NCAA proposes new direct athlete compensation subdivision

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
54,610
NCAA proposing new college athletics subdivision rooted in direct athlete compensation

According to Baker’s proposal, schools that choose to be part of the new subdivision — they can opt in or out — are required to meet a strict minimum standard rooted in athlete investment.

Members of the new subdivision will be permitted to strike name, image and likeness (NIL) deals with their own athletes — a significant move away from the current NIL structure.

However, the most impactful benefit of this new model is a framework in which schools can directly compensate athletes through a trust fund. Schools within the new subdivision will be required to distribute to athletes thousands of dollars in additional educationally related funds without limitation.
Entry into the subdivision requires a school to invest, at minimum, $30,000 per year per athlete into what is termed an “enhanced educational trust fund” for at least half of a school’s countable athletes. Schools would determine when athletes receive the amount, which, for four-year athletes, will total at least $120,000. Schools must continue to abide by the framework of Title IX, assuring that 50 percent of the investment be directed toward women athletes.

I don't think I like this part:

The new subdivision will remain under the umbrella of the NCAA, and its members will continue to compete for NCAA championships with others in Division I
If there are enough schools doing this, say the 65-70 P5 schools, split them apart, and give the G5 schools their own championship--at least in football and *maybe* hoops. Not that the G5 schools have a realistic shot to win in football NOW, but if we're going to separate these schools even more then give those kids a shot at a title.
 

axx

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
8,169
The 50% going to women athletes makes it a non-starter basically. Imagine it also means that a lot of the money would go to non-revenue male sports too.
 

Ale Xander

Hamilton
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
76,297
The 50% going to women athletes makes it a non-starter basically. Imagine it also means that a lot of the money would go to non-revenue male sports too.
The latter is the bigger non-starter
(I’m thinking Cross-Country, Wrestling etc)
 

axx

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
8,169
Now that you mention it, even CBB doesn't seem like it gets a lot of NIL. It's just Football.
 

CFB_Rules

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2016
1,648
NCAA proposing new college athletics subdivision rooted in direct athlete compensation






I don't think I like this part:



If there are enough schools doing this, say the 65-70 P5 schools, split them apart, and give the G5 schools their own championship--at least in football and *maybe* hoops. Not that the G5 schools have a realistic shot to win in football NOW, but if we're going to separate these schools even more then give those kids a shot at a title.
I'm guessing that since FBS schools already aren't competing for a NCAA Championship in football, their arrangement would stay more or less the same.
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
23,244
Pittsburgh, PA
"Schools must continue to abide by the framework of Title IX, assuring that 50 percent of the investment be directed toward women athletes."

Holy shit that'd be huge for equality of access at these schools. Even if, from a business / revenue perspective, it's the men playing revenue sports generally subsidizing the women, that's a great outcome for all involved. I imagine they'd probably prefer to split the gender-matching funds up a bit more, so for every $30k going to a football player, maybe you have $10k each going to 3 women's players in non-revenue sports.

The key thing here is for there to be a market for a player's commitment, so that schools can bid against each other on financial terms. That will ensure that (pending a lot of "if"s) players eventually end up with something resembling a fair share of the value they're creating. If that happens then sooner or later they will drop this paternalistic pretense about "schools will determine when the kids get the money", just on the basis of it being a free market.

I wonder what the plan is regarding agents. Will they let HS players, minors, have agents who negotiate these deals and optimize terms from schools? Will transfers be restricted (because if so, you're suddenly afoul of antitrust)? I feel like eventually this would head towards a collectively-bargained situation.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
54,610
I'm guessing that since FBS schools already aren't competing for a NCAA Championship in football, their arrangement would stay more or less the same.
Probably--what I would like though, is if they make the have and have not split even MORE obvious that they move to letting those G5 schools compete separately.
 

Awesome Fossum

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
3,958
Austin, TX
The G5 schools don't want to compete separately. They'd be playing FCS it that's what they wanted. They want to play at the top level of the sport.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
54,610
The G5 schools don't want to compete separately. They'd be playing FCS it that's what they wanted. They want to play at the top level of the sport.
That's fine. I'm saying what I would like to see. But if G5 schools are actually thinking they are "competing" with the P5 schools they're fooling themselves.
 

OCST

Sunny von Bulow
SoSH Member
Jan 10, 2004
24,974
The 718
Something like this was inevitable, the pressures building in this direction were too powerful to resist.

Between this and the P5 conferences inexorably sorting themselves into one or two coast-to-coast mega-leagues, the NCAA, as an umbrella organization for all sports at all levels down to DIII, is increasingly irrelevant. Probably will not exist in its current form much longer.
 

