Jim Delany: If O'Bannon plaintiffs win, Big Ten could "de-emphasize" athletics
Andy Staples just wrote an article detailing the possible consequences of the O'Bannon lawsuit, if the plaintiffs win.
"...it has been my longstanding belief that The Big Ten's schools would forgo the revenues in those circumstances and instead take steps to downsize the scope, breadth and activity of their athletic programs," Delany wrote. "Several alternatives to a 'pay for play' model exist, such as the Division III model, which does not offer any athletics-based grants-in-aid, and, among others, a need-based financial model. These alternatives would, in my view, be more consistent with The Big Ten's philosophy that the educational and lifetime economic benefits associated with a university education are the appropriate quid pro quo for its student athletes."
"It's not that we want to go Division III or go to need-based aid," Delany said. "It's simply that in the plaintiff's hypothetical -- and if a court decided that Title IX is out and players must be paid -- I don't think we'd participate in that. I think we'd choose another option. ... If that's the law of the land, if you have to do that, I don't think we would."
Lately I've been torn about the issue of players getting paid or not, but this seems a bit hypocritical. Staples points out the discrepancy between the Big Ten adding Maryland and Rutgers for no other reason than cable money, and then trying to claim it's really all about the athletes education, that's all.
It's worth noting, that Delany isn't alone on this either, he's just the biggest guy to speak about it. Per Staples:
Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott, SEC executive associate commissioner Mark Womack, Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby, Texas athletic directors DeLoss Dodds and Chris Plonsky, Wake Forest president Nathan Hatch and a host of others also filed declarations.
I thought this was an interesting turn of events, even if it is just an empty bluff (does anybody really think UM or OSU would drop Football as a D1 sport?). Curious what people here think
March 18th, 2013 at 10:04 PM ^
never.. if michigan ever got rid or drop football i would cry as a grown man
Well, don't forget, Michigan isn't obligated to stay in the big ten either. Michigan and OSU have some extreme power to throw around in college athletics. Theoretically all big ten schools could choose to dump Delany as well.
Michigan, Ohio would join forces with UF, Texas, USC, etc. and create it's own league to "rival" the SEC. That is until the top SEC teams broke away too.
since the possibilities are almost endless. At that point, is it just a mercenary league out for the cash and basically semi-pro with only the biggest names. It would require such a structural shift, that you just wonder if it could functionally work.
Michigan could then create theitr very own conference and invite whomever they wanted to join.
We could invite Ohio State and put them in the Schembechler Division!
March 19th, 2013 at 10:33 AM ^
...nothing to do with the issue at stake. The important point is that Delaney is saying that these schools will never, never pay players and I absolutely believe him when he says they would rather go Ivy league than start fielding professional teams.
If they go the professional route, then they are competing with the NFL for talent and fan resources and that is a sea change that no University president (or board of regents) wants to deal with.
Speaking personally as an alumnus, I have no problem with Michigan taking the high road here. In fact, I almost wish they would. I'd rather be competing with Harvard & Yale than Alabama & Texas.
...Delaney is saying that these schools will never, never pay players and I absolutely believe him when he says they would rather go Ivy league than start fielding professional teams.
I hope that you're right, and that Delany is serious about that. I would rather Michigan go into an "Ivy" league, than start paying players in a semi-pro league.
Exactly, Michigan, OSU, and to some extent Penn State have nothing to worry about. They would be accepted with open arms into any of the major conferences.
March 18th, 2013 at 10:04 PM ^
March 18th, 2013 at 10:14 PM ^
March 19th, 2013 at 12:31 AM ^
...what are they going to do with all of those stadiums and bills they still owe on the stadiums?Open gyms/rinks. City league/rec sports. Corporate shindigs. Birthday parties. Paintball. The possibilities for renting out Michigan Stadium, Crisler, and Yost are endless. We don't need no stinkin' university-sanctioned sports to make a mint off of UM's sporting infrastructure. /S
Divorce attorney's dream. I mean, Congratulations! Mass weddings! Make it happen, DB!!
They would more than likely drop the non profit sports. You'ld have to pay all your student athletes so i'd assume they would just keep mens football, basketball, baseball and hockey. The last 2 could reasonably be scraped too. Football is the cash cow tho
March 18th, 2013 at 10:43 PM ^
He better alert Northwestern now that they shouldn't be spending $220 million and Michigan not to spend $250 million on non-revenue sports, etc. Also: he should inform Maryland that all that money they thought they had coming: no go.
Ask David Brandon, Mark Hollis, Gordon Gee, etc how that will all work out with a D-III model.
Man, I hope O'Bannon wins. It's time for hypocrites & blowhards like Delany to be taken down.
March 19th, 2013 at 12:27 AM ^
I bet the teams drop the B10 first
March 18th, 2013 at 10:05 PM ^
I think UM and OSU would join the GLIAC before they would even consider dropping football.
March 18th, 2013 at 10:14 PM ^
Oh great....NOW they tell us. Does this mean I'll get my preferred seat "donation" back?
be sponsoring a Michigan athlete! Your donation will be $24,000 a year, and you will receive weekly updates on your athlete from the University...
