NCAA President floats new D1 Subdivision/NIL Plan

[ARon]

1 hour ago, billikenfan05 said:

Mark Titus mentioned today that at some point he thinks the workaround will be essentially a licensing agreement between the schools and the “football team” they can wear the schools name but they aren’t “a part of the school” 

That would create some interesting implications for the teams' tax status.

[TheA_Bomb]

It's bizarre, it leads me to think that there's some insider knowledge of a future issue that this solves?!  

Just seems like it creates more problems. 

But it's all talk right now. It's the only change plan I've heard. 

[Soderball]

38 minutes ago, Aquinas said:

A min 30k wage for every sport will make all none paying schools second class citizens in every sport. All of the good players in every sport will go to the 30k schools. The mess that is div 1 men's bb will spread to every  sport.

The only sports that matter are Football and basketball.

For most big state schools the athletic dept exists so that they can operate the football team.

A lot of these non-revenue sports will disappear; and i would expect the D1 requirements to get easier over time as schools need to have competition; state schools would be exploding and firing coaches every month as they rage about inability to win when they're all playing each other and have no cupcakes. Jimbo Fisher and the A&M cult is just the tip of that iceberg.

I know people here like to harp on nonrevenue sports but at the end of the day they just aren't very important to the alumni or administration or anyone as big time MBB and Football are.

[Soderball]

24 minutes ago, TheA_Bomb said:

It's bizarre, it leads me to think that there's some insider knowledge of a future issue that this solves?!  

Just seems like it creates more problems. 

But it's all talk right now. It's the only change plan I've heard. 

I think that's right. It's a fear move meant to try and head off impending legal trouble.

[Lord Elrond]

34 minutes ago, Soderball said:

The only sports that matter are Football and basketball.

For most big state schools the athletic dept exists so that they can operate the football team.

A lot of these non-revenue sports will disappear; and i would expect the D1 requirements to get easier over time as schools need to have competition; state schools would be exploding and firing coaches every month as they rage about inability to win when they're all playing each other and have no cupcakes. Jimbo Fisher and the A&M cult is just the tip of that iceberg.

I know people here like to harp on nonrevenue sports but at the end of the day they just aren't very important to the alumni or administration or anyone as big time MBB and Football are.

And yet D2, D3 and NAIA athletics exist. They can all figure out how to operate sports and have national championships without any of the money the big schools get. Are the D1 schools all run by people who are not very bright and can’t figure out how to do what all the small schools have been doing for years? Must be a bunch of total idiots running things at the D1 level.

[Soderball]

45 minutes ago, Lord Elrond said:

And yet D2, D3 and NAIA athletics exist. They can all figure out how to operate sports and have national championships without any of the money the big schools get. Are the D1 schools all run by people who are not very bright and can’t figure out how to do what all the small schools have been doing for years? Must be a bunch of total idiots running things at the D1 level.

How many D2/D3/NAIA games have you been to? Season tix have you held? You travel cross-country for NAIA tournaments? I'm guessing that's: not many, no, no

 

Sounds irrelevant man, sorry.

We didn't build a $80,000,000 10,000 seat arena, serve concessions etc. there, pay 15$ to park, have a $20,000,000 office/luxury spa, and $2,400,000 salary coach so we can do battle with UMSL and St Louis College of Pharmacy Eutectics.

You really need to get some perspective on what you're talking about. We are not small-time. We used to have aspirations of going to the BEast and competing at the highest level. What happened?

 

I didn't go to SLU dude, I'm here because this is the main game in town. SLU's budget and facilities are eons beyond my SIUE Cougars. Why isn't the performance eons beyond it?

 

If college sports goes down everyone else is going down with us. SLU has more money than most programs do. There's P5 teams without our budget and with way higher obligations(football)

[cgeldmacher]

I interpret this move by the NCAA as a first move in a bigger game.  I believe that the NCAA and many of its member institutions are against pay for play.  They can't be against NIL, because NIL is law now.   But, they don't like that NIL has turned into pay for play.  It seems obvious that pay for play will benefit a minority of the universities that are involved to the detriment of the majority.  Since the NCAA is really just an aggregate of its member institutions, the majority of those institutions are pushing this, and the NCAA is the governing body that has to make it happen.

I believe that the NCAA is pushing these new rules as a way to say to everyone "see, we are allowing athletes to get paid and we are making it equitable to everyone," and that this will be followed by rules that prohibit pay for play.  I don't see how direct contact through an entity like the Billiken Exchange can be eliminated, but I think the majority of institutions would like to make the NIL funds like the BVF obsolete with rule changes.

