New NIL Collective for MBB and WBB

[Dr. Blackheart]

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.

[lawdog77]

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.

[The Sultan]

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.

[lawdog77]

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).

[brewcity77]

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? 

[lawdog77]

Who is crediting the NCAA with handling any of this well? 

Not that they handled it well, but the implication is that this is going to work.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

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.

[THRILLHO]

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.

[lawdog77]

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.

[lawdog77]

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.

[The Sultan]

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.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

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.

[lawdog77]

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.

[Uncle Rico]

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

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

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.

[The Sultan]

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?

[lawdog77]

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/

[The Sultan]

Here's a theory:

https://www.sportico.com/leagues/college-sports/2022/purchasing-nil-rights-1234667232/

Behind a paywall so I can't really see it.

[lawdog77]

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

[Spotcheck Billy]

.


"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?

[The Equalizer]

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.   

[muwarrior69]

.


"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.

[Shooter McGavin]

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.

[Nukem2]

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.

[The Sultan]

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.