NCAA To Allow Power 5 Conferences To Pay Players

[Hockeybuckeye]

Wisconsin has an awful football program, and OSU's program is elite.

I'll say this that Wisconsin's football program is in a rebuilding phase and former Buckeye Coach Fickell is a great hire for them but this leads into my real point.
In the now NIL and pay to play world schools with top football program will most likely be in bidding wars for the top talent and just how much money will they commit to that?
I've already seen money allotted for women's programs at Ohio State moved to the football NIL account!
Football revenue funds all the other sports programs so will the increased need for King Football's spending could mean less funds available to go to teams like women's hockey?

 

[robertearle]

I've already seen money allotted for women's programs at Ohio State moved to the football NIL account!

"Allotted" by who? Moved by who?

Maybe you have structured that sentence badly, and want to take another try at it?

Because a university allotting NIL money would be an NCAA violation. A university even having an "NIL account" from which money flows out would I think be a violation.
As best I understand it, the "collective" associated with the university will have NIL monies and accounts. The university can play a role in matching up athletes with outside NIL money sources. And the new agreement will likely change these things. But for now at least, something as direct and controlled by the university as you suggest would be a violation.

 

[StPaulSam]

Is this going to turn recruiting into a "highest bidder" scenario? Are the richest schools in the Power 5 conferences (Big Ten, SEC, Pac-12, ACC, Big 12) going to basically be buying championships now?

Do you all not pay attention to what's been happening in football the last few years? This is already happening.

"Allotted" by who? Moved by who?

Maybe you have structured that sentence badly, and want to take another try at it?

I am going to take a guess that they mean money given to the Ohio State NIL collective(s) that people designated for women's hockey players went to football players. Ohio State's NIL Collective was spending a lot lot lot of money on Football the past few months. Lose three times in a row to Michigan and OhioSt. donors will turn on the money cannon.

I am not allowed to donate to Gophers' NIL as I'm a university employee. But I do understand what NIL means for our women's hockey team, specifically they are using their names, images, and likenesses to earn a little bit of money. A few of our players have a deal with a restaurant in Dinkytown, for instance. In return for a few social media posts they get a free bowl or smoothie once a week (try the anchor bowl).

Soon the NCAA is going to allow the NIL operations to move in house (the Athletic has a story about this). Ultimately the only sustainable solution is to apply some sensible regulations and some kind of union contract with student athletes to keep this from getting shot down by the courts.

If you ask people in athletics admin, non-revenue sports like women's hockey are still somewhat insulated from the more dramatic effects of this. Abbey Murphy isn't strolling into Frost's office with an outrageous demand for more NIL money like two recent start football players (Bucky Irving and Trey Potts) are alleged to have done prior to leaving for Oregon and Penn State respectively.

 

[StPaulSam]

here, NPR has a good piece about it.

https://www.npr.org/2024/05/24/nx-s1-4978680/house-ncaa-settlement-pay-college-athletes

 

[Russell Jaslow]

You're answering a different question than you asked. You didn't ask "will they be able to compete?", you asked "will they be able to pay competitively?". Basketball to a secondary extent but primarily, the source of revenue here is TV money for football. Power Four teams will be able to pay the annual $20 million (and more as it goes up) because of their football TV revenue. Non-Power Four school will just not have the revenue for that. Does that mean they won't be able to compete in the 'secondary' sports? I certainly do not know.

They find the money to pay scholarships, even when the secondary sports are loss leaders. Some will find the money (granted, not as much as the Power 5) through various means and some will not but still try to compete (just like those who don't offer scholarships). It still comes down to haves (pay competitively) and have nots (not pay competitively). It's not like we have an even playing field now. Some couldn't cut it financially before (Findlay, Robert Morris temporarily until they found the money somehow) and others will disappear with this new system if they can't find the money somehow. The traditional small hockey schools, like a Clarkson, will find a way to still compete because they have an alumni base which considers it be very important and will raise the money.

Personally, I don't find the "finding the money" to be the biggest issue in this change. I find the cultural change this will create to be the biggest impact on college sports. If it's just another "pro" team, then what's the purpose being aligned with a school? Junior hockey team players have to be in good standing attending a high school, but they don't represent the high school. A "pro" college team is representing the college ... why? What's the difference between that and a local minor league team? They happen to attend classes? Heck, the local minor league players could attend classes also.

 

[Hockeybuckeye]

Personally, I don't find the "finding the money" to be the biggest issue in this change. I find the cultural change this will create to be the biggest impact on college sports.

