|
|
Post by 00hmh on May 20, 2024 9:50:46 GMT -6
Buried in the article is that the non P4 FBS conferences, including BSU would have to come up with 2 mil a year for the next 10 years...
That is not good news. Where do MAC teams come up with 2 mil more a year? Where do they cut 2mil, without of course giving up their commitment to FBS?
The settlement MIGHT be the basis for regulation of NIL, that is good. It will provide a framework for reasonable revenue sharing. But revenue sharing is not our problem, it's lack of revenue to share.
This is preliminary but the negotiation has been done so far without much if any input from those smaller schools.
It involves the NCAA out of operations budget paying some, which cuts the services the NCAA now provides at unknown cost to all schools. Then, they pay off the bulk of it from the member schools sued.
"So how to pay off 90% of $2.8 billion?
Send a bill or withhold significant future revenue distributions to the Mid-American Conference and the Horizon League. And the MEAC and Patriot League and all of the 27 conferences that make up the 32-league NCAA — the Power 5, and the Other 27 — and ask those 27 smaller leagues, whose former student-athletes account for a tiny fraction of the plaintiffs in the House class action, to pay nearly $1 billion of the total bill."
The rationale:
The non P5 conferences, "with close to 300 schools total, receive approximately 60% of total NCAA revenue distributions. The Power 5 receives the other 40%. Ergo, by the NCAA’s sense of fair play, the Other 27 should pay 60% of that $1.65 billion."
|
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on May 21, 2024 6:40:57 GMT -6
Total screw job of non P4 schools. Ridiculous and could destroy some athletic departments.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on May 21, 2024 7:19:51 GMT -6
Schools who are not FBS due to finances get hit for bigger bills than MAC level.
Everyone essentially paying past players at the big time high revenue P4/5 schools.
We'll see more about this, maybe change it, maybe see more reason for it. But it sure looks like P4 has bullied the NCAA.
|
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on May 21, 2024 7:25:18 GMT -6
Not that they could afford it, but could schools at our level or lower counter sue or do something to mitigate being left holding far too much of the bag?
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on May 21, 2024 10:50:02 GMT -6
Not that they could afford it, but could schools at our level or lower counter sue or do something to mitigate being left holding far too much of the bag?
The House plaintiffs have all defendants by the short hairs it appears. If defendants (all of them together) don't settle they are very likely all to lose more at trial. And however that is allocated, the NCAA goes bankrupt for sure, meaning the individual university defendants might well then face not only larger individual damages as members, but maybe as member institutions to pay what the NCAA cannot. Not clear how much of this is joint and several liability.
This means the settlement has to go through. Almost certainly without that everybody is screwed worse, and probably the chaos created by destroying the NCAA is worse than not having an NCAA in terms of future harm.
The big advantage for the future in settling is to build in a framework to bring NIL and revenue sharing under some kind of control.
The 27 have some small leverage to negotiate their share of the settlement down a bit, it depends on the p4/5 giving in. But let's face it, the NCAA is already ruled de facto by the big conferences with their high revenues they are not going to budge very much.
|
|
|
|
Post by CallingBS on May 21, 2024 11:20:40 GMT -6
Total screw job of non P4 schools. Ridiculous and could destroy some athletic departments. One minor word correction..."will" destroy... |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on May 21, 2024 13:48:17 GMT -6
From The Athletic on the NYT site.
Very good article.
"One Division I commissioner estimated that non-FBS conferences would be on the hook for $2.5 million per year to help cover the NCAA’s costs of the settlement. Two sources in different CCA22 leagues said that equates to roughly 25 percent of the annual revenue those schools receive from the NCAA. That level of reduction could lead to cutting sports and athlete resources, despite a lawsuit that was clearly aimed at power-conference schools with the most lucrative media deals.
“The burden that’s being pushed to us is not following any sort of logic as it relates to the court order,” one non-Power 4 source said.
Despite a looming deadline to finalize the settlement, the non-FBS leagues plan to submit a formal request to the NCAA’s Board of Governors and Division I Board of Directors on Monday, according to sources briefed on the proposal, asking to either delay a final decision on the financial breakdown or adjust it to an equivalent rate of revenue reductions for each conference. The latter would leave the power conferences responsible for roughly 60 percent of the damages."
"Will schools decide to cut athlete benefits, administrative positions or entire sports? Will this finally stem the tide of ballooning, seven-figure annual coaching salaries, bloated staffs and multi-million-dollar buyouts? "
“It could be the sports you sponsor,” Pollard said. “It could be what you do for the sports you sponsor. It could be the number of staff you have in football. It could be the number of players you have on a football team. Everything’s going to be on the table.”
|
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on May 22, 2024 11:55:49 GMT -6
I think we could definitely cut football scholarships given the number of kids who never play/retire/xfer without seeing the field. But how much does that save annually? What does it do in the big picture?
|
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on May 27, 2024 7:40:13 GMT -6
The non-revenue sports programs SHOULD be cut. There is no justification for them. Nobody cares, nobody goes to watch them. They add nothing to the school except for the fortunate handful getting the scholarships. Even for them, the benefits of competition, teamwork, achievement, etc. could be had for about 5% of the current amounts spent on the program. Like current club sports. The fellow students of the athletes should not be paying the other 95% for a bunch of unnecessary bells and whistles. It's perfectly idiotic for students to pay for, say for example, the gymnastics team to Massachusetts, or Florida, or the West Coast or wherever. These students are going into debt as it is.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on May 27, 2024 8:38:05 GMT -6
There is no athletic program that could pay for itself, considering the capital cost of facilities and the expense of their maintenance which is not in the athletic budget.
