NCAA proposing new college athletics subdivision rooted in direct athlete compensation
Looks as though Harbaugh's advocacy of player compensation is getting support from an unexpected party:
Of course, the devil will be in the details.
December 5th, 2023 at 10:11 AM ^
It's bullshit. A pittance under school control. Trying to pre-empt the lawsuits. Actual revenue sharing or riot.
Also in exchange destroys every school with fewer resources than say, Penn State.
December 5th, 2023 at 10:15 AM ^
The NCAA is the embodiment of "too little too late."
December 5th, 2023 at 10:41 AM ^
In our case it was too much too soon!
December 5th, 2023 at 10:56 AM ^
Better than too little too early, if you know what I mean.
December 5th, 2023 at 11:04 AM ^
I presume that purchasing athletes cheeseburgers will remain a heinous violation.
December 5th, 2023 at 11:18 AM ^
...and you can spend $800,000 on a single recruit or buy a QB from the portal for $2 million...but in person scouting and buying a couple cheeseburgers are mortal sins.
December 5th, 2023 at 11:40 AM ^
Hopefully some of my lawyer associates will weigh in here, but how are these limitations not violations of antitrust laws unless something like the collegiate equivalent of the NFLPA is set up within college football or the conferences?
December 5th, 2023 at 12:07 PM ^
The fact that they didnt drop this is crazy. I think Michigan's lack of nasty PR tactics to defend itself will always be a big problem. Saban would have all his minions out in full force if this was happening to Bama. We have to make the NCAA embarrassed and uncomfortable with all of this.
December 5th, 2023 at 1:07 PM ^
Are you implying that certain schools would use "every possible means" to shut down any story that didn't reflect positively on their program?
An example might be the Atlanta Journal Constitution and their story on Georgia football with a few "question marks", and irregularities - which seemed to be withdrawn a few days after it was published?
The SEC schools wouldn't do that - would they?
December 5th, 2023 at 2:28 PM ^
This is the NCAA's last gasp at grasp.
December 5th, 2023 at 1:31 PM ^
I'm curious what would not qualify as bullshit. Keeping in mind that "actual revenue sharing" is not in any way legal under Title IX. You give football players 10% of football revenue, then you also have to give female athletes 10% of football revenue. Or more, actually, because spending has to be proportional to the student body.
You might still call it revenue sharing, but it isn't really, if you're handing a volleyball player some football revenue. That's just straight-up pay.
Title IX will force schools to come up with something that will sound unfair to people who are terribly concerned about the plight of future multi-millionaires, but that's the reality of the law.
December 5th, 2023 at 5:12 PM ^
No it won't. People that scream title 9 don't really understand to intent or how it is administered at the federal level. The current Supreme Court is very skeptical of it as it stands. There's no way a pay for play that has nothing to do with academics will fall under title 9 purview.
December 5th, 2023 at 5:43 PM ^
But a "pay for play that has nothing to do with academics" will also not fall under the tax-exempt organization status and, thank Binky, will then be divorced from the universities. U of M cannot run a professional sports team within its charter. A divorce is the clear and clean way to resolve both the pay issue and the incredible corruption money has brought to college sports.
December 5th, 2023 at 10:14 AM ^
This is seeing the inevitable and trying to work out the best deal for themselves.
Dissolve the NCAA. Start fresh.
December 5th, 2023 at 11:09 AM ^
Football, for certain schools, needs to exist outside of the NCAA and likely outside of the school itself to avoid the Title IX issues. Football is a business, a big business. It needs to be treated as such. The top 30-40 teams need to be administered separately with control of the money coming in and the costs going out. They can license all the IP they need from the school so that the "Michigan Wolverines Football Team" can still be associated with the school even though it is actually separate. If it's important from a business perspective that the facade of football players being "student-athletes" they can work something out with the associated school to continue to give team members a college education.
A league of those 30-40 teams should be established to administer the sport from a competitive-balance perspective and run league wide financial systems such as negotiating tv agreements and playoffs. A scheduling agreement could allow teams to play NCAA teams left behind. The NCAA can then get back to its actual mission of administering inter-collegiate competition between actual student-athletes separate from the pressure of the insane money involved with college athletics.
For what it's worth, I don't think this is good for anyone, but we're already down the path of destroying the sport and I view this as the only workable solution for the next step.
December 5th, 2023 at 12:03 PM ^
It's been said, follow the Major Junior Hockey League. Get paid, go to school. Gets drafted in order to a MJHL. Player X wants out. No portal BS. Agree to a trade on the players need. It'll happen.
December 5th, 2023 at 1:37 PM ^
I think you underestimate the zealotry of Title IX advocates. I do not think this licensing arrangement, in which some "separate" entity gets to use on-campus stadiums, on-campus facilities, on-campus housing for athletes getting an on-campus free education, and use the exact same logos and trademarks as the school does, would exist without an extremely messy fight from Title IX advocates arguing that they're circumventing the law and thereby reducing opportunities for female athletes. Because, they would be in fact circumventing the law and reducing opportunities for female athletes.