I feel there has been a culture problem for many many years but it was the culture withing the NCAA and how they kept student athletes under their thumb in the name of amateurism while raking in billions over the years for itself.
Did you ever see the NCAA top dogs fly commercial coach or stay in a Motel 6?
No, it was we're the NCAA and we do what we want because we answer to no one. It took lawsuits against them and state legislatures passing student athletes rights laws to finally bring them to their knees and what do we have now, a train wreck it seems.
My point being if it wasn't for the NCAA 's arrogance and unwillingness they could have come up with a fair and rational system long ago that should have avoided the genie being let out of the bottle.

 

[ZedLeppelin]

I find the cultural change this will create to be the biggest impact on college sports. If it's just another "pro" team, then what's the purpose being aligned with a school?

This is probably the biggest question in my mind, too - how is this going to change the feel of college sports? The only plus for NCAA women's hockey fans (if not the players) is that most of this money will probably never trickle down to women's hockey. I expect football players are going to see almost all of this money, unless something in the fine print requires a school to divide the money equally among all of its teams.

 

[Cornholio]

@Zed - if there is some kind of "must share with all sports" type of mandate, watch a lot of P5 schools drop a lot of sports. Football is everything to the athletic departments. I believe the 'least worst' outcome of all of this is that P5 football breaks off and governs itself as a minor league that licenses school names/facilities. This will still result unfortunately schools dropping sports since the football money will not be there but will not cost the school as much if they have to share with all other sports. Agree with the sentiment with most people that college sports as we know it is finished.

 

[Skate79]

This is probably the biggest question in my mind, too - how is this going to change the feel of college sports? The only plus for NCAA women's hockey fans (if not the players) is that most of this money will probably never trickle down to women's hockey. I expect football players are going to see almost all of this money, unless something in the fine print requires a school to divide the money equally among all of its teams.

I'll answer your question for you. There will be no 'feel' because college sports as we know it will cease to exist. The college presidents at the power schools are being driven by greed, pure and simple. BC left the Big East for the ACC for one reason only: $$$. It has been a questionable decision at best. As far as hockey goes, for the men, if the player is a high draft pick, he's leaving after one or two seasons. NIL has little impact because the player can sign and start the clock on a bigger contract down the road. The ECAC is in a unique position because the non-Ivies can implement NIL whereas the Ivies are dead set against it (the Dartmouth men's basketball case being one example, the Brown anti-trust case is what could bring the conference to its knees). Harvard will not go for any payments to any athletes, male or female. They would soon step down from D-1 than let that happen.

 

[Sierra]

This is probably the biggest question in my mind, too - how is this going to change the feel of college sports? The only plus for NCAA women's hockey fans (if not the players) is that most of this money will probably never trickle down to women's hockey. I expect football players are going to see almost all of this money, unless something in the fine print requires a school to divide the money equally among all of its teams.

It becomes a title IX issue. For every male athlete that gets paid, a female athlete must be paid. The university will decide what women programs to include. Womens Basketball, Volleyball, Hockey, and (pick another sport) It's going to be more than a free sandwich or smoothie.

 

[Hockeybuckeye]

It becomes a title IX issue. For every male athlete that gets paid, a female athlete must be paid. The university will decide what women programs to include. Womens Basketball, Volleyball, Hockey, and (pick another sport) It's going to be more than a free sandwich or smoothie.

My head hurts trying to imagine how the money will be distributed and say if the football team gets paid 50 million will that mean 50 million must go to the women?

 

[Sierra]

My head hurts trying to imagine how the money will be distributed and say if the football team gets paid 50 million will that mean 50 million must go to the women?

Great question Hockeybuckeye... the talk has increased again, that the power 5 football schools will leave the NCAA. ITS UNSUSTAINABLE!!!

 

[Cornholio]

Sierra - Title iX I believe will be the key reason why the P5 football playing schools will break out, at least their football programs. The players want to be treated as employees so they can get workmans comp, etc. (look at the current Johnson vrs NCAA lawsuit). It is much easier to simply split out the football program, created a 'company' around that licenses the school names, and treat it as a real minor league. The rest of the athletic department (maybe not mens or women's basketball since some of those upper program players will want to get paid as well) keep things the way they are. For athletes that want the education instead of pro experience, they will go to a non-P5 school. Still does not solve the NIL issue but I suspect once the main programs split out, the donators to NIL funds will follow that. I think again this is the 'least worst' outcome of all of this but may be too optimistic.

 

[Still Eeyore]

I don't see how they can now say the schollys are not "salary" with this new structure.

Because, under existing tax law, they could be fairly easily structured such that they don't need to be included in gross income.

Here is an analysis of exactly this question: https://lira.bc.edu/work/sc/801a2f33-926e-405d-97f2-16bb67bb84d7

The quick summary is that it wouldn't be hard for universities to structure their athletic scholarships in ways that would keep the educational expenses exempted from taxes. The portions of scholarships that are for room and board are already taxable, in most instances. Only the value of the direct academic expenses, such as tuition and books, is excluded from taxation.

