Jump to content

Realignment talk not going away


The Tower

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, notre dame joe said:

 

I can't tell if NIL is a part of Title IX or not.  The journalists are discussing NIL as though it was a part of the athletic budget.  

 

But otherwise T9 is not an insurmountable problem.  The schools figure out what % they have to pay to the gender racket and cough it up.

Any journalist who talks about NIL as part of athletic budget is either dumb or uninformed.  It's not, anywhere, at least in the letter of current NIL law, and I think we'd hear about it here pretty quick if universities started funding NIL payments to players directly out of AD budgets.  It's all 3rd party transactions and multiple 3rd parties coming together as collectives.

Title IX is a big problem for schools outside of the B1G and SEC.  If the House settlement involves them paying out rev shares to football, they're going to get hit with Title IX lawsuits for inequity if they don't balance that with money on the women's side.  So $20MM becomes $40MM quick, and the ISUs, KSUs, and OkState's of the world can't afford that.

That's why I think the rev shares will get paid out equally to any scholarship athlete to solve for Title IX, and the outside 3rd party NIL will be that differentiator.

Now where things get really interesting is if the House settlement or near future NLRB or Federal action turns these students into employees.  Then Title VII applies, which in this case is mostly about non-discrimination not equality.  People in Sales/revenue generating roles generally make more than operational/administrative roles all day long.  So in that case if Title VII is governing, the schools could bring NIL under their umbrella and raise and pay out money directly to employee-athletes at different rates legally.

But which statute wins when they're both student AND employee?  Title IX or VII?  The law dogs will sort that one out...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah Title IX has two solutions, it's not insurmountable:

  1. Sponsor all sporting opportunities
  2. Sponsor equal sporting opportunities

Sponsoring all doesn't necessarily mean it has to be even.   If you sponsor all womens and all mens sports, you're considered giving equal representation.   This is what most Pac schools did, hence why they ran in the red.   

If you can't sponsor all, then you have to have the same number and since football has so many, men's sports get cut and womens sports get added.   

The money being discussed doesn't really change this dynamic.   Either you choose to fund all sports or you don't.   NIL doesn't fund sports.   NIL isn't even.   NIL is overused at this point and has gravitated away from actually being NIL, but at some point will need to get back to NIL, since that's what started this all.   NIL in the universities just means it will not be in outside collectives, it will be in university housed agencies that report and file and audit.

However, as long as sports are tied to universities, you can't shed Title IX.   Ohio State and Texas make far more off research grants than they do off athletics.      So this concept of football breaking away won't happen, unless it breaks away with an equal amount of something female.   A far more likely break away is that the College Football Playoff breaks away with the top 48-64 schools and forms its own rules, regulations, shared media contracts, lobbying and, since they will have all the money, enforcement.    The NCAA will then handle everyone left.   At first I didn't think this had very good odds, but now that the NCAA tried to stick most of the settlement on the schools with the least amount of money, I'd be shocked if this didn't end up being how it settles out, where the vast majority of schools eject to clubs and leave the P4 with the check.

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Wally Fairway said:

The solution, in my crazy proposal, is to split the 2 big revenue sports (football & mens basketball) out from the NCAA and out from direct oversight by the universities. You would then create a sports franchise (minor league) that will be located in the home city of these universities, the university would license the school name/mascot/colors etc and also rent facilities for the teams to use for training, practice, residence, and stadiums for competition.  There could be agreements to allow players to attend the school, and I am sure there are alumni groups that would love to fund this set up and have an ownership stake in said affiliated sports franchise. 
I've thought this for a few years, as a way to deal with Title IX issues, but really with the changes brought by NIL we are miles closer to this model being actually viable..

FWIW - this model would only apply to the top divisions of football and hoops at the college level; DII and lower would still be able to maintain being under the Athletic Dept. In all honesty, playoff eligible football and top level mens hoops programs have become defacto minor league sports with NIL money for "salaries"

Lots of bugs and details to something like this, but it isn't as far from what is actually happening as it was only 2 years ago.

That model is my idea for an alumni league.  Think how many people would go to an Austin Horns game on summer nights, featuring players who just didn't make the draft or are angling for a practice squad spot. 

 

It might get tricky with unlimited transfers where someone attended 5 schools and has no degree.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, BurntOrange&White said:

 

 

The smaller schools benefit disproportionately from their association with the P4. They make more money because Texas, Michigan, LSU, USC, and Florida St play against them in the post season than they would on their own. This is an agreement that benefits the P4 and encourages them to stay in the current system of the NCAA. If the P4 are going to pay the lion’s share of this settlement then the next logical step is to only pay the nonP4 schools only what they deserve. I applaud their willingness to push back but they better be careful here or they’ll relegate themselves.

