NCAA To Allow Power 5 Conferences To Pay Players

[ZedLeppelin]

https://www.foxnews.com/sports/ncaa-...reement-report

Sorry to steal this from Sierra on the Ohio State thread, but I think this deserves a thread of its own.

I'm wondering how the "not Power 5" conferences feel about this, and what it will mean for them. Also, what does this mean for scholarships? Should players have to choose between getting paid and paying their way through school? Should they get paid and still get a scholarship, too? And I'm sure a lot more questions that I'm too tired to think about tonight.

 

[ZedLeppelin]

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? I can imagine schools are going to find every way they can to hold on to their money...maybe charging paid student-athletes for their education, room and board, travel, health care, or any number of other ways make that student paycheck money go right back into the schools' pockets. Should paid students be required to sign contracts, too, to keep them from jumping schools like they do with the transfer portal?

 

[Sierra]

All great questions, ZedLeppelin. The answer is yes. The schools with the most revenue will be able to invest more into their programs. From what I've gathered, the schools will choose what womens sports get the money. If 100 football players receive money, then 100 women athletes will receive money. Wisconsin has an awful football program, and OSU's program is elite. OSU will be able to pay their athletes ten times more than WI. Unfortunately, schools like Colgate will not be able to pay at all.

 

[robertearle]

All great questions, ZedLeppelin. The answer is yes. The schools with the most revenue will be able to invest more into their programs. From what I've gathered, the schools will choose what womens sports get the money. If 100 football players receive money, then 100 women athletes will receive money. Wisconsin has an awful football program, and OSU's program is elite. OSU will be able to pay their athletes ten times more than WI. Unfortunately, schools like Colgate will not be able to pay at all.

The quotes from the law firm's statement sure makes it sound like there is an agreed to "overall cap" on how much each Power Five school can pay out. "22% of the average Power Five school's revenues". If that says what I think it says, then Ohio State won't be paying more than Wisconsin, or Michigan or Texas, or ...

I don't know what level of authority individual P5 schools will have in dividing up how they spend their cap monies, either by sport, or individual, or maybe even by gender. But does it allow a school with fewer overall varsity teams to pay their football players more, and so be able to bid more for a given player? Would a school drop sports to be able to have more cap money for football? Does Michigan scrap any thoughts of women's hockey so as to not have more non-football players to waste money on?

My guess is that that fairness concept of the cap will " trickle down" to the individual sports by agreement between conference members if not across P5 in total. If so, what happens to non P5 members of the WCHA, in our present context? Conference rearrangement with P5 WH teams in two conferences, and non-P5 teams in others, so at least at the conference level, there is competitive balance?

 

[joecct]

I'm looking at it from the D3 playup perspective. No way they stay in the competitive mix.

 

[Cornholio]

I don't see how they can now say the schollys are not "salary" with this new structure. It is a benefit received for service rendered. The IRS and state tax authorities will want their hands on all of that. 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.
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.

 

[robertearle]

(When do we stop using "Power Five"? When the Women's softball tournament ends next weekend?)

More serious question: will private schools be able to do things that public schools are precluded from doing by state laws or state legislatures?

 

[Sierra]

Zero equal revenue between schools. It's already being talked about that wealthy donations can come into athletic departments as revenue. So if school A brings in more than school B school A will pay their athletes more. IWelcome to the wild west. I believe this direction will destroy college athletics. Extremely disappointing that society thrives off of greed.

 

[robertearle]

Zero equal revenue between schools. It's already being talked about that wealthy donations can come into athletic departments as revenue. So if school A brings in more than school B school A will pay their athletes more. IWelcome to the wild west. I believe this direction will destroy college athletics. Extremely disappointing that society thrives off of greed.

Then what does "In the first year of the settlement, each school can share 22% of the average Power Five school’s revenues, which is currently projected to be significantly more than $20 million per school, per year" mean?

 

[FiveHoleFrenzy]

The quotes from the law firm's statement sure makes it sound like there is an agreed to "overall cap" on how much each Power Five school can pay out. "22% of the average Power Five school's revenues". If that says what I think it says, then Ohio State won't be paying more than Wisconsin, or Michigan or Texas, or ...

I don't know what level of authority individual P5 schools will have in dividing up how they spend their cap monies, either by sport, or individual, or maybe even by gender. But does it allow a school with fewer overall varsity teams to pay their football players more, and so be able to bid more for a given player? Would a school drop sports to be able to have more cap money for football? Does Michigan scrap any thoughts of women's hockey so as to not have more non-football players to waste money on?

My guess is that that fairness concept of the cap will " trickle down" to the individual sports by agreement between conference members if not across P5 in total. If so, what happens to non P5 members of the WCHA, in our present context? Conference rearrangement with P5 WH teams in two conferences, and non-P5 teams in others, so at least at the conference level, there is competitive balance?

There you go again, raining on the parade in duckies and bunnies land...