It is a benefit received for service rendered.

Not all benefits received for employment are taxable.

The IRS and state tax authorities will want their hands on all of that.

In 2014, Sen Richard Burr argued that, if scholarship athletes become employees, then their scholarships should be taxed. IRS Commissioner John Koskinen responded with a letter saying that this was incorrect.

I fully suspect the power 5 will move to a model that has their paid athletic departments (football and men's, possibly women's basketball) be a new entity where they license the school names, all that, but the employees (i.e. athletes) will not be real students unless they get admitted through the general pool and pay like everyone else. Scholly can be part of that payment but it is 'income' like getting a check. There is a chance non-revenue sports could still survive in the current structure.

I'm not saying that universities aren't short sighted enough to try something like this, but, over the long term, it's probably pretty stupid. College football and basketball only generate as much revenue as they do because they are a part of their universities. As you start to sever that connection, and turn them more explicitly into professional minor leagues, my guess is that the universities would learn why it is that the AHL and baseball's minor leagues generate a lot less revenue than college football and basketball.

This looks like it will force the split between the power 5 and everyone else. I fully expect nearly all other non-power 5 to follow the ivy model of no scholly, benefits, etc., other than admission for playing the sport. Things are starting to get really out of hand here. NCAA sports works very well for everyone not playing power 5 football and basketball. I'm not sure why they can't just split that out and leave everything else alone.

I have no idea why you would think that the Power 5 conferences paying their players has any impact at all on whether it makes sense for non-Power 5 schools to offer scholarships.

 

[Sierra]

Sierra - Title iX I believe will be the key reason why the P5 football playing schools will break out, at least their football programs. The players want to be treated as employees so they can get workmans comp, etc. (look at the current Johnson vrs NCAA lawsuit). It is much easier to simply split out the football program, created a 'company' around that licenses the school names, and treat it as a real minor league. The rest of the athletic department (maybe not mens or women's basketball since some of those upper program players will want to get paid as well) keep things the way they are. For athletes that want the education instead of pro experience, they will go to a non-P5 school. Still does not solve the NIL issue but I suspect once the main programs split out, the donators to NIL funds will follow that. I think again this is the 'least worst' outcome of all of this but may be too optimistic.

Well said, I pray for your optimism...

 

[Still Eeyore]

Just because this deal was signed by the Power 5, what's to stop other conferences and schools to follow a similar model?

Because the settlement only changes the rules to allow for paying athletes at Power 5 schools. Everyone else is still operating under the old rules.

 

[Still Eeyore]

@Zed - if there is some kind of "must share with all sports" type of mandate, watch a lot of P5 schools drop a lot of sports. Football is everything to the athletic departments.

There is no "must share with all sports" mandate in the settlement. Title IX might require that money be allocated to women's sports as well as men's, but it might not. It's not clear, so expect litigation on this question.

This will still result unfortunately schools dropping sports since the football money will not be there . . .

Why wouldn't the football money still be there? It won't just vanish. Unless the licensing that you speak of involves not actually charging the football and basketball teams any money, the athletic department would still be collecting revenue from the programs.

One issue is that splitting football and basketball off from the athletic department would probably have Title IX implications. If those sports are not considered core educational activities, then Title IX wouldn't apply. This would lead to massive shakeups, because the schools would then be providing substantially more opportunities, as defined under the law, to women than they are to men, since the resources devoted to sports that are now exclusively money makers would no longer be included in the calculations. Probably. Again, expect litigation.

 

[Still Eeyore]

It becomes a title IX issue. For every male athlete that gets paid, a female athlete must be paid.

Maybe. That's actually unclear, and will likely depend upon exactly how things are structured, and the outcome of the inevitable lawsuits.

 

[Russell Jaslow]

I feel there has been a culture problem for many many years but it was the culture withing the NCAA and how they kept student athletes under their thumb in the name of amateurism while raking in billions over the years for itself.

I'm sorry, but I'm tired of this age old whining. The NCAA is run by the college presidents. They ultimately decide what the rules are and what the NCAA does. If they didn't like it, they could change the rules. The colleges are the ultimate "board of directors" for the NCAA and they are the ones who select the president.

 

[Russell Jaslow]

I'm not saying that universities aren't short sighted enough to try something like this, but, over the long term, it's probably pretty stupid. College football and basketball only generate as much revenue as they do because they are a part of their universities. As you start to sever that connection, and turn them more explicitly into professional minor leagues, my guess is that the universities would learn why it is that the AHL and baseball's minor leagues generate a lot less revenue than college football and basketball.

This is an interesting thought.