Oh, and that lawsuit will be filed in the most favorable venue possible, either New York or California, to maximize the chance of a ruling for the obviously female plaintiffs.
December 5th, 2023 at 5:18 PM ^
They'll sue and risk title 9 getting completely stripped down to the studs by the Supreme Court. Would be suicide.
December 5th, 2023 at 5:47 PM ^
I agree that this divorce is both positive and a necessity. It won't involve any sort of student requirement, though, as that would be restraint of trade. The football teams would be employees of the corporations running the teams themselves.
And I don't think that the University would allow any outside corporation to pretend to be part of the university. The University of Michigan Wolverines would just be the Michigan Wolverines. The U could allow them to rent the stadium, though.
December 5th, 2023 at 10:16 AM ^
No limit on compensation? That won't fly.
December 5th, 2023 at 10:17 AM ^
Schools must continue to abide by the framework of Title IX, assuring that 50 percent of the investment be directed toward women athletes.
This is the tricky part. I think the realistic outcome of having schools directly pay players is that some non-revenue programs (particularly men's) will end up getting cut.
December 5th, 2023 at 10:38 AM ^
Keep the Title IX scholarship ratios. However, it seems like common sense that if football brings in massive revenue and cross country loses money that one deserves more compensation than the other. But yes, then schools may cut back on the teams that lose money to come up with the money to pay football players.
December 5th, 2023 at 10:59 AM ^
As the parent of a cross country runner (not UM) I'm insulted by this comment!
Side note, it's awesome that a kid named Tom Brady runs cc for UM.
December 5th, 2023 at 11:12 AM ^
Seems like to me this is going to be the killer. Football probably needs to separate in some official way from the schools to avoid this issue.
December 5th, 2023 at 12:01 PM ^
Isn't that called the NFL?
December 5th, 2023 at 5:51 PM ^
The NFL could have a minor league just like baseball and hockey.
I question the financial viability of the new league divorced from the universities, given that so many of us are only interested in college athletics because it is college athletics (I, for one, would have no interest in watching a "Wolverines" professional team).
December 5th, 2023 at 1:15 PM ^
Wouldn't it be nice if the B1G Conference actually took a leadership position on this - revenue sharing.
Title IX is important. And, the Big Ten Network will broadcast all kinds of sports - women's volleyball, basketball, and field hockey are three of them. We all know of the three major revenue sports - football and men's basketball being the two largest revenue contributors to the vast majority of athletic departments.
So, maybe the B1G can actually develop something - and, I'm not proposing any "specific model" - but, all student athletes need to be part of the solution.
It will be interesting to see what traction this idea actually gets.
December 5th, 2023 at 11:23 AM ^
Common sense
Ah, first time interacting with the government, I see?
December 5th, 2023 at 1:40 PM ^
And this is why I have always been against a pay-for-play model. I don't give a shit if some poor basketball star has to wait a year to get paid eight figures. I do give a shit if it turns out the only way for a male athlete to get a scholarship is to be a football or basketball player. Schools will shovel more and more money towards revenue sports, be forced to spend $1.20 on women for every $1.00 they spend on men (due to a roughly 55-45 split in the student body) and cut men's sports left and right to compensate.
December 5th, 2023 at 5:23 PM ^
Or you could just argue that all revenue generating sports, male or female don't fall under the scholarship provisions of title 9 as long as those sports covered all student expenses including education and room and board.
December 6th, 2023 at 9:01 AM ^
That would be exactly the solution I would like to see, except that you're much more optimistic than I am about the ability to re-interpret Title IX.
December 5th, 2023 at 5:53 PM ^
Agreed. If excessive money is the problem, then the solution is to give more to all college athletes. I'd be fine with it being proportional to the amount of time required for practice, play, and travel, but otherwise there's no justification for paying a football player more than a softball player.
December 5th, 2023 at 10:18 AM ^
NCAA is trying to remain relevant. A bit too late imo. Guess it's better than nothing?
December 5th, 2023 at 10:33 AM ^
A school depositing the minimum of $30,000 each year per athlete for half of their athletes would spend about $6 million a year.
I'm no mathlete, but this seems to suggest that there are 400 student athletes at a given school. Half get $30k, the rest get zero. If $30,000 is the minimum, then I think the school would be required to fund all athletes at that level. Oh, and a quick search of ncaa.org finds that the average number of students at D1 =~ 485. (350 D1 schools and >170,000 student athletes)
Going on those numbers, a school is setting aside $14.6 MM annually, at a minimum. I'd call that a step in the right direction.
December 5th, 2023 at 10:52 AM ^
I think that the primary challenge here is going to be how many D1 schools already run programs in the red from a financial standpoint. Throwing another cost on top of that for the general student population to absorb in additional fees, etc is expanding a different problem.