This was also in the Fox article which goes to the point of fairness that you mentioned. "With NIL and the transfer portal creating a free-for-all in college athletics, athletic directors also told ESPN they are "hopeful the settlement lays the groundwork for a system where success on the field is less dependent on which schools can spend the most money."

Lets, just for a moment, go into duckies and bunnies land and just imagine that slOwSU does outspend every one else to create the bestest team ever who literally can't be beat...FFS that would be a college sport I'd love to follow...NOT.

 

[robertearle]

There you go again, raining on the parade in duckies and bunnies land...

This was also in the Fox article which goes to the point of fairness that you mentioned. "With NIL and the transfer portal creating a free-for-all in college athletics, athletic directors also told ESPN they are "hopeful the settlement lays the groundwork for a system where success on the field is less dependent on which schools can spend the most money."

Lets, just for a moment, go into duckies and bunnies land and just imagine that slOwSU does outspend every one else to create the bestest team ever who literally can't be beat...FFS that would be a college sport I'd love to follow...NOT.

The Big Ten already has such sharing concepts implemented. They take whatever payouts there are for any B1G football teams playing in bowl games and divide it equally among member schools. That is eg, even when Ohio State plays two games in the playoffs, Northwestern and Rutgers get just as much of the money those games generate as Ohio State does.

 

[spwood]

More questions. If there are limits or rules, what is the enforcement mechanism? What is the punishment? Who is the enforcement mechanism?

 

[robertearle]

A quote highlighted on a volleyball web site similar to this forum, from a Yahoo Sports article:

"The portal is not addressed in the settlement. However, the new revenue-sharing model gives schools the opportunity to sign athletes to potentially binding, multi-year contracts. Most athletic administrators who spoke to Yahoo Sports believe this will decrease player movement.

Officials are discussing a range of possibilities for athlete contracts, including implementing buyout clauses that are often found in coaching contracts. There is a possibility as well to tie academic performance to contracts."

That is, the national Letter of Intent (if that survives as its title) becomes even more of an employment contract that not only obliges the school to four (or two) years, but likewise obliges the athlete to stay at the school for the number of years of the contract. We could quickly go to Major League Baseball contracts, with 'option years' - school's option, athlete's option, or mutual options - based on performance, number of minutes, games played, etc. binding the athlete, or allowing the athlete to transfer. It could severely curtail "portal" activity.

 

[Hockeybuckeye]

I'm looking at it from the D3 playup perspective. No way they stay in the competitive mix.

There are a lot of good players out there, maybe not so much Olympic caliber but good and in numbers the Power Five schools can't take them all and let's not forget a player needs an education and a degree from a school that will take them through life long after hockey so choosing a school based on that and scholarships will still be a factor.

 

[Hockeybuckeye]

We all know some college football players are allotted a lot of money so will there be a Title IX issues that a school must allot the same amount to women athletes?

 

[Timothy A]

Zero equal revenue between schools. It's already being talked about that wealthy donations can come into athletic departments as revenue. So if school A brings in more than school B school A will pay their athletes more. Welcome to the wild west. I believe this direction will destroy college athletics. Extremely disappointing that society thrives off of greed.

Hey we agree on something.

 

[Russell Jaslow]

Just because this deal was signed by the Power 5, what's to stop other conferences and schools to follow a similar model? I don't believe this precludes non-Power 5 schools to pay their athletes. Either they go off on their own self imposed rules or they decide to sign in on the agreement.

 

[robertearle]

Just because this deal was signed by the Power 5, what's to stop other conferences and schools to follow a similar model? I don't believe this precludes non-Power 5 schools to pay their athletes. Either they go off on their own self imposed rules or they decide to sign in on the agreement.

What's to stop them? Lack of revenue. If they can afford to, of course they can pay. But where do they get the money to do so?

 

[Russell Jaslow]

What's to stop them? Lack of revenue. If they can afford to, of course they can pay. But where do they get the money to do so?

I'm sure some will get the money. And if they don't, will it really be much different than now? There's always been haves and have nots. We have that now. AHA and CCHA on the men's side. They still find a way to compete, even if they don't make it to the Frozen Four. This doesn't change anything. It may widen the gap, but we've always had haves and have nots. Not every player can go to the Power 5 paying schools. Just like not every player can go now when the don't pay. It's math. There are going to be plenty of good and/or late developing players who will need a place to play. Just like now.

 

[robertearle]

I'm sure some will get the money. And if they don't, will it really be much different than now? There's always been haves and have nots. We have that now. AHA and CCHA on the men's side. They still find a way to compete, even if they don't make it to the Frozen Four. This doesn't change anything. It may widen the gap, but we've always had haves and have nots. Not every player can go to the Power 5 paying schools. Just like not every player can go now when the don't pay. It's math. There are going to be plenty of good and/or late developing players who will need a place to play. Just like now.

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.