Judging from student attendance, nobody cares.
For that matter perhaps we should close the library, chemistry labs and immediately cut all math classes.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jun 1, 2024 9:47:41 GMT -6
Here are two stories about the settlement worth looking at:
On the latter issues there is a serious conflict between the protection of economic markets purposes of Anti Trust Law and the discrimination in education purposes of Title IX. Precedent has carved out an uneasy compromise in multiple past cases, none of them quite address the issues here.
|
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Jun 2, 2024 7:44:56 GMT -6
Obviously women whose sports lost their schools millions of dollars and were financed by fees on their fellow students should also share revenue from sports that did make money. Why? Because they will throw a huge, whiney and well-publicized fit if they dont get any of that money and they are a group whose interests are viewed favorably by the establishment and the establishment media.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jun 2, 2024 8:55:17 GMT -6
Obviously women whose sports lost their schools millions of dollars and were financed by fees on their fellow students should also share revenue from sports that did make money. Why? Because they will throw a huge, whiney and well-publicized fit if they dont get any of that money and they are a group whose interests are viewed favorably by the establishment and the establishment media. Revenue should be shared, nobody disagrees.
The rest of that is just a rant against women's sports, and false, or very poorly supported by the facts.
Women's sports receive receive far less subsidy per athlete than the men's programs, at least at all programs at BSU, and at most institutions where FB loses money. They lose less money getting effectively very little subsidy from student fees per athlete compared to the subsidy given the men (mostly in FB but also baseball, soccer, volleyball, golf, track and field and the rest where there are two similar programs).
On the sexist description of whining by athletes, the House lawsuit representative plaintiff was a male swimmer whose sport produced no revenue to speak of and was more highly supported than women at his school.
|
|
|
|
Post by lmills72 on Jun 2, 2024 9:51:33 GMT -6
Women's sports receive receive far less subsidy per athlete than the men's programs, at least at all programs at BSU, and at most institutions where FB loses money. They lose less money getting effectively very little subsidy from student fees per athlete compared to the subsidy given the men (mostly in FB but also baseball, soccer, volleyball, golf, track and field and the rest where there are two similar programs). This may be true but most advocates of equal footing for women's sports would fight you to the death regarding their "right" to lose just as much money and be just at heavily subsidized at the men.Surely we should at least waste as much money on the women as we do on the men. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jun 2, 2024 10:23:13 GMT -6
Women's sports receive receive far less subsidy per athlete than the men's programs, at least at all programs at BSU, and at most institutions where FB loses money. They lose less money getting effectively very little subsidy from student fees per athlete compared to the subsidy given the men (mostly in FB but also baseball, soccer, volleyball, golf, track and field and the rest where there are two similar programs). This may be true but most advocates of equal footing for women's sports would fight you to the death regarding their "right" to lose just as much money and be just at heavily subsidized at the men.Surely we should at least waste as much money on the women as we do on the men. On that last one they may have a point.
My point has been that "wasting" money on non revenue sports is not in fact a waste, that we don't exactly see those programs (men and women) with very much wasteful spending. We hire cheap, we spend very close to the minimum needed to field a program. The argument about cutting fat in revenue sports is largely that everybody else spends as much. And that there is greater value in winning there. But, fielding a competitive men's team in FB when the cost requires dropping non revenue sports isn't that strong.
Looking just at all men vs all women, to claim that the men bring in more money doesn't mean so much when net of revenue they lose MORE money for every male athlete. At least that is true at all but about 50(?) schools where they make so much money on FB (or BB) that the extra money spent on men results in no loss or "less" loss for the men.
Men's non revenue programs and almost all women's programs are relatively inexpensive, they have much less spent on coaching, travel (per athlete), staff support, equipment and so on. The very expensive FB program spends more in all areas, and even if it has revenue still loses more money net of revenue produced.
The justification is the status, "good will" produced and hard to measure value of publicity and greater alumni satisfaction. I agree with that up to a point, but Sherman would deny most of that has any or enough value.
I see value to the institution in having athletes as part of what defines our institution. If we are to become more like Ivy Tech and/or if the ideal of what a good mid major university changes nationally then, who knows what becomes the standard? I believe expensive "big time" CFB will not be part of that new standard.
I support keeping those non revenue sports, using a reasonable amount of student fees to subsidize athletics, broadly, and looking for revenue or cost savings in FB in the long run. I think we are stuck with MAC mania for FBS FB for the moment but this lawsuit may change that longer term.
|
|
