuding. It’s awesome. Would love Shaka telling Sean Miller he cheats and then Miller and X get mad and have some bad blood
I mean, this is just great!
https://twitter.com/RossDellenger/status/1527355273588854795?s=20&t=IGALzVNr7djUmZJLip4cxw
Ross Dellenger
@RossDellenger
TAMU AD Ross Bjork to @SInow
“I don’t know why Nick Saban would say what he said except he’s threatened. There is a saying … an emperor who loses their dynasty lashes out.
“I guess people don’t like A&M disrupting the power base of college football.”
-
I mean, this is just great!
https://twitter.com/RossDellenger/status/1527355273588854795?s=20&t=IGALzVNr7djUmZJLip4cxw
Ross Dellenger
@RossDellenger
TAMU AD Ross Bjork to @SInow
“I don’t know why Nick Saban would say what he said except he’s threatened. There is a saying … an emperor who loses their dynasty lashes out.
“I guess people don’t like A&M disrupting the power base of college football.”
Trying to imagine if this Paul Chryst and some coach 😂
-
Did you mean with "the other teams having paid players also"? (see Pitino, Calipari, Urban Myer)
I stand corrected
-
No one is perfect. But cmon...the guy can coach obviously.
I agree. I think Saban is a better coach, but the guy with better players should win the most.
-
Personally, the athletes being poor had zero impact on my interest in college sports.
Right? It was slave labor. They were the only poor students and racked up a mountain of student loan debts.
I don't have problem with players making money, but put some rules in place. Pro sports recognize competition is good for business. I haven't watched a college bowl game in 10 years. I don't gamble on sports so I don't care which SEC team or Clemson wins. As I said before maybe it's just me.
My deteriorating interest comes from the the wild west nature of it all and complete lack of competitive equity. I would loose interest in pro sports if only the Yankees, Dodgers, Giants, Bears, Cowboys, Lakers, Knicks and Bulls won.
-
Right? It was slave labor. They were the only poor students and racked up a mountain of student loan debts.
Your words, not mine.
My deteriorating interest comes from the the wild west nature of it all and complete lack of competitive equity. I would loose interest in pro sports if only the Yankees, Dodgers, Giants, Bears, Cowboys, Lakers, Knicks and Bulls won.
In the NBA 2 teams (Celtics and Lakers) have 46% of the national championships. 5 teams have 68.9% of the national championships. The NBA also consistently goes through periods where one or 2 teams dominates the league for multiple championships in a short period of time (Warriors 15 to Present, Whatever Team Lebron was on 07-20, Spurs 07-14, Lakers 00-10, Bulls 91-98, Lakers 80-91, Celtics 81-87, Celtics 57-76, Lakers 62-73, Lakers 49-54). College basketball has a long way to go before they get to that level of lack of competitiveness.
You're right about college football, it's always been boring.
-
I'd say it is more like an unpaid apprentice than Slave labor
Not saying it is right either way just that "slave" comes with a lot of other baggage
-
I'd say it is more like an unpaid apprentice than Slave labor
Not saying it is right either way just that "slave" comes with a lot of other baggage
This is a dead hoarse.
"Slave" is completely wrong. That is like calling the Boston Marathon the Baton Death March.
"Unpaid" or "Free" labor are only used by lazy or dishonest people. These athletes were far from uncompensated. Now, honest people can discuss if the compensation was adequate or fair.
-
This is a dead hoarse.
"Slave" is completely wrong. That is like calling the Boston Marathon the Baton Death March.
"Unpaid" or "Free" labor are only used by lazy or dishonest people. These athletes were far from uncompensated. Now, honest people can discuss if the compensation was adequate or fair.
Of coarse
-
Lane Kiffin...voice of reason.
https://www.si.com/college/2022/05/25/lane-kiffin-nil-recruiting-boosters-nick-saban
-
Lane Kiffin...voice of reason.
https://www.si.com/college/2022/05/25/lane-kiffin-nil-recruiting-boosters-nick-saban
I agree with Kiffen on most of this but the donors aren’t a bottomless pit of money as he suggests in my opinion. Although there is some pride on Saturday when your team wins after you have purchased players services, the donors don’t own anything like NFL owners who see the value of their franchises increase yearly. Donors get zero return except for satisfaction. I don’t think that’s enough to sustain millions of dollars worth of contributions to NIL yearly. It’s like flushing big money down the toilet and I assume these people aren’t stupid.