I see this as a potential life line for schools like SLU.  If schools with football teams have to contribute way more than those without, we could come out on the winning end of these new rules.

[cheeseman]

33 minutes ago, cgeldmacher said:

I interpret this move by the NCAA as a first move in a bigger game.  I believe that the NCAA and many of its member institutions are against pay for play.  They can't be against NIL, because NIL is law now.   But, they don't like that NIL has turned into pay for play.  It seems obvious that pay for play will benefit a minority of the universities that are involved to the detriment of the majority.  Since the NCAA is really just an aggregate of its member institutions, the majority of those institutions are pushing this, and the NCAA is the governing body that has to make it happen.

I believe that the NCAA is pushing these new rules as a way to say to everyone "see, we are allowing athletes to get paid and we are making it equitable to everyone," and that this will be followed by rules that prohibit pay for play.  I don't see how direct contact through an entity like the Billiken Exchange can be eliminated, but I think the majority of institutions would like to make the NIL funds like the BVF obsolete with rule changes.

I see this as a potential life line for schools like SLU.  If schools with football teams have to contribute way more than those without, we could come out on the winning end of these new rules.

If you get money to come to a school under the guise that you will help sell potato chips by making a single audio commercial, then in reality you are getting paid to play for that school.  Pay to play by any other name is still pay to play

[Taj79]

NIL is a farce; it's pay for play.  Call it what it is.  Drop the charade.

[Soderball]

26 minutes ago, Taj79 said:

NIL is a farce; it's pay for play.  Call it what it is.  Drop the charade.

and even more mercenary than NBA or G League. CBB right now is based on one-year deals, year-to-year "contracts" .. teams have to build and retain rosters EVERY YEAR. That's the world as it is now, there is no guarantee that ANY player will be back the next year.

Extenuating circumstances(like a player's hometown, friends, family, etc.) can impact that, but the principle is that players must be re-recruited and retained every year. The only thing solid about a roster is what's in front of you that day.

[cgeldmacher]

1 hour ago, cheeseman said:

If you get money to come to a school under the guise that you will help sell potato chips by making a single audio commercial, then in reality you are getting paid to play for that school.  Pay to play by any other name is still pay to play

I get that, but I think the NCAA feels they playing field is a bit more fair if those deals have to be done individually rather than collectives just saying "transfer to us and we'll write you a check for $150,000."

[cheeseman]

20 minutes ago, cgeldmacher said:

I get that, but I think the NCAA feels they playing field is a bit more fair if those deals have to be done individually rather than collectives just saying "transfer to us and we'll write you a check for $150,000."

A rose by any other name is still a rose

[Soderball]

1 hour ago, cgeldmacher said:

I get that, but I think the NCAA feels they playing field is a bit more fair if those deals have to be done individually rather than collectives just saying "transfer to us and we'll write you a check for $150,000."

No they want to prevent the athletes from becoming "student employees" like grad students.

this scenario is a nightmare for collegiate athletics, but lawyers see a payday and are licking their chops. The NCAA is terrified because this will quickly develop into an existential threat for most athletic depts period, and don't think this will just be D1.. D2 and D3 will get hit too. The result will be the end of organized athletics at universities. This is a monster that's gonna consume itself eventually. Money is everything.

 

there's a fundamental difference of course in athletes and grad student workers, grad student workers are often teaching classes, grading, etc. ... while non-revenue-sports athletes are not generating actual value for the university. Good luck getting lawyers seeking a payday and athletes looking for an allowance to see it that way. The courts have a good shot of being welcoming of this argument, and as previous posters have said even in a place like Alabama a state legislator cannot come out and talk about how they passed some crazy laws so they could avoid paying the ladies. The costs are going to explode and most university athletic depts are gonna fold.

[Taj79]

Why can't a NIL deal be like a free agent contract?  Sign here for four years.  Why does a NIL deal have to be one year? Or does it?  Maybe like a pro contract, if certain milestones are not met, you cut the kid after a year or two.  The pros do it all the time.  Why not us?

[Soderball]

10 minutes ago, Taj79 said:

Why can't a NIL deal be like a free agent contract?  Sign here for four years.  Why does a NIL deal have to be one year? Or does it?  Maybe like a pro contract, if certain milestones are not met, you cut the kid after a year or two.  The pros do it all the time.  Why not us?

because the school cannot make a contract with the players; and a business can't obligate the player to play for a third-party entity.

 

it's for their "name, image, and likeness" .. it's just legalized handing cash to a player in exchange for them endorsing a pickleball team, or pickles.