OCST

Sunny von Bulow
SoSH Member
Jan 10, 2004
24,974
The 718
That's fine. I'm saying what I would like to see. But if G5 schools are actually thinking they are "competing" with the P5 schools they're fooling themselves.
I really do think that soccer-style promotion-relegation would be the way to go for college sports. There are hundreds of schools, which is the kind of environment that makes it both possible and arguably more desirable, as reflective of the true competitive balance when a smaller school goes on a run of sustained excellence (Boise St. football) or slide into irrelevance.
 

Awesome Fossum

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
3,958
Austin, TX
That's fine. I'm saying what I would like to see. But if G5 schools are actually thinking they are "competing" with the P5 schools they're fooling themselves.
Fair enough. Just understand that widening the division between the power conference schools and the G5 schools is exactly what the G5 schools don't want to happen. Framing it as "letting those G5 schools compete separately" is a bit backward, imo.
 

VORP Speed

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
6,673
Ground Zero
The 50% going to women athletes makes it a non-starter basically. Imagine it also means that a lot of the money would go to non-revenue male sports too.
It's not 50% of overall $$$ going to women athletes, it's 50% of this compulsory $30,000 per athlete per year trust fund. The schools are also then able to do NIL deals directly with their own athletes, and that's presumably where the real money would be. So the trust fund scheme sets up a "league minimum" type of arrangement for non-revenue athletes and then "free agency" for the revenue athletes. That's actually pretty sensible.
 

axx

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
8,169
It's not 50% of overall $$$ going to women athletes, it's 50% of this compulsory $30,000 per athlete per year trust fund. The schools are also then able to do NIL deals directly with their own athletes, and that's presumably where the real money would be. So the trust fund scheme sets up a "league minimum" type of arrangement for non-revenue athletes and then "free agency" for the revenue athletes. That's actually pretty sensible.
I feel like donors would revolt if the money isn't going to football. And schools sure as h not going to pay $30k for non revenue athletes on top of the free ride just to keep the NCAA afloat.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jun 22, 2008
36,533
I feel like donors would revolt if the money isn't going to football. And schools sure as h not going to pay $30k for non revenue athletes on top of the free ride just to keep the NCAA afloat.
Paying for women’s programs to maintain Title IX compliance is already part of the cost of maintaining a big-time football program (or really any football program). The need to fund women’s sports alongside the football program isn’t going to stop anyone.
 

axx

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
8,169
Paying for women’s programs to maintain Title IX compliance is already part of the cost of maintaining a big-time football program (or really any football program). The need to fund women’s sports alongside the football program isn’t going to stop anyone.
This proposal goes way beyond that.... basically taking NIL money away from football and giving it to non revenue sports.

You can see why the NCAA fought so hard to keep the amateurism, at least on the surface, as long as they could. College Football makes a ton of money but not that much.
 

VORP Speed

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
6,673
Ground Zero
This proposal goes way beyond that.... basically taking NIL money away from football and giving it to non revenue sports.

You can see why the NCAA fought so hard to keep the amateurism, at least on the surface, as long as they could. College Football makes a ton of money but not that much.
It doesn’t do that at all. Big time sports schools have athletic budgets in the $150-200m range. Finding $5m to pay athletes is just cost of doing business. Shift a few bucks around in the budget for non-revenue sports, nobody will even notice.
 

Fred not Lynn

Dick Button Jr.
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
5,273
Alberta
The 50% going to women athletes makes it a non-starter basically. Imagine it also means that a lot of the money would go to non-revenue male sports too.
I imagine in means the exact opposite…after you’ve spent what you need for all the football players and the obligatory corresponding female athletes , there will be nothing left for non-revenue male sports.
 

SoxJox

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2003
7,298
Rock > SoxJox < Hard Place
Thought this is worthy of its own thread and didn't see it elsewhere.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/sports/ncaa-president-wants-colleges-directly-pay-student-athletes-rcna128213

"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.

Baker’s proposal is aimed at creating a new subdivision, covering all sports, where the richest athletic departments in the so-called Power Five conferences — the Big Ten, Southeastern Conference, Big 12, Atlantic Coast Conference and Pac-12 — can operate differently than the rest.

The proposed shift would not require all members of a conference to be part of the new subdivision. Schools would be allowed to make that determination individually.

Baker noted athletic budgets in Division I range from $5 million and $250 million annually, with 59 schools spending over $100 million annually and another 32 spending over $50 million. He said 259 Division I schools, however, spend less than $50 million on their athletic programs.