Edited by TKthunder2
  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, notre dame joe said:

That model is my idea for an alumni league.  Think how many people would go to an Austin Horns game on summer nights, featuring players who just didn't make the draft or are angling for a practice squad spot. 

Tens of people would attend. The little league game down the street would have a larger attendance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Is it wrong to think this is going to destroy a lot of scholarship opportunities for student athletes as a whole?

It's going to devastate them.  My wife and I were talking about this yesterday.  She was a heptathlete at Northern Iowa and we both think that there's not even going to be a scholarship track program in the next 5 years.  Shit, I wouldn't be surprised to see schools like us and OK State cut wrestling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

The smaller schools benefit disproportionately from their association with the P4. They make more money because Texas, Michigan, LSU, USC, and Florida St play against them in the post season than they would on their own. This is an agreement that benefits the P4 and encourages them to stay in the current system of the NCAA. If the P4 are going to pay the lion’s share of this settlement then the next logical step is to only pay the nonP4 schools only what they deserve. I applaud their willingness to push back but they better be careful here or they’ll relegate themselves.

lol, right? 

If you run around yelling about how you should be treated differently, then don't be surprised when people treat you differently.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, notre dame joe said:

That model is my idea for an alumni league.  Think how many people would go to an Austin Horns game on summer nights, featuring players who just didn't make the draft or are angling for a practice squad spot. 

 

It might get tricky with unlimited transfers where someone attended 5 schools and has no degree.

That actually sounds like a good Dev league option for Spring Football and Summer Basketball.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I wouldn't be surprised to see schools like us and OK State cut wrestling

I think niche sports will have to be funded by a major benefactor. OSU wrestling just got a big $$$ commitment from the guy that owns Paycom, he's a former wrestler and just wants to see the sport thrive. I bet there's a rich Clone out there that won't let ISU cut wrestling. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Sandman said:

I think niche sports will have to be funded by a major benefactor. OSU wrestling just got a big $$$ commitment from the guy that owns Paycom, he's a former wrestler and just wants to see the sport thrive. I bet there's a rich Clone out there that won't let ISU cut wrestling. 

I think the two richest Cyclone wrestlers coach Iowa and Penn State

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hurtlocker said:

I think the two richest Cyclone wrestlers coach Iowa and Penn State

Iowa's coach is Tom Brands, who wrestled at Iowa. Their former coach Dan Gable was an ISU guy, though.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think niche sports will have to be funded by a major benefactor. OSU wrestling just got a big $$$ commitment from the guy that owns Paycom, he's a former wrestler and just wants to see the sport thrive. I bet there's a rich Clone out there that won't let ISU cut wrestling. 

Rack him
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Sandman said:

I think niche sports will have to be funded by a major benefactor. OSU wrestling just got a big $$$ commitment from the guy that owns Paycom, he's a former wrestler and just wants to see the sport thrive. I bet there's a rich Clone out there that won't let ISU cut wrestling. 

The trick is to find more than....let's see, 1, in each school though.  The challenge, is, other than seeing their alma mater win, what do the rich guys get out of it?  They don't own the team like in the NFL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just want a men's soccer team, and a women's. Gymnastics program. No reason T9 can't approve those two since it would be evenly split. Texas could be very good at both, especially soccer. There are a fuck ton of good soccer players in the state. And the poon we would get to see for Gymnastics would be fucking over the top. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, John80 said:

The Big Ten didn't have to have this coast to coast monstrosity to survive. They're just really greedy so we have Rutgers playing at 11 at night. 

Once Texas and Oklahoma were no longer candidates to join the PAC16 USC was out. There was nothing in this world that could have saved the PAC. Turning down the LHN was the most expensive decision Stanford ever made.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

Once Texas and Oklahoma were no longer candidates to join the PAC16 USC was out. There was nothing in this world that could have saved the PAC. Turning down the LHN was the most expensive decision Stanford ever made.

You say it like they give even half a fuck.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point is the Big Ten was doing well financially as a midwestern conference and they didn't have to become a national conference and add anyone. This is different from the Big 12 who had to add the best schools wherever they could to survive. USC's major problem has been USC and moving to conference on the other side of the country isn't going to fix that. I realize the SEC started this expansion stuff but we have at least stayed somewhat regional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JMFP said:

I wonder if the four year eligibility rule will be challenged before long. 

