It won't be a title 9 problem if they pay all athletes. I am not saying I support it, but you hear rumblings from big 10 athletic departments that is the route they will go, if the ncaa allows.
Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)
- Thread starter ISUcyclones11
- Start date
That is 100% not what you are hearing from many AD’s. There are thousands of athletes at some schools to pay them all equally would crush some AD’s if it was any significant amount and if it wasn’t significant then the athletes actually making the money would be pissed that they aren’t getting any real money. Plus the legal issues of this would be chaos. Again if it happened it would be forced not by choice
They may consider themselves self sustaining, but when they screw up, they rush to the umbrella under the universities protection. Who do you think paid for Michigan State athletic department's $500 million screw-up? Or Michigan athletic departments $490 million screw-up? Or Penn States $100 million athletic department screw-up? Or The Ohio States $46 million athletic department screw-up? The universities did (i.e. students and taxpayers). That is why I support handing over any proceeds to the university. They should pay for the privilege of using the schools name in their department. It would be nice if the university presidents grew gonads when it came to salaries and buyouts, and holding people accountable but that is for another day.
Totally wrong. Big 10 is already discussing revenue sharing with players and The Ohio State president didn't speak out against paying players when the subject came up. It won't come by force. Big 10 is on the cusp of ruining college athletics.
Going to combine two answers into one. First I agree with your first post completely. Second no the big ten is not considering paying players. A group of athletes is attempting to get them to pay but the big ten doesn’t want to pay players at all for all the reasons I mentioned and even more that I have not.
I don’t think this is accurate at all.
One of the Big 10 members at media days did say something to that affect, but it seemed to be more of a misstatement than a look at what they are looking to do.
The place it still could show up is assistant coaches, though schools like ISU have found a way to stay competitive enough on assistant salaries. At least close enough where if they make good hires more often than not they can be good. MBB is the next logical place where we will see it. And every once in a great while you’ll see a school just decide to dump cash and build a non rev sport into a big winner like PSU did in wrestling when they hired Sanderson.
I wonder if we will see some clashing between coaches wanting donors to divert money to NIL, and ADs wanting donors to keep pumping their operating budgets. At a lot of schools the coaches and ADs both have a heavy hand in meeting with donors.
Plus its just not pay. As employees could they collectively bargain for medical benefits during college? What about deferred lifetime medical expenses to cover sport related injuries. Does employee status change Universities liability for CTE liability?
My guess is there are just as many schools that would choose a different path if some P5 schools choose to make athletes employees. I would agree with the ND Athletic Director, if court rulings dictate athlete status as employees, you could see some schools spin off athletic teams to a separate legal entity from the University. So Iowa State could sell its football brand to private investors to would operate the football program as a private business.
The ND AD also mentioned some schools would choose to operate sport programs more along the idealized "traditional" scholar-athlete model. Student-athletes would not be employees.
I think a third sport will start getting more money even tho it doesn't make money. Like Iowa will dump into wrestling. Other schools might do baseball or women's basketball. Just depends what schools have for strong non rev sports.
Ohio State is one of the schools that might favor making athletes as employees. I believe Penn State athletes discussed unionization.
There is hardly a consensus among Big10 schools. It wouldn't surprise me if more Big10 schools would opt out of such a structure. Just too much unknown long-term liability for entities whose main purpose is educational.
I also buy season tickets and I can’t deduct Cyclone Club money. The government stopped that several years ago as you get a “benefit” by donor level…i.e.- your place in line to renew your tickets (or purchase tickets)
We are already seeing a form of paying for play. Nine SEC teams give performance bonuses based on education and i think a few Big 12 teams do the same. Michigan is talking about giving bonuses. BIG 10 and I imagine other power 5 schools pay a stipend.i read somewhere that it was more than $2000 in 2015. It's not hard to imagine the Big 10 making a leap to some sort of outright paying to play to get a jump ahead of the SEC. I have a hard time believing the board of regents separating the athletic department from the university. If they are spun off, protections for women athletics would depend on the good faith of the athletic director, which is in short supply.
Bama and Auburn will move to the East and Mizzou will move to the West
