NCAA set to allow direct payments to athletes

[Cyhig]

I haven’t caught up on all of this stuff yet, but doesn’t this new payout mean basketball only schools could theoretically afford to pay their players far more than P4 schools? They only have 1 major sport to spread the money around, while P4 schools have many sports to spread the same money around.

Which means teams like Creigton could greatly benefit from this new payout rules

I like the cap of spending, but each sport should have their own cap IMO

 

[knowlesjam]

Ah, that makes sense. I just saw this post that corroborates what you are saying - the deals were front loaded and signed before the settlement.

There is one reason, and one reason only to why we are seeing Texas Tech climbing to the top in most major college sports. Despite the loss to Texas in the Softball World Series, both men's and women's teams for Tech are a champion threat for as long as the $'s keep being spent.

 

[Pope]

I haven’t caught up on all of this stuff yet, but doesn’t this new payout mean basketball only schools could theoretically afford to pay their players far more than P4 schools? They only have 1 major sport to spread the money around, while P4 schools have many sports to spread the same money around.

Which means teams like Creigton could greatly benefit from this new payout rules

I like the cap of spending, but each sport should have their own cap IMO

You think TJ is gonna ask Jaime to drop football?

 

[Clonedogg]

Well, we now have private equity in college sports. But not Big 12 or ACC, instead Penn State and UCLA

Private equity coming to college football (Updated)

After spending the past few years circling from above, the private equity industry is at last swooping in to take a bite out of the college athletics industry.Sports Business Journ

www.footballscoop.com

 

[StPaulCyclone]

I haven’t caught up on all of this stuff yet, but doesn’t this new payout mean basketball only schools could theoretically afford to pay their players far more than P4 schools? They only have 1 major sport to spread the money around, while P4 schools have many sports to spread the same money around.

Which means teams like Creigton could greatly benefit from this new payout rules

I like the cap of spending, but each sport should have their own cap IMO

Yup. That was one of the concerns about bring Gonzaga into the B12.

 

[Cyhig]

You think TJ is gonna ask Jaime to drop football?

Of course not. I was just trying to illustrate the imbalance of this spending money. On the surface it seems the Big East basketball teams will greatly benefit from this ruling so long as they have the capital to spend as they can focus on an individual sport while the P4 teams have to spread the money around

 

[StPaulCyclone]

Well, we now have private equity in college sports. But not Big 12 or ACC, instead Penn State and UCLA

I am surprised that this was done at an institution level and not at the conference level. I wonder if this won't start a flood of this approach.

 

[Pope]

Of course not. I was just trying to illustrate the imbalance of this spending money. On the surface it seems the Big East basketball teams will greatly benefit from this ruling so long as they have the capital to spend as they can focus on an individual sport while the P4 teams have to spread the money around

My bad. I wasn't trying to ridicule your post, but I can see now it looks that way. Sorry about that. I actually agree 100% with the point you were making and I was trying to show that ISU would have to drop football to be on the same level playing field as Creighton.

 

[simply1]

Of course not. I was just trying to illustrate the imbalance of this spending money. On the surface it seems the Big East basketball teams will greatly benefit from this ruling so long as they have the capital to spend as they can focus on an individual sport while the P4 teams have to spread the money around

As long as they have the donors for it, certainly. Their revenue is also less given the media deals focusing on football mostly.

 

[Letterkenny]

Drake's AD Brian Harden was on the radio this morning and said the Pioneer League made a rule prohibiting programs from paying players or giving scholarships (the non-scholarship has always bee the case). How does that work with the Supreme Court ruling? I guess they're saying their football players can accept "NIL" deals, but the schools can't pay them, so it's still compatible?

 

[1UNI2ISU]

Drake's AD Brian Harden was on the radio this morning and said the Pioneer League made a rule prohibiting programs from paying players or giving scholarships (the non-scholarship has always bee the case). How does that work with the Supreme Court ruling? I guess they're saying their football players can accept "NIL" deals, but the schools can't pay them, so it's still compatible?

Same route the Ivies are taking. Schools and leagues can opt out of the settlement and not provide direct payments.

 

[Cyhig]

My bad. I wasn't trying to ridicule your post, but I can see now it looks that way. Sorry about that. I actually agree 100% with the point you were making and I was trying to show that ISU would have to drop football to be on the same level playing field as Creighton.

No worries. I always respect your opinions and viewpoints here, Pope

 

[FriendlySpartan]

I am surprised that this was done at an institution level and not at the conference level. I wonder if this won't start a flood of this approach.

It’s because it wasn’t, the reporters had to retract because both UCLA and Penn State didn’t get a deal with PE, they use that service to handle ticket distribution. Was false reporting.

 

[StPaulCyclone]

It’s because it wasn’t, the reporters had to retract because both UCLA and Penn State didn’t get a deal with PE, they use that service to handle ticket distribution. Was false reporting.

Ah…the race to be first, not accurate. Journalism is dead, media is alive and not well.

 

[MeowingCows]

On to the fun part, we go. Time to split half of all the NIL proceeds to women's sports, that'll make a bunch of mega-donors happy.

 

[cykadelic2]

On to the fun part, we go. Time to split half of all the NIL proceeds to women's sports, that'll make a bunch of mega-donors happy.

This lawsuit doesn't address splitting NIL proceeds, it addresses inequality of back Pay for Play:

 

[MeowingCows]

This lawsuit doesn't address splitting NIL proceeds, it addresses inequality of back Pay for Play:

It will eventually get to splits -- where do you think the "inequality" came from? It's the same sources and usages of funds. One just is forward-looking, the other is backward. This particular case is only step one of many.

 

[cykadelic2]

It will eventually get to splits -- where do you think the "inequality" came from? It's the same sources and usages of funds. One just is forward-looking, the other is backward. This particular case is only step one of many.

I agree more Title IX lawsuits will follow but given Judge Wilken's prior rejection of Title IX related arguments, I question they will be successful given Title IX is about equal opportunities, not about revenue sharing.

 

[mwwbbfan]

It will eventually get to splits -- where do you think the "inequality" came from? It's the same sources and usages of funds. One just is forward-looking, the other is backward. This particular case is only step one of many.

It will be interesting to see how the internal dynamics work - not only FB vs MBB for splits of the $20.5 million - but other sports. There is a thread that wrestling is going to raise a certain amount that will be given to the athletic dept and then paid to wrestlers. The thing is whose share does that reduce? Previous thought was FB/MBB/WBB were the ones that would get paid. My guess is a decent chunk comes from WBB since it is not the revenue generator of the other two. Bigger picture can both WBB and wrestling exist at a high level if they are splitting a small piece of the 20.5.

 

[MeowingCows]

I agree more Title IX lawsuits will follow but given Judge Wilken's prior rejection of Title IX related arguments, I question they will be successful given Title IX is about equal opportunities, not about revenue sharing.

I tend to think that, somewhere down the line, someone will successfully connect the dots between the revenues and the opportunities. Particularly if the concept of Pay for Play hangs around as an argument. The women are not getting nearly as much of a cut on that front. Does that still qualify as an equal opportunity?