Sporadic big money contributions I get. Sustained? Not so much.
-
I agree with Kiffen on most of this but the donors aren’t a bottomless pit of money as he suggests in my opinion. Although there is some pride on Saturday when your team wins after you have purchased players services, the donors don’t own anything like NFL owners who see the value of their franchises increase yearly. Donors get zero return except for satisfaction. I don’t think that’s enough to sustain millions of dollars worth of contributions to NIL yearly. It’s like flushing big money down the toilet and I assume these people aren’t stupid.
Sporadic big money contributions I get. Sustained? Not so much.
This has been my suspicion as well, starting out with huge splashes but how many years will some boosters keep the spend up there?
-
This has been my suspicion as well, starting out with huge splashes but how many years will some boosters keep the spend up there?
Yep - how willing will boosters be to contribute when a few of their kids transfer ? How long will Miami continue to pay large sums of money to guys like Nijel Pack? who is nowhere near a top end talent.
-
Yep - how willing will boosters be to contribute when a few of their kids transfer ? How long will Miami continue to pay large sums of money to guys like Nijel Pack? who is nowhere near a top end talent.
I'd be interested to see how these NIL contracts are written for this very reason. For instance, Dawson Garcia's deal with that seafood place or whatever it was - he played for UNC for two months, took a leave of absence, and then transferred. If his contract was a longer-term deal, or even just the season, and they paid him any money up front, would he (or could he) pay them back?
You'd hope that everyone saw this as a potential issue and the players just do one-time endorsements, events, etc., and aren't under some long term obligation.
-
Yep - how willing will boosters be to contribute when a few of their kids transfer ? How long will Miami continue to pay large sums of money to guys like Nijel Pack? who is nowhere near a top end talent.
Here is a real life example:
Our company operates in some Markets where the local community goes ga-ga over the P5 Teams . People who didn’t go to the school or frankly never went to any college live and die for these teams .
So for business reasons we found it was worth supporting these programs . Our Customers and Employees loved that we were associated . Half of our dollars went to the coaches charities .
Now the charity dollars instead go to NIL football and basketball. About 20 kids total.
2 kids we sponsored on one team went into the portal this spring. It doesn’t really matter because we are really backing the school brand .We will just sponsor a new crop of kids .
Total dollars spent are roughly mid 5 digits between both on NIL. Then another 5 digits in total in general promotional spending with the school .We will keep spending since it’s part of our strategy .
-
Here is a real life example:
Our company operates in some Markets where the local community goes ga-ga over the P5 Teams . People who didn’t go to the school or frankly never went to any college live and die for these teams .
So for business reasons we found it was worth supporting these programs . Our Customers and Employees loved that we were associated . Half of our dollars went to the coaches charities .
Now the charity dollars instead go to NIL football and basketball. About 20 kids total.
2 kids we sponsored on one team went into the portal this spring. It doesn’t really matter because we are really backing the school brand .We will just sponsor a new crop of kids .
Total dollars spent are roughly mid 5 digits between both on NIL. Then another 5 digits in total in general promotional spending with the school .We will keep spending since it’s part of our strategy .
Quick question, does your NIL go into a Collective, or are you setting up NIL's directly with the SA?
-
Quick question, does your NIL go into a Collective, or are you setting up NIL's directly with the SA?
We set up both with collectives because it enables us to co brand the University logos etc . Having our name associated with the school is what matters most to us .
-
We set up both with collectives because it enables us to co brand the University logos etc . Having our name associated with the school is what matters most to us .
That makes some sense. Who the athletes are really doesn’t matter and probably has zero ROI for your business purposes. The school brand is the most important factor. Although that seems like athletes are making money off of a schools NIL. Do you get to use the school logo on your advertisements?
-
Here is a real life example:
Our company operates in some Markets where the local community goes ga-ga over the P5 Teams . People who didn’t go to the school or frankly never went to any college live and die for these teams .
So for business reasons we found it was worth supporting these programs . Our Customers and Employees loved that we were associated . Half of our dollars went to the coaches charities .
Now the charity dollars instead go to NIL football and basketball. About 20 kids total.
