NCAA NCAA settlement a historic day for paying college athletes. What comes next?

[JaJa]

Does anyone want to discuss the NCAA settlement and the new revenue sharing rules for Division 1 Teams?

Thamel: It's a new day for college sports, but the future remains unclear

A landmark settlement will provide billions in pay to college athletes. But because this is college sports, nothing will be easy.

www.espn.com

 

[arabiandoublefront]

I just don't understand how this is fair to everyone else who does an extracurricular activity in college. There's such an overvalue on college athletes, just because they get the most media coverage. Are cheerleaders considered under this? What about the band and dance team members who perform at games and meets? And I feel like this could just raise the price for going to college in general.

 

[JaJa]

I just don't understand how this is fair to everyone else who does an extracurricular activity in college. There's such an overvalue on college athletes, just because they get the most media coverage. Are cheerleaders considered under this? What about the band and dance team members who perform at games and meets? And I feel like this could just raise the price for going to college in general.

All good points. My main concern at this point is that this settlement will be to the detriment of everyone but NCAA Division I football and basketball players. NCAA is funding retroactive payments in part by lowering distributions to all NCAA sports including those who do not benefit from this. Gymnastics, not being a big money maker, will be on the losing end of this. I have thought from the start that this was a really really bad idea and will be very disruptive. Its the end of college sports as we knew it.

 

[arabiandoublefront]

All good points. My main concern at this point is that this settlement will be to the detriment of everyone but NCAA Division I football and basketball players. NCAA is funding retroactive payments in part by lowering distributions to all NCAA sports including those who do not benefit from this. Gymnastics, not being a big money maker, will be on the losing end of this. I have thought from the start that this was a really really bad idea and will be very disruptive. Its the end of college sports as we knew it.

What I also don't understand is why don't football and men's basketball have a minor league like baseball? I'm terrified for Olympic sports at this rate because club isn't free while NCAA has been if you're a scholarship athlete.

 

[JaJa]

https://www.npr.org/2024/05/24/nx-s1-4978680/house-ncaa-settlement-pay-college-athletes

 

[OnoNoKomachi]

Whenever I read an article speculating AI will replace my profession, I'm going to return to this thread.

Does anyone want to discuss the NCAA settlement and the new revenue sharing rules for Division 1 Teams?

Thamel: It's a new day for college sports, but the future remains unclear

A landmark settlement will provide billions in pay to college athletes. But because this is college sports, nothing will be easy.

www.espn.com

I don't, but I have to. This could be the beginning of the end for men's NCAA gymnastics. At least we have a beachhead with GymACT.

Time will tell.

What I also don't understand is why don't football and men's basketball have a minor league like baseball? I'm terrified for Olympic sports at this rate because club isn't free while NCAA has been if you're a scholarship athlete.

Why should they? They are getting a free farm system from the NCAA. It probably just worked out that way because college basketball and football were established long before (and in a different century) than their pro analogs.

The NCAA and the Big Time sports schools are also in no hurry to give up football or men's basketball.

When it comes to college sports, the choice between everything else and football is always football.

 

[JaJa]

I don't, but I have to. This could be the beginning of the end for men's NCAA gymnastics. At least we have a beachhead with GymACT.

Time will tell.

I think for sure it is the beginning of the end for all the non revenue college sports. (I actually also think there will be extremely detrimental aspects of this for Football and mens and women's basketball but that will be slower and less obvious).

 

[Denn]

Honestly, I wonder whether, at this point, with money involved the way it is now, sports should be separated from school — college and high school both.

 

[arabiandoublefront]

Honestly, I wonder whether, at this point, with money involved the way it is now, sports should be separated from school — college and high school both.

At least, for Illinois, I think this would be detrimental to athletes who would not be happy doing club sports. If club was my only option, I would have quit after middle school. There would have been no place for me being a gymnast turning 15 years old somewhere between a level 4 (bars and vault) and 6 (floor). There wasn't an Xcel option at the time, though.

I don't necessarily think you're wrong, though, at least for college.

I think it's extremely stupid that college is just going to become a place for football and basketball athletes. It's very wtf. I'm honestly really pissed off about this whole thing. I'm considering not watching college basketball or football next year. I know I'm just one person, but if it's going to be this way.