Baker said the difference in the way schools that participate in revenue-generating college sports such as major college football and basketball operate and the vast majority of college sports is complicating attempts to modernize the entire enterprise.
 

Ale Xander

Hamilton
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
76,297
Thought this is worthy of its own thread and didn't see it elsewhere.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/sports/ncaa-president-wants-colleges-directly-pay-student-athletes-rcna128213

"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.

Baker’s proposal is aimed at creating a new subdivision, covering all sports, where the richest athletic departments in the so-called Power Five conferences — the Big Ten, Southeastern Conference, Big 12, Atlantic Coast Conference and Pac-12 — can operate differently than the rest.

The proposed shift would not require all members of a conference to be part of the new subdivision. Schools would be allowed to make that determination individually.

Baker noted athletic budgets in Division I range from $5 million and $250 million annually, with 59 schools spending over $100 million annually and another 32 spending over $50 million. He said 259 Division I schools, however, spend less than $50 million on their athletic programs.

Baker said the difference in the way schools that participate in revenue-generating college sports such as major college football and basketball operate and the vast majority of college sports is complicating attempts to modernize the entire enterprise.
About 8 threads down, last replied yesterday at 8:20 am I believe
 

Theodoric

New Member
Jun 13, 2022
22
I know college football (and basketball) are culturally significant. It perversely brings in a whole bunch of money, that unfairly the players don't get. But it only works because we pretend these are amateur college players, representing a school, not minor league players. If we pull down that fictional wall, Alabama-Auburn isn't a spectacle any more, it's just minor league football.

(Now, under-23 football could still be a reasonable product. For anyone who doesn't know, the reason it's called the Kentucky Derby and runs three year-olds is because an English Earl of Derby who was a dissolute gambler thought that betting on fully adult horses whose performance was known was boring, and gambling on three year-olds with much more variable performance was more fun. An under-23 football league could be lots of fun. But if it's just a highly profitable under-23 league, there's no reason for the highest paid state employee in just about every Southern state to be a football coach.)
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
54,610
Fair enough. Just understand that widening the division between the power conference schools and the G5 schools is exactly what the G5 schools don't want to happen. Framing it as "letting those G5 schools compete separately" is a bit backward, imo.
I completely understand that the G5's don't want it. I also understand that probably won't matter at all. And at that point, what do they do? Continue to say they want to compete against them? Maybe.

But if a G5 school comes to the realization that they can barely compete with the P5s now (and, yes, not across the board, I understand that) what will happen when that gulf widens? If you consign yourself to just going along with it, fine. You are NOT competing with them AND have no shot at postseason glory. If you split and maybe realign the G5s and some FCS schools, then you're still NOT competing with them but maybe you can win something.
 

OCST

Sunny von Bulow
SoSH Member
Jan 10, 2004
24,974
The 718
I know college football (and basketball) are culturally significant. It perversely brings in a whole bunch of money, that unfairly the players don't get. But it only works because we pretend these are amateur college players, representing a school, not minor league players. If we pull down that fictional wall, Alabama-Auburn isn't a spectacle any more, it's just minor league football.

(Now, under-23 football could still be a reasonable product. For anyone who doesn't know, the reason it's called the Kentucky Derby and runs three year-olds is because an English Earl of Derby who was a dissolute gambler thought that betting on fully adult horses whose performance was known was boring, and gambling on three year-olds with much more variable performance was more fun. An under-23 football league could be lots of fun. But if it's just a highly profitable under-23 league, there's no reason for the highest paid state employee in just about every Southern state to be a football coach.)
I don't see why. As one who believes that big time college sports are exploitative, and that the "student-athlete" ideal is largely fiction, I've long advocated for overt professonalization, where the teams could just license the names, logos etc. from the universities, pay their players, and operate as professional entities - rather than the de facto professionalism that is going on now.

When a college football season draws hundreds of millions in ticket sales and billions in revenue, when the coach is the highest paid state employee, when the spend on training facilities is comparable with professional teams and orders of magnitude greater than on other university facilities, when sponsors of national brands choose to anchor their entire marketing campaigns around the sport and spend accordingly - this is a professional enterprise in any way that counts. The idea that you keep it "college" by not offering the players a salary, when literally trillions of dollars trades hands otherwise. is to me both illogical on its face and morally perverse, as it is the talent and skill of the players that sells the tickets and it is the players' bodies that take the punishment.

The Olympics had a similar "amateur" myth that was jettisoned a while ago without discernable harm.