 

If they are signing contracts with the school.. Title IX.. employment rights.. unionization.. etc.

[Taj79]

good points all.  thanks.

[JMM28]

3 hours ago, Soderball said:

because the school cannot make a contract with the players; and a business can't obligate the player to play for a third-party entity.

 

it's for their "name, image, and likeness" .. it's just legalized handing cash to a player in exchange for them endorsing a pickleball team, or pickles.

 

If they are signing contracts with the school.. Title IX.. employment rights.. unionization.. etc.

And the coaches don’t want it either. They still want the flexibility to launch a dude if he sucks after a year or two. 

[thunderdan]

I'm all for collegiate athletes getting money in their pockets.  It was long overdue (especially given how much money they generate for the schools).  To me, the bigger issue is the ease of transfers.  I liked when an athlete had to sit-out for a year, if/when they transferred.  It truly made an athlete think about their decision, and if it was worth the time spent off-the-court. 

Also, give the athletes ONE transfer opportunity, not multiple. 

[billikenfan05]

12 minutes ago, thunderdan said:

I'm all for collegiate athletes getting money in their pockets.  It was long overdue (especially given how much money they generate for the schools).  To me, the bigger issue is the ease of transfers.  I liked when an athlete had to sit-out for a year, if/when they transferred.  It truly made an athlete think about their decision, and if it was worth the time spent off-the-court. 

Also, give the athletes ONE transfer opportunity, not multiple. 

One Transfer

One Grad Transfer

Coaching Change = Transfer Waiver

Enter the Portal and you have to change schools

[Soderball]

28 minutes ago, thunderdan said:

I'm all for collegiate athletes getting money in their pockets.  It was long overdue (especially given how much money they generate for the schools).  To me, the bigger issue is the ease of transfers.  I liked when an athlete had to sit-out for a year, if/when they transferred.  It truly made an athlete think about their decision, and if it was worth the time spent off-the-court. 

Also, give the athletes ONE transfer opportunity, not multiple. 

Coaches should have to sit-out too, then.

One transfer is what we have now. The waiver process is a farce and should be eliminated. Either let them transfer or don't.

[cheeseman]

14 minutes ago, Soderball said:

Coaches should have to sit-out too, then.

One transfer is what we have now. The waiver process is a farce and should be eliminated. Either let them transfer or don't.

A coach whose contract has expired should not be required to sit out - you probably meant that in your statement.  If they sign a contract and have an opt out clause like you often see in baseball now for big name contracts then no penalty.  Otherwise, I agree with all you said.

[Soderball]

2 minutes ago, cheeseman said:

A coach whose contract has expired should not be required to sit out - you probably meant that in your statement.  If they sign a contract and have an opt out clause like you often see in baseball now for big name contracts then no penalty.  Otherwise, I agree with all you said.

It's not fair to not give players that opportunity if coaches have it. They're all paid to play and win, they should have the opportunity to up their earnings, or get playing time, or whatever.

[HoosierPal]

1 hour ago, Soderball said:

Coaches should have to sit-out too, then.

One transfer is what we have now. The waiver process is a farce and should be eliminated. Either let them transfer or don't.

Question for you.  I'm interested in your opinion.  Any student can transfer at semester break, enroll in his/her new university and be 'eligible' for classes the first day of the second semester.  Should basketball players be allowed to transfer between semesters and be eligible to play first game of the second semester at a new school?

For me, if you have unlimited free transfers, then yes they should be.  If there isn't a scholarship available, either pay your way or get NIL money to cover your expenses.  Prime example, anyone can name at least a dozen P5 schools that could use the 3 point shooter that we have.

[Lord Elrond]

14 minutes ago, billikenfan05 said:

One Transfer

One Grad Transfer

Coaching Change = Transfer Waiver

Enter the Portal and you have to change schools

The more restrictions you place on player movement, the more you have to place on coaches. It can’t be just limitations on players, the school and the coach can’t just get rid of players at the end of every year while placing limitations on player movement, that’s not going to fly, especially if you are getting Congress and lawyers involved. If you want the player to stay, and place limits on the player’s movement, then the coach just doesn’t get to push a player off after every year.

[cheeseman]

1 hour ago, Soderball said:

It's not fair to not give players that opportunity if coaches have it. They're all paid to play and win, they should have the opportunity to up their earnings, or get playing time, or whatever.

Not meaning to argue but then coaches could only be on one year contracts or else they could never trade up.  I think your idea of letting them leave if the coach leaves keeps the players on even ground with coaches who leave.