March 18th, 2013 at 10:08 PM ^
There is no way Delany actually believes what he is saying. Give the man credit, he has done a great job of turning the Big Ten into a very lucrative entity and he does not want anything to jeopardize that. He is always posturing to get the Big Ten any advantage he can, which I guess is what you want out of a conference commish.
If the Big Ten goes to a D-III he would be out of a job, or at the very least have a massivly reduced salary. But based on his track record I assume he knew this was a possiblity and has plans ready to react accordingly. Who knows, perhaps this will just push us further down the path of the major, football hungry, money producing universities to leave the NCAA completely.
March 18th, 2013 at 10:24 PM ^
That's the general thought around Twitter right now, Delany isn't just talking out of his ass, and he's planning something (that wouldn't be the Big Ten going DIII)
You can say a lot of things about Delany, but stupid is not one of them
March 18th, 2013 at 10:46 PM ^
Why else would he even make a public comment on the matter? That's the only thing that makes sense, it's the only obvious gain.
March 18th, 2013 at 10:09 PM ^
Is it a realistic possibility that O'Bannon could win the lawsuit?
March 18th, 2013 at 10:16 PM ^
O'Bannon plaintiffs win (or get settled with)? Absolutely. B1G goes DIII? Hard to believe. RT @j_gross31: Any chance this actually happens?
— Andy Staples (@Andy_Staples) March 19, 2013
March 18th, 2013 at 10:11 PM ^
People act like making more money is only good for Delany and the other big wigs.
The B10 making more money is good for student-athletes too. More money = more sports = more scholarships to players at elite institutions.
Since 99.99% of student athletes do not personally and specifically lead to this money making, I'd say it's a pretty damn good deal. For those 0.001% (the Denards of the world), I don't see them complaining - they're getting a quarter million (in some instances) dollar education.
Win-win-win. We don't need to pay players more. They are already getting an amazing deal.
It should also be noted that the "stars" are already getting a benefit 90% of student athletes do not get: a full ride. The majority of NCAA student athletes only have partial schollys.
March 18th, 2013 at 10:20 PM ^
It's why I think the Olympic model makes sense, at least more than just straight up paying the players. They're still amateurs, but they would be open for Endorsements and such
March 18th, 2013 at 11:47 PM ^
So then you'd agree with O'Bannon right? They should get paid for their likeness (believe that's the term) used in video games.
If all athletes big or small felt that a full ride was this amazing gift then we wouldnt be having this conversation. We aren't talking about someone on the track team, field hockey, or even lacrosse. These guys see their jerseys in the stands, see themselves in every year of NCAA videogames, and can read the prices of tickets. It's no secret how much money the sweat and blood of a few use to provide for the rest. I don't think paying the players is the right way. I also think the reason the olympic model works so well is because most of the sports no one cares about for 3.5 years.
I've thought for a long time that a percentage of jersey sales should go directly to a tust account given to the player after graduation assuming they stayed out of trouble. If none of those things are met than it is given to a charity. The other option is create a semi pro league. Let those not interested in academics play for someone else.
many times for something like this.
Put some money in a (Tust?) account for the athletes, the more their likeness/popularity is used to make $ the more goes into the account. (say 20%)
This would acknowledge their worth to the university and reward them for their efforts.
Then make receiving that $ dependent on them furthuring their education by paying out only 25% if leaveing after 1 year 50% for 2, 75% for 3 and full 100% payout upon graduation.
Stars could stay 3 or 4 years and that $ would also pay for injury insurance etc.
It would also allow the big ten to honestly show that education & getting a degree are their members ultimate goals.
I don't think any player is going to assume they're going to make millions while in school, but seeing your account grow each year would be rewarding & motivating to stay in school and "get paid".
Sure a swim team member will never see a dime (apart from some 'ship $) but how much would 100% (of 20% of all #16 jersey sales after 4 years) help Denard? I'd say a lot.
March 18th, 2013 at 10:11 PM ^
The 110,000 seats filled for at least 7 Saturdays a fall tell me this will nver happen.
March 18th, 2013 at 10:11 PM ^
and is a pretty big hypocrite considering how every institution in this conference and the conference itself does anything it can for money (cough adding maryland and rutgers cough)
March 18th, 2013 at 10:22 PM ^
Maryland and Rutgers bring in far more research $$$ than they do athletic $$$. The B1G does not need sports to roll in dough.
March 18th, 2013 at 10:34 PM ^
Considering the B1G is an athletic association, I'm pretty sure they do need athletics to bring in the dough. The member schools may not, but B1G itself does.
March 18th, 2013 at 10:13 PM ^
Personally, I would love to see all major college athletics take the DIII model as it may actually bring some integrity back to sports.
March 18th, 2013 at 10:59 PM ^
Those teams don't compete with UM and OSU for recruits yet either!