2 kids we sponsored on one team went into the portal this spring. It doesn’t really matter because we are really backing the school brand .We will just sponsor a new crop of kids .
Total dollars spent are roughly mid 5 digits between both on NIL. Then another 5 digits in total in general promotional spending with the school .We will keep spending since it’s part of our strategy .
Yep - my wife’s company allocates a significant amount of money to NIL deals as well.
I’m thinking more the individual boosters who finance specific players on the roster, not just the corporate “donation.” I could see some boosters becoming frustrated their money isn’t winning enough games or keeping players happy etc.
-
Here is a real life example:
Now the charity dollars instead go to NIL football and basketball. About 20 kids total.
So much for the idea that there was all this unspent money waiting to be thrown at under paid players. The money comes at a cost to others (charities, facilities, coaches, non-football and basketball sports, etc.)
Not saying NIL is wrong, just need to accept the real consequences. And I realize many here knew this was going to happen and agree the funds belong to the football and basketball players, not others.
-
So much for the idea that there was all this unspent money waiting to be thrown at under paid players. The money comes at a cost to others (charities, facilities, coaches, non-football and basketball sports, etc.)
Not saying NIL is wrong, just need to accept the real consequences. And I realize many here knew this was going to happen and agree the funds belong to the football and basketball players, not others.
That's what 9-9-9's company has chosen to do. Maybe other companies haven't eliminated or reduced donations to charities. I don't know, and neither do you.
But sure, it's possible that NIL will come at a cost to others. That's life in the big city.
-
So much for the idea that there was all this unspent money waiting to be thrown at under paid players. The money comes at a cost to others (charities, facilities, coaches, non-football and basketball sports, etc.)
There was unspent money waiting to be thrown at underpaid players. There is also money that has been rerouted from other locations towards NIL.
-
College "general managers" in charge of NIL? Yep!
Duke just announced that it has hired Rachel Baker as GM to work with the men's basketball team. She spent 8 years with Nike and 1 with the NBA.
According to the school's press release, she will “specialize in helping players enhance their personal and professional skill sets, capitalize on strategic partnerships, including NIL opportunities, and work to support players in navigating the opportunities and challenges that come with being a student-athlete at the highest level."
Will Marquette hire somebody to do this?
-
College "general managers" in charge of NIL? Yep!
Duke just announced that it has hired Rachel Baker as GM to work with the men's basketball team. She spent 8 years with Nike and 1 with the NBA.
According to the school's press release, she will “specialize in helping players enhance their personal and professional skill sets, capitalize on strategic partnerships, including NIL opportunities, and work to support players in navigating the opportunities and challenges that come with being a student-athlete at the highest level."
Will Marquette hire somebody to do this?
To comply with Title IX would not Duke have to hire a GM for the women's basketball team?
-
To comply with Title IX would not Duke have to hire a GM for the women's basketball team?
No. She's not a student-athlete.
-
College "general managers" in charge of NIL? Yep!
Duke just announced that it has hired Rachel Baker as GM to work with the men's basketball team. She spent 8 years with Nike and 1 with the NBA.
According to the school's press release, she will “specialize in helping players enhance their personal and professional skill sets, capitalize on strategic partnerships, including NIL opportunities, and work to support players in navigating the opportunities and challenges that come with being a student-athlete at the highest level."
Will Marquette hire somebody to do this?
Maybe Duke is setting the table for Wojo to become the HC? Then Wojo defenders can finally proclaim with a straight face, "but look at the talent he has to coach, he can't be expected to do better". ;D
-
To comply with Title IX would not Duke have to hire a GM for the women's basketball team?
No. That may be the simplest way to ensure compliance but there is nothing in Title IX that requires women's basketball to receive the exact same resources as men's basketball.
-
No. That may be the simplest way to ensure compliance but there is nothing in Title IX that requires women's basketball to receive the exact same resources as men's basketball.
MU needs an entire department for this. It’s a no brainer.
-
No. That may be the simplest way to ensure compliance but there is nothing in Title IX that requires women's basketball to receive the exact same resources as men's basketball.
Hmm...so basically MU only needs to provide a basketball and a court for the women to play on to be in compliance.
-
Hmm...so basically MU only needs to provide a basketball and a court for the women to play on to be in compliance.
Actually no. Marquette could cut women's basketball entirely and still be in compliance with Title IX.