I dunno. I am a moderately-interested college sports fan. There are rabid fans who tell me I'm wrong, that my take offends them, that I don't get it. I don't have skin in the game and I certainly respect the passion and emotional investment so I will yield and don't want to be a knob about it. But to me the strength of college sports, the secret-sauce that you don't get from any other sporting endeavor (or any endeavor really) is the tradition, the feeling of being on-campus on a big-game Saturday, being in the crowd of alums as they watch old rivals go at it. Well, the custodians of the game have completely killed that, with atrocities such as Rutgers and UCLA both in the same conference (and that being the Big Ten, FFS). I honestly and truly do not comprehend in my bones how someone could sit in the Big House for Michigan-Wisconsin, for example, and watch and enjoy, and have their feelings be different depending on whether the players are paid or not.
 

Theodoric

New Member
Jun 13, 2022
22
I don't see why. As one who believes that big time college sports are exploitative, and that the "student-athlete" ideal is largely fiction, I've long advocated for overt professonalization, where the teams could just license the names, logos etc. from the universities, pay their players, and operate as professional entities - rather than the de facto professionalism that is going on now.

When a college football season draws hundreds of millions in ticket sales and billions in revenue, when the coach is the highest paid state employee, when the spend on training facilities is comparable with professional teams and orders of magnitude greater than on other university facilities, when sponsors of national brands choose to anchor their entire marketing campaigns around the sport and spend accordingly - this is a professional enterprise in any way that counts. The idea that you keep it "college" by not offering the players a salary, when literally trillions of dollars trades hands otherwise. is to me both illogical on its face and morally perverse, as it is the talent and skill of the players that sells the tickets and it is the players' bodies that take the punishment.

The Olympics had a similar "amateur" myth that was jettisoned a while ago without discernable harm.

I dunno. I am a moderately-interested college sports fan. There are rabid fans who tell me I'm wrong, that my take offends them, that I don't get it. I don't have skin in the game and I certainly respect the passion and emotional investment so I will yield and don't want to be a knob about it. But to me the strength of college sports, the secret-sauce that you don't get from any other sporting endeavor (or any endeavor really) is the tradition, the feeling of being on-campus on a big-game Saturday, being in the crowd of alums as they watch old rivals go at it. Well, the custodians of the game have completely killed that, with atrocities such as Rutgers and UCLA both in the same conference (and that being the Big Ten, FFS). I honestly and truly do not comprehend in my bones how someone could sit in the Big House for Michigan-Wisconsin, for example, and watch and enjoy, and have their feelings be different depending on whether the players are paid or not.
I don't really disagree with you. It is exploitative, and the tradition is largely fictitious now. But that fiction is important to the value. We need to pretend these are really college kids representing their schools. Otherwise, Michigan-Ohio St. is just the AAA Tigers against the AAA Reds. And no one is paying serious money for that.

I'm not really sure how to fix it. It's a historical anomaly that football has a de facto minor league that makes serious money. But it only does because, for historical reasons, we pretend. Transfer portal, NIL, even straight up pay seem fair now. But if we completely give up the fiction that it's college kids playing for their school, it's just minor league football, and all the money goes away.

(Appreciate your Everton posts, by the way. I'm a Gooner. And no one is going to go see Everton u-23s v. Arsenal u-23s, much less find someone who'll pay millions for the right to broadcast it. College football is just weird.)
 

Awesome Fossum

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
3,958
Austin, TX
I completely understand that the G5's don't want it. I also understand that probably won't matter at all. And at that point, what do they do? Continue to say they want to compete against them? Maybe.

But if a G5 school comes to the realization that they can barely compete with the P5s now (and, yes, not across the board, I understand that) what will happen when that gulf widens? If you consign yourself to just going along with it, fine. You are NOT competing with them AND have no shot at postseason glory. If you split and maybe realign the G5s and some FCS schools, then you're still NOT competing with them but maybe you can win something.
I guess I'm not following how that's different from the status quo. The option to go drop down a subdivision and go win something -- the NCAA Division 1 championship, in fact -- is already available to all G5s right now. I believe Idaho in 2018 (hosting an FCS quarterfinal game on Saturday) is the only school to make that move since the Ivy League did it in the early 1980s.

It's not about winning a championship for these schools; it's about the prestige and visibility you get from competing (and I say that not in the winning sense but in the participating sense) at the top level of the sport.

But I think maybe I just misunderstood your original point -- I interpreted your post as saying this would somehow be a favor done to the G5 schools getting relegated. Apologies if I misread that.
 

IdiotKicker

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 21, 2005
11,226
Somerville, MA
I don't really disagree with you. It is exploitative, and the tradition is largely fictitious now. But that fiction is important to the value. We need to pretend these are really college kids representing their schools. Otherwise, Michigan-Ohio St. is just the AAA Tigers against the AAA Reds. And no one is paying serious money for that.

