New proposal to pay athletes/separate tier of D1 schools

Welcome to our Gymnastics Message Board

Members see FEWER ads... so join today

OnoNoKomachi

Staff member
Defender

"
In a letter sent to more than 350 Division I schools Tuesday, Baker said he wants the association to create a new tier of NCAA Division I sports where schools would be required to offer at least half their athletes a payment of at least $30,000 per year through a trust fund.

Baker also proposed allowing all Division I schools to offer unlimited educational benefits and enter into name, image and likeness licensing deals with athletes."

This could be great for some individual gymnasts, but not great for a lot of teams.

The top tier of the D1 schools could end up looking like the SEC - sponsoring the minimum number of sports required to play in the conference.

The choice between football and everything else is always football.
 
The Big10 and SEC schools will be in this group. It will benefit the gymnastics programs at these colleges since the proposal calls on maintaining Title IX compliance. Idk if it will pass, but at least the NCAA is trying to get ahead of the issue.
 
unopopular opinion...but what is the point of even trying to say these athletes are "amateur" status if they are getting paychecks for doing their sport (on top of the money they get to pay for their education). I say this a mom of an athlete that graduated just a couple years ago and was a non-scholarship gymnast. This whole thing is a mess and i blame the ncaa for not setting up clear guidance from the beginning. The idea at the beginning was to make sure schools were not allowed to make money selling merch and advertising with a star athletes name and likeness......but with no clear guidelines set up when the doors opened they've created a major mess. This is going to ruin the competitiveness of all sports. Next thing you know we will need to just have separate championships--1 for the top 10 schools (the ones with private donors willing to pay athletes to be there, call them the Pro-NCAA teams) and another for everyone else who doesn't have that kind of backing. It's sad really.

If they wanna pay athletes more, how about they open up the stipends that scholarship athletes already get and give them to non-scholarship athletes (who, just like a scholarship athlete can not logistically have a job AND are paying tuition). And maybe offer ALL athletes books free (like the scholarship athletes). It would be a small thing but greatly appreciated by the athletes who are paying to be there...not being paid to be there
 
Last edited:
unopopular opinion...but what is the point of even trying to say these athletes are "amateur" status if they are get paychecks for doing their sport (on top of the money they get to pay for their education). I say this a mom of athlete that graduated just a couple years ago and was a non-scholarship gymnast. This whole thing is a mess and i blame the ncaa for not setting up clear guidance from the beginning. The idea at the beginning was to make sure schools and were not allowed to make money selling merch and advertising with a star athletes name and likeness......but with no clear guidelines set up when the doors opened they've created a major mess. This is going to ruin the competitiveness of all sports. Next thing you know we will need to just have separate championships--1 for the top 10 schools (the ones with private donors willing to pay athletes to be there, call them the Pro-NCAA teams) and another for everyone else who doesn't have that kind of backing. It's sad really.

If they wanna pay athletes more, how about they open up the stipends that scholarship athletes already get and give them to non-scholarship athletes (who, just like a scholarship athlete can not logistically have a job AND are paying tuition). And maybe offer ALL athletes books free (like the scholarship athletes). It would be a small thing but greatly appreciated by the athletes who are paying to be there...not being paid to be there
Your opinion may be an unpopular one, but I agree with it in general. I would even go further. I think the decision to allow student athletes to make deals and endorsements and use their name and likeness to earn money was very poorly conceived. On the surface it seems only fair and like a good idea. But I remember being at a sports law conference before the O'Bannon v. NCAA case was decided and thinking "this is going to be one huge mess." I do not blame the NCAA though. It was forced on them and absolutely nothing here was well thought out.
 
Idk, I think the NCAA deserves some blame. They could have been more pro-active instead of acting so arrogant and self-assured about the "student-athlete" protection. They were sure they were going to win the O'Bannon case, they had the opportunity to settle before it even got there. And then when the Supreme Court slapped them hard, it was like they just said, "Oh well, go ahead and do what you want then". Whether folks like it or not, we are going to end up with a super group of power football programs that exist outside of the NCAA. The only question is how it will look for the non-revenue sports at those schools. How much of the money will trickle down to support those programs?
 
Whether folks like it or not, we are going to end up with a super group of power football programs that exist outside of the NCAA. The only question is how it will look for the non-revenue sports at those schools. How much of the money will trickle down to support those programs?
Are any college gymnastics programs revenue generating? (I picture NCAA football and basketball as revenue sports, but not many others.) One thing that makes NCAA gym interesting is the number of schools who can get in to the final four and possibly compete for a title (although OU mostly wins these days). If only certain schools have money to pay athletes it seems like those schools will collect top athletes and there will be less competition. I agree with @nog that this could ruin the competitiveness of sports.

