planoaggie
Official BDF member
Posts: 2,239
Member is Online
|
Post by planoaggie on May 22, 2024 11:18:54 GMT -5
So could we have FCS schools/coaches/players suing the FBS schools or NCAA? How long will it be acceptable to the FCS schools to keep losing their best players due to NIL. FCS programs have always lost talent to the P5 programs even before NIL. The problem it's not the nil, the problem is the transfer portal and the immediate eligibility rule when it comes to transfers. Trust me if a player wanted to transfer and had to sit out for season like the old days. Do you honestly think a power five program would offer him nil money to sit on the bench or in the stands. I intentionally avoided mentioning a player sitting out a season or transfer portal since the players have pretty much won that legal battle. What is of issue is will there ever be a cap placed on NIL offer and who is restricted from making offers? These unknowns are creating a "greater" imbalance of good players leaving the FCS or lower tier conferences in other sports (mid-major to high-major, etc). Will the frustration of coaches, conferences, and players reach a high to where they say enough is enough and we can't compete or keep our jobs (coaches) under these conditions? My point is that the NCAA can't provide any consistency from year to year in any of their rules or bylaws, therefore conferences and coaches may sue the NCAA or someone from loss of job or revenue. We are a country of lawsuits.
|
|
planoaggie
Official BDF member
Posts: 2,239
Member is Online
|
Post by planoaggie on May 23, 2024 2:37:10 GMT -5
FCS programs have always lost talent to the P5 programs even before NIL. The problem it's not the nil, the problem is the transfer portal and the immediate eligibility rule when it comes to transfers. Trust me if a player wanted to transfer and had to sit out for season like the old days. Do you honestly think a power five program would offer him nil money to sit on the bench or in the stands. I intentionally avoided mentioning a player sitting out a season or transfer portal since the players have pretty much won that legal battle. What is of issue is will there ever be a cap placed on NIL offer and who is restricted from making offers? These unknowns are creating a "greater" imbalance of good players leaving the FCS or lower tier conferences in other sports (mid-major to high-major, etc). Will the frustration of coaches, conferences, and players reach a high to where they say enough is enough and we can't compete or keep our jobs (coaches) under these conditions? My point is that the NCAA can't provide any consistency from year to year in any of their rules or bylaws, therefore conferences and coaches may sue the NCAA or someone from loss of job or revenue. We are a country of lawsuits. I am not sure if this will help or hurt the FCS schools as to transfers and NIL. The article says that some programs could be eliminated. www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/college-athletes-on-brink-of-getting-2-8-billion-revenue-sharing-model-in-house-v-ncaa-settlement/amp/
|
|
|
Post by ATLaggie on May 23, 2024 9:16:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Bornthrilla on May 24, 2024 9:18:41 GMT -5
I wonder if yesterday's big announcement that colleges can start paying athletes directly now makes this whole NIL model obsolete?
It's seems as soon as we try to get in the game, they always just change the rules.