I'm not really sure how to fix it. It's a historical anomaly that football has a de facto minor league that makes serious money. But it only does because, for historical reasons, we pretend. Transfer portal, NIL, even straight up pay seem fair now. But if we completely give up the fiction that it's college kids playing for their school, it's just minor league football, and all the money goes away.

(Appreciate your Everton posts, by the way. I'm a Gooner. And no one is going to go see Everton u-23s v. Arsenal u-23s, much less find someone who'll pay millions for the right to broadcast it. College football is just weird.)
I don’t understand how players getting paid to represent a school changes anything about our willingness to watch or go to these games. Why does the financial status of a 19-year-old impact whether or not I get excited when he crosses a white line into a painted section of grass?

It isn’t the lack of payment that makes college football exciting. If it were, then we’d be college fencing fans because they don’t get paid either and they have swords. Or foils. Whatever.

The reason people care about college football is because other people care about college football. That’s it. It’s the crowd seeing the crowd. It’s not a better sport than college soccer or tennis or diving. Trust me, I’ve heckled at college squash matches when I was in school and it’s a blast. But only because there were 200 of us attending and the crowd sees the crowd.

With college football, you have the crowds and the cultures already built in. On game day, that is all that matters. “Are you going to the game?” And once you’re there and you have a couple beers, how can you not get swept up in the pageantry and emotion of it all. Because it’s still a bunch of 19-year-old knuckleheads who feel the emotion of every play while they’re playing, just because they haven’t been through it for 15 years and see that the difference between winning and losing isn’t really that much.

So yeah, I don’t think this changes anything. If you want to make a case that quality may get worse because of excessive transfers and lack of continuity, I could buy that. But I’m still in favor of anything that lets the talent that actually generates the money make the money. And we’ll still watch.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
54,610
I guess I'm not following how that's different from the status quo. The option to go drop down a subdivision and go win something -- the NCAA Division 1 championship, in fact -- is already available to all G5s right now. I believe Idaho in 2018 (hosting an FCS quarterfinal game on Saturday) is the only school to make that move since the Ivy League did it in the early 1980s.

It's not about winning a championship for these schools; it's about the prestige and visibility you get from competing (and I say that not in the winning sense but in the participating sense) at the top level of the sport.

But I think maybe I just misunderstood your original point -- I interpreted your post as saying this would somehow be a favor done to the G5 schools getting relegated. Apologies if I misread that.
I wasn't clear. But my point is just that IF this widening happens it's a good time for the G5 schools to stand up and ask for their own championship. I think it would be cool for teams like JMU, ODU, Marshall, Utah State, Ball State, Bowling Green, FAU, Fresno State, MTSU, etc. to have an actual postseason as well as opposed to the once in a while shot to make the 12-team playoff and get crushed by Oregon or some SEC team in the first round.

It's possible they don't want this and that's fine as well.
 

Awesome Fossum

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
3,958
Austin, TX
I wasn't clear. But my point is just that IF this widening happens it's a good time for the G5 schools to stand up and ask for their own championship. I think it would be cool for teams like JMU, ODU, Marshall, Utah State, Ball State, Bowling Green, FAU, Fresno State, MTSU, etc. to have an actual postseason as well as opposed to the once in a while shot to make the 12-team playoff and get crushed by Oregon or some SEC team in the first round.

It's possible they don't want this and that's fine as well.
Got it. I'd continue to quibble on two points: first, that it's not just possible that they don't want to be relegated; it's their revealed preference.

Second, I don't think assuming blowouts in the first round of the 12-team playoff is justifiable. The G5 teams are 4-5 in the NY6 games. Of the five losses, only two were by more than one possession.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
54,610
Got it. I'd continue to quibble on two points: first, that it's not just possible that they don't want to be relegated; it's their revealed preference.

Second, I don't think assuming blowouts in the first round of the 12-team playoff is justifiable. The G5 teams are 4-5 in the NY6 games. Of the five losses, only two were by more than one possession.
Fair points. I don't see it as relegated, I see it as the others simply elevating themselves to a point that you can't even fool yourself into thinking you can compete with.

To your second point, I don't know if I'd compare bowl game performance to how a G5 team would do in a playoff game scenario where it's doubtful anyone would sit out like they might in bowl games. Additionally, even if not sitting out, some P5 team getting a NY6 game may not quite care as much as some G5 squad getting their shot at a big boy. That goes away in a bowl game.
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
23,244
Pittsburgh, PA

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
54,610