March 18th, 2013 at 11:35 PM ^
Intellectually I know you are correct. D-I athletics is hopelessly broken, corrupt, and pretty much indefensible (if revenue sports didn't evolve the way they did, could anyone really justify creating the current system from scratch)?
But damnit, I love being with a group of fellow alumni on a Saturday afternoon for three perfect hours that people who went to D-III schools will never understand or experience. It keeps my friends and I connected to our university wherever we are in the world.
March 18th, 2013 at 10:13 PM ^
"That Veronica Vaughn is one piece of ACE. I know from experience dude. If you know what I mean." -Jim Delaney
March 18th, 2013 at 11:22 PM ^
March 19th, 2013 at 12:44 AM ^
I'LL TURN THIS DAMN BUS AROUND!
March 18th, 2013 at 10:17 PM ^
March 18th, 2013 at 10:48 PM ^
Lamp.
March 18th, 2013 at 10:20 PM ^
"Staples points out the discrepancy between the Big Ten adding Maryland and Rutgers for no other reason than cable money..."
There was a pretty good argument made here a while back that the reason for adding Maryland and Rutgers was much more about academic research funding than about athletics.
http://mgoblog.com/diaries/b1g-expansion-dollars-research-edition
Aside from that, I would applaud a move to take the B1G out of the money loop if O'Bannon's suit wins. It would be the beginning of minor-league football.
March 18th, 2013 at 10:18 PM ^
Hutchins is bluffing. The University of Chicago will NEVER drop football.
March 19th, 2013 at 12:24 AM ^
Fun fact: When Chicago reintroduced football in the late 60s, the students staged a sit-in at the 50 yard line right before the kickoff of the opening game. You've got to admire their tenacity.
March 18th, 2013 at 10:21 PM ^
March 18th, 2013 at 10:25 PM ^
From the article:
"He believes now as he believed then: A pay-for-play model involving contracts and individual negotiations with players would not interest the schools of the Big Ten."
Which is different from the plantiff plan: "...suggests players should receive 50 percent of television revenue. (The money, according to the plaintiffs' plan, would be placed into a trust and given to the players upon graduation.)"
50% seems high when most schools don't profit but I don't see any problem with the players getting a cut of the TV money, but I could see how this lawsuit could fracture the NCAA (maybe in good way). B1G isn't going to subisidize the MAC with their TV money so all the players get paid the same.
March 18th, 2013 at 10:35 PM ^
Delaney has constructed a straw man, here. I don't see anyone advocating for player contracts and individual negotiations. Just an equal slice of the pie. TV revenue makes sense as a jumping off point.
Any tv revenue attributable to a sport during the time a player is on that team (commercials shown during games or licenced segments (Michigan Replay)), is divvied up, say 65% to schools, 35% to players. Each scholarship player recieves the same percentage of that 35%, whether they're a starter or 4th string.
March 18th, 2013 at 11:37 PM ^
Here's what I think he's getting at.
If the schools are able to give money to athletes as they please (or as determined by conference), the big name schools (or schools in the BCS conferences) will have all of the elite athletes gravitate toward them. Basically, athletes at all schools are going to have to be given the same amount or any illusion of fairness will be gone. You can accomplish that by taking half of all of the television contracts, putting that money into a single pool, then splitting that money evenly across all athletes listed on an official roster. If that actually happens, rough numbers put the amount per football player at $55,600/year. The only problem that I see with this is that you now have non-BCS schools leeching off big name schools and every FCS school will want to move up to the FBS. If no rule is made and each school's television revenue is split amongst its athletes, then B1G football players would make around $116k/year. The basketball tournament alone would allow for $76,500/year per player.
Maybe what Delaney is getting at is that the players would no longer pull scholarships from the university, but instead get paid directly and then have to pay their way through school. Even the $55k is enough to pay your way through the nicest of schools and still have spending money left over. If that's the case, the scholarship is redundant. The athletes still come out on top (even after paying taxes) and the schools take a lessened blow from the lost television money. When contracts are up for negotiation, they will factor in the new costs and the bill will be fronted by the television providers. This also allows for players to get academic scholarships and pocket the football money.
This of course brings up potential Title IX issues. Should male players be getting paid while female players aren't? Does this alleviate those issues since the burden of paying for the athlete's schooling is removed from the schools? Should the money just be spread across all athletes? What happens when you do that and the amount of money per athlete drops below the cost of schooling?
Whatever happens, I think it will be very interesting to see. After working through this, I'm kind of leaning toward paying players directly and removing the athletic scholarships. I think it would end up being better for the students and the universities would make it work in the long run.
for athletic training as well. Tutoring services. Training table food. Etc.(Wait Minor League baseball players get $20 a day for food while on the road.)
Supposedly most Minor League baseball players get $850 a month the first season, and between $1050 and $2150 a month depending on A - AAA.
I'm sorry but that doesn't stack up to tuition, room, board, academic support, atheletic training, etc.
On the flip, I believe Denard should benefit more directly from his own jersey number sales. But who buys NCAA 12, or watches the game on TV or in person just because of one player? (Well ,aybe this coming year. ...)