Dillon Gabriel v. NCAA - Gabriel on his 13th team and in his 19th year of eligibility. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/20/2024 at 5:31 AM, notre dame joe said:

 

I can't tell if NIL is a part of Title IX or not.  The journalists are discussing NIL as though it was a part of the athletic budget.  

 

But otherwise T9 is not an insurmountable problem.  The schools figure out what % they have to pay to the gender racket and cough it up.

If it is paid directly by the schools, then they have to figure out how Title IX impacts it.  If its paid by collectives by now, then it doesn't apply.

Many of the schools are talking about taking over the NIL, but I don't see how it would work without giving them Title IX headaches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/21/2024 at 1:54 PM, Evil Bill Obrien said:

Absolutely insane that the power football conferences are gonna get the G5 and other non football conferences to take an order of magnitude bigger hit to their payout to pay for all the shenanigans of the SEC, Big 10, ACC and Big 12…

The smaller Div I schools kept the rules on amateurism and fought every attempt by those of the P5 who wanted to do more.  And the non-FBS schools (other than Big East) are getting way more than they contribute to the tourney.  The P5 could say, fine, we'll just have our own basketball invitational and leave you out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/21/2024 at 2:00 PM, BurntOrange&White said:

Is it wrong to think this is going to destroy a lot of scholarship opportunities for student athletes as a whole?

Yes.  Basketball and football and some non-rev P4 athletes benefit and everyone else loses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 3/29/2024 at 11:48 PM, TKthunder2 said:

UTRGV is leaving the WAC for the Southland Conference.

Very confused on what SFA, ACU, and Tarleton, and UTA are still doing in the WAC with those random Utah schools.


SFA (now a UT system school) is leaving the WAC too now.

https://www.texasfootball.com/article/2024/05/24/confirmed-sfa-headed-back-to-the-southland-conference?ref=article_preview_title
 

If Abilene Christian, Tarleton St, and UT Arlington follow their lead the Southland would have 15 members: 12 football schools and 3 non-football schools.

Also of note (and only a year late) another UT system school is moving up to DII Lone Star Conference to join UT Permian Basin and UT Tyler.

https://news.utdallas.edu/campus-community/comet-sports-ncaa-division-2-2023/

UT System will have 6 in NCAA Division I including 3 FBS teams with flagship in the SEC, UTSA in the American, and UTEP in CUSA; 2 in the FCS with SFA and UTRGV in the Southland; 1 in D1 non football with UTA still in the WAC (for now); and 3 in DII Lone Star Conference (one of which plays football).

After a few years of building programs/facilities I could see UT Dallas (with its enrollment of 30k) moving to DI.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, msucolt45 said:

The SEC commissioner was once the head of the SLC, so I really think he’s going to help protect the little guys. Just MO.

Captain America Lol GIF by mtv

Oh wait you are serious aren't you? Here let me laugh even harder 

The Office Lol GIF

The only reason Greg Sankey would give a single shit about the Southland Conference is to make sure it's still there for the lesser SEC schools to get their cupcake win for bowl eligibility. 

Edited by Evil Bill Obrien
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure where to post this, but was looking at this graphic (side note, if somebody has an updated one please post it) and noticed something interesting…

image.jpeg.b7277784fe1e0320e8abdf0906a6ea6b.jpeg

The roughly top 30 or so programs also have the top stadiums by capacity in college football. Obviously success drive attendance and facilities but the correlation is consistent.

With one major exception of South Carolina (top 20 capacity stadium but hasn’t had the corresponding on field success) this holds true until you hit around 300 line and you have more modest stadiums for Oregon, Georgia Tech, Colorado, West Virginia, Stanford, and Arizona St that all have stadiums ranked in the 40-50 range for the P4.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Attendance is one metric of program popularity, but it is imperfect. A better metric is “gate”- the dollars paid by fans to attend the game. TCU’s stadium holds 45k and Texas’ holds 105k (from memory). They both sell out against TT, but TCU doesn’t have half the popularity of Texas. The TCU tix against Tech cost half what Texas-TT tix cost, and that doesn’t even count the disparity in donations required to buy premium seats and suites. 
 
It’s simple economics and pricing elasticity. If Texas had a 150k stadium, it could price tickets to sell it out. There are games where TCU struggles to give tix away. 
 
Broadcast viewership is a better metric of program popularity, since the price to view is so low- the main cost is the surrendering of time to watch. Thats where you see the real differences. 
 
I really don’t know how the media marketers measure the financial standing of different programs’ viewers/fans. I suspect this factor explains why the B1G media payout is better than the SEC’s. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...