I agree that stipends to cover some basic expenses and gaps is absolutely reasonable - but damn - I played in DIII - and worked jobs, went to school and played sports, would have killed for a D1 scholarship and even cafeteria meals would have been great by me.
I think the real answer here is moving major athletics programs in revenue sports into a different tier outside of the general NCAA guidelines would make sense - Football, basketball, etc - but this is going to likely impact athletes in other non-revenue sports through cuts, etc that seem to go against the intent of collegiate athletics.
December 5th, 2023 at 10:53 AM ^
I wouldn’t. Giving athletes that don’t create revenue 30k on top of a free ride scholarship is ridiculous. What’s the difference between the tennis team and any academic or social club that makes them deserve to get paid?
December 5th, 2023 at 6:02 PM ^
The athletes don't really create the revenue, though. The school does. Athletes arrive and depart every year and the money taken in doesn't change based on who they are.
The tennis team members are recruited and given scholarships. That's what separates them from non-scholarship students.
Pay them all the same, with adjustments for practice, play, and travel time required. They are all student-athletes and the argument that some are more valuable than others is just bullshit.
If football players themselves were so valuable, there would be companies founded to exploit that value outside of college athletics. The reason those companies don't exist is because it is the teams, with their traditions, uniforms, etc that are the valuable commodity. We like and value the players because they play for our team or our sport.
December 5th, 2023 at 11:35 AM ^
Michigan website says we have more than 900 student athletes. So minimum annual for Michigan would be $13.5 million.
December 5th, 2023 at 1:09 PM ^
900 @ $30k would be $27 MM. The article does something weird where it states that half of the athletes at a school would get the $30k minimum. Not sure why all aren't compensated at the same rate for this back-of-the-envelope calculation.
December 5th, 2023 at 10:18 AM ^
This is what happens when you rattle enough cafes!
December 5th, 2023 at 10:34 AM ^
I thought it was a burger joint.
December 5th, 2023 at 10:23 AM ^
I hate the NCAA with a passion - they are the most inept and reactive administrative org in the world.
But this is a pretty radical proposal by them - even would allow the bigger schools to increase number of scholarships, or in the words of the article, do away with the maximum limit.
Not saying the NCAA has changed - but they can definitely see the writing on the wall and are making their last "power grab" while they still can...
December 5th, 2023 at 12:11 PM ^
This is so weird to me. The NCAA is not some disconnected organization. They are what they are because of college presidents. Any criticism of the NCAA is just criticism of college administrators who overwhelming like the system in place.
December 5th, 2023 at 10:26 AM ^
I would disband the NCAA.
Why are they needed anymore? They've outlasted their need.
December 5th, 2023 at 10:40 AM ^
Why are they needed anymore?
Uh, because if a bunch of schools want to play sports against each other, they need some administrative framework to collectively decide on the rules they're going to play by?
Without the NCAA, some conference could decide that field goals are worth 4 points and touchdowns are worth 5. They could make the field 200 yards long and 4 yards wide. They could allow targeting and disallow cleats. They could just hire NFL players to play their games for them.
This is not to mention the other 23 sports the NCAA organizes, including the postseason tournaments for every sport other than FBS football.
The NCAA definitely has problems but the idea that college athletics can exist without some sort of governing body is completely asinine.
December 5th, 2023 at 10:49 AM ^
College football existed long before the NCAA, created at the behest of President Theodore Roosevelt, to regulate the safety of players and prevent paid ringers from participating.
Seems things have come full circle. Whereas the NCAA was created to prevent paid ringers, now the NCAA is on the fast track to encourage it.
December 8th, 2023 at 10:44 AM ^
That's true, but not the whole story. There were organizations for regulating individual sports before the NCAA, and football was the exception, not the rule, in that there was no governing body for intercollegiate football contests. As soon as any college sport started operating at any kind of scale, a governing body developed for it.
Perhaps that's the better model: a different governing body for each sport. But in any case, from almost the very beginning of intercollegiate athletics, everyone understood there needed to be a third-party organization setting rules.
December 5th, 2023 at 1:43 PM ^
And replace it with what, exactly?
The answer is not "nothing" - some kind of governance of college athletics would take its place, because that's how sports works at all levels from tee-ball to the Olympics. What would the new thing look like?
December 5th, 2023 at 10:29 AM ^
Okay, I am a cynic. Here is what I think is going on--the NCAA is trying to prove that it isn't them preventing athletes from being compensated, it's the schools. They are creating this "free-for-all" subdivision that no school is going to willingly join, and then they will tell the athletes "hey, don't sue us, sue your Universities. They're the ones not joining our unlimited compensation division. We want you to get paid, and set up this structure so you could, but your school opted out." Win-win for the NCAA.
December 5th, 2023 at 10:34 AM ^
Calling out a "we tried" DoA proposal isn't cynicism. It's a ploy as common as farts in Congress; that makes your take realistic. That goes double considering it's coming from the NCAA.
They're losing lawsuits left and right and are on the verge of extinction, but still don't want to give up a penny of unearned revenue.