 

[JaJa]

From cbs sports

House v. NCAA settlement winners and losers: Athletes take monumental step, non-revenue sports at risk

Here are the winners and losers from the House v. NCAA settlement

www.cbssports.com

Loser: Non-revenue sports​

The fate of non-revenue sports (which at most schools means everything besides football and men's basketball) will hang in the balance as athletic administrators grapple with the financial ramifications of the settlement. In addition to potential measures such as staff cuts and delayed facilities upgrades, non-revenue sports could be on the chopping block. That's especially true for departments already struggling with financial solvency. With hits coming to their NCAA distributions and pressure rising to pay players in high-profile sports, don't be surprised to see lower-tier Division I departments axe some of their financially inefficient programs for the sake of making ends meet.

 

[OnoNoKomachi]

Honestly, I wonder whether, at this point, with money involved the way it is now, sports should be separated from school — college and high school both.

As a die-hard lover of men's NCAA gymnastics (the greatest sport of all time).... I agree with this (at least for college).

The purpose of educational institutions is to educate people. No other country has a system of intercollegiate sports on the level that the U.S. does. If club sports are fine for people going to Oxford, it should be fine for people going to University of Oklahoma.

Japan has intercollegiate sports at a high level, but to the best of my knowledge, those teams are part of sports science universities where the main purpose is to educate future sports scientists.

Higher education in the US is expensive. Is it fair to ask people who have no interest in any sport to foot some of that bill? I don't think so.

Football and men's basketball at the Big Time college sports level are essentially professional sports. I say get rid of those, too. That isn't going to happen in our lifetimes, but it should.

Sometimes if you want something, you have to pay for it. I've given plenty of $$ to men's NCAA gymnastics teams and organizations. I've also supported GymACT and if (when) the time comes, I will shift all my support to them.

 

[cuuf]

Now that the olympics are over and we have a little more information on how the settlement is starting to shape up I find this a fascinating conversation on what the future is going to look like. I would rather talk about potential outcomes than spend a bunch of time harumphing about end of amateur athletics, football is bad, etc, the fact is change is coming whether we like or not. So what do we know:

• Revenue sharing with athletes which for the power conferences amounts to $20 mill/year. The large question is Title IX and how schools choose to interpret and apply it. Seems to me more lawsuits are on the way.
• Scholarship/roster limits. This one I am not 100% clear on. One interpretation that I have is that ROSTERS are limited to 20 athletes, no more. Or one can interpret up to 20 athletes can be on scholarship. Another one where Title IX will come into play, but this is probably more direct, if men's sports gets 50 more scholarships, then womens sports get 50 more. The question then becomes if athletic departments can fund that many more scholarships.
• NIL will now be handled by the universities, given the change in scholarships, NIL will probably no longer be a vehicle for another scholarship? but rather more incentive to come compete for us?

Either way, for gymnastics it seems you either want to be in a power conference (preferably Big10 or SEC) or have gymnastics as a primary sport for your university. And the timeline is insane too, starting in 2025.

 

[cuuf]

Not sure if folks followed with all the gymnastics and the NCAA basketball finals, but Monday was the final hearing before the judge to approve the settlement and have it go into effect. From what I read in various articles, it looks like its going to be approved with still some additional tweaks. Highlights that I took away:

• The judge asked both parties to come up with a way to grandfather in the roster limits versus having the limits go into effect this coming year. I think there is a high probability the sides will agree to do something like this so we might not be seeing all those transfers this year.
• Judge was concerned about future athletes being subject to an agreement they had no say in. Both parties said there will be a yearly "process" for athletes to submit their complaints and requests for changes. Judge wanted more detail on that.
• Questions around how future NIL contracts will be evaluated and determined as "fair-market value" versus the current pay for play NIL contracts.
• Livvy Dunne continues to be a bit tone-deaf in objecting to the $2.8 billion back payments to past athletes who were denied NIL. Dunne claims its not enough and she should get a higher amount of $ of that back pay. (If you recall, Dunne came to college just as NIL was going into effect so her contention is that she lost out on a significant amount of money). Idk, technically she is correct, but has she really been "harmed" because of it?
• No mention of make 5th year a thing

Parties are supposed to come back in a week incorporating judges comments and then another week to revise document and final approval. The crazy thing is that this is slated to go into effect July 1!

 

[blueghost]