But maybe this rule would end up mostly affecting football and basketball.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #7
Are any college gymnastics programs revenue generating?
No. Not overall.
Not even close.
Some may make $$$ on ticket sales (Utah does), but these teams outspend their revenue by quite a bit....to the tune of losing in the neighborhood of a million $.
The high profile teams may cost a lot, but they also have value to their institutions by being part of the social life of the campus and promoting the schools brand via TV and media attention.
The Utah budget is online. I haven't looked at at lately, but in the one I saw the coaching salaries alone were $ 1 million + (over at least 4 coaches - I can't remember the exact number).
 
But maybe this rule would end up mostly affecting football and basketball.
This rule if implemented would benefit the women's gymnastics programs at these schools. They are mandating that any school that becomes part of this super division MUST pay at least 30k to half the athletes in the athletic department AND maintain Title IX. This means most likely all women in gymnastics at these schools will benefit. The problem is if you follow this trendline there is a good chance that they will break out of the NCAA and just do their own thing. If they do their own thing then you know its going to be football driving 100% of the decision-making with no regard to non-revenue sports. That's why I am giving props to the NCAA for once being out front on an obvious future issue and trying to do something.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #10
It will benefit the women's gymnastics programs at the very top.
Don't be so sure about the rest of them.
Who is Nebraska going to pick to save if they have to make that decision - their volleyball team that drew close to 100,000 spectators or gymnastics? Who knows?
This may look good on the surface for women's NCAA gymnastics as a whole, but that remains to be seen. At most of these schools, women's gymnastics is just another sport.
We will just have to wait and see.

It has the potential to kill the men's NCAA.
Thank God for GymACT.
 
Men's programs are for sure in dire straights. Nebraska is part of the B10 so they will be part of this super division. Schools from the Big 10 and SEC will be in this group. Maybe one or two from the ACC. The ACC would have folded already if it wasn't so expensive to get out of the shared media rights deal. But that contract will eventually end in the next 5 years, soooo. The whole trend is why the Pac-12 conference folded. Those schools bolted to the Big10 to ensure their access to this "prestigious" cough-cough - money group.
 
I think this is very much a case of be careful what you wish for for gymnastics. College gymnastics in the US basically exists as a result of a system built on the illegal exploitation of players in other sports.

The revenue generating sports will be rebuilt on a model more suitable for the 21st century. The role of non-revenue sports in that future is not at all certain. If college football comes to exist outside the NCAA and outside the requirements of title IX how many gymnastics programmes will survive? Even for the places that can definitely afford it, will they spend money on unprofitable sports if they don't have to?
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #13
Exactly

The choice between football and anything else is always football.

Also, Title lX may not continue to exist in it's current form (at least as it is applied to athletics)
 
I keep wondering what's going to happen to all the Olympic sports that have always been supported by NCAA. It's not like they have government support to fall back on, like in other countries. It might not be a big deal short term, but long term I don't think it looks good. Swimming and diving programs have been cut, too, and that's one of the sports USA has long been one of the best at.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #15
I keep wondering what's going to happen to all the Olympic sports that have always been supported by NCAA. It's not like they have government support to fall back on, like in other countries. It might not be a big deal short term, but long term I don't think it looks good. Swimming and diving programs have been cut, too, and that's one of the sports USA has long been one of the best at.
Excellent question.
Private funding would have to fill in the gap.

US WAG wouldn't be directly affected, as it doesn't rely on the college pipeline. There may be indirect effects, though. Now there is always the promise of a college scholarship if elite doesn't work out. If that incentive goes away, the population of girls who enter and/or stick with the sport may decrease.

It will really screw with the men. The big dream of a lot of guys is to go NCAA.
GymACT could step up, but they will need a lot more $$$ than they have now.
 
No. Not overall.
Not even close.
Some may make $$$ on ticket sales (Utah does), but these teams outspend their revenue by quite a bit....to the tune of losing in the neighborhood of a million $.
The high profile teams may cost a lot, but they also have value to their institutions by being part of the social life of the campus and promoting the schools brand via TV and media attention.
The Utah budget is online. I haven't looked at at lately, but in the one I saw the coaching salaries alone were $ 1 million + (over at least 4 coaches - I can't remember the exact number).
😲

wow.
 
On one hand, I agree with the concerns expressed on how the proposal could affect gymnastics.

On the other hand, I'm pleased to see the NCAA's indentured servitude business model fall apart.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #18
It's been heading that way for years. It's probably only a matter of time before football and men's basketball split off in some way.
 

Welcome to our Gymnastics Message Board

Members see FEWER ads... so join today

Back