|
|
bluehaze
Official BDF member
Posts: 6,237
|
Post by bluehaze on May 24, 2024 9:51:58 GMT -5
House v. NCAA settlement winners and losers: Athletes take monumental step, non-revenue sports at riskHere are the winners and losers from the House v. NCAA settlement cbssports.com The House v. NCAA settlement signifies a line in the sand. Not since 1984's NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma have we seen a court ruling fundamentally alter the landscape of college athletics in this manner. Not only does the settlement distribute roughly $2.8 billion in NIL backpay, but it also establishes a framework for future athlete revenue-sharing. Details still need to be sorted out, but it's a landmark step toward getting players in on the financial windfall they generate. While the NCAA is responsible for roughly 40% of the settlement, much of the burden will fall on its member universities. The power conference schools are poised to contribute roughly 24% of the bill, leaving the often cash-strapped schools that comprise the remainder of Division I to cover the remaining 36% of the total settlement. It's a historic moment in college sports that will generate multiple layers of fallout over the months and years to come. For now, here's an early look at the winners and losers from the House v. NCAA case. Winner: The players At long last, the players will get a cut of the billions of dollars flooding into the NCAA, conferences and individual schools. While the advent of NIL compensation was a step in this direction, those payments come largely through third-party collectives funded by big-money boosters and average fans. Now, the athletic departments themselves are finally on the hook financially for the labor that fuels their products and underpins their budgets. While the $2.8 billion owed in backpay is eye-popping, that figure will be dwarfed by the amount paid out to athletes in the coming years as part of the revenue-sharing framework established by the case. Loser: The NCAA For decades the NCAA fought on behalf of its member schools to preserve the amateurism model. This officially marks the end of that war. While the House treaty ensures the NCAA's survival as an organization, it will be a diminished entity on the hook for $1.1 billion of the settlement. That money will come from its reserves and through budget cuts, as CBS Sports' Brandon Marcello reported. That means some lean years are ahead for the NCAA office in Indianapolis as it finds its footing in a new era. While the alternative to a settlement would have been a potentially fatal adjudication, this is still a big loss for the NCAA. Winner: Boosters and fan pocketbooks Athletic departments are still going to need boosters to make big-money contributions, arguably now more than ever as their budgets are squeezed amid a decrease in NCAA distributions and the advent of revenue-sharing. But the boosters and casual fans won't be so directly needed to fund talent acquisition. The term "booster fatigue" has become common in the college sports lexicon. Now, the primary onus for paying the players will be on the athletic departments. That takes financial pressure off supporters, who are already shelling out for seat licenses, season tickets, travel, merchandise, parking, concessions, cable packages and all the other expenses that come with being a college sports fan.Loser: Competitive balance Power conference schools are preparing to share in the neighborhood of 20% of their media rights revenue with the athletes. The total could surpass $20 million annually per school, further establishing the big boys as the premier destinations for the nation's most talented players. Even if Group of Five or FCS teams set aside a similar percentage of their media rights deals for player compensation, it will pale in comparison and widen the gulf between the haves and have-nots. While the big-brand schools have always been the preferred landing spots for most high-profile players, the compensation model of the pre-NIL era was equal: Players weren't supposed to make anything. Then came NIL and the abolition of transfer restrictions, which made it more difficult for the resource-strapped programs to attract and keep talent. This settlement is another setback for the competitive aspirations of those outside the power conference structure. Winner: the NCAA Tournament While a larger portion of the bill for the House settlement is falling on the other 27 Division I conferences than on the Power Four, there is a silver lining for the little guys: Preservation of the NCAA Tournament. The settlement essentially tethers the power leagues to the NCAA for the next decade. That makes a full-on breakaway from the Power Four to form its own postseason hoops championship even less likely than it was before. Whether the Big Dance will expand is another question entirely, but we should still see the Cinderellas getting a crack at the blue bloods each March. Loser: Non-revenue sports The fate of non-revenue sports (which at most schools means everything besides football and men's basketball) will hang in the balance as athletic administrators grapple with the financial ramifications of the settlement. In addition to potential measures such as staff cuts and delayed facilities upgrades, non-revenue sports could be on the chopping block. That's especially true for departments already struggling with financial solvency. With hits coming to their NCAA distributions and pressure rising to pay players in high-profile sports, don't be surprised to see lower-tier Division I departments axe some of their financially inefficient programs for the sake of making ends meet.
|
|
|
Post by Bornthrilla on May 24, 2024 9:54:57 GMT -5
"delayed facilities upgrades" ![](https://www.gifcen.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/facepalm-gif-1.gif)
|
|
|
Post by Bornthrilla on May 24, 2024 11:11:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by SixtiesAggie on May 24, 2024 11:50:11 GMT -5
I think that sometime ago I mentioned that Congress would be looking at this and eventually start setting some guidelines. Hopefully, once it all shakes out, it will be in the best interest of the athletes. The schools will take a big hit, since they will have to pay the athletes.
|
|
|
Post by Bornthrilla on May 24, 2024 12:00:15 GMT -5
How does this affect the fans?
Do Aggie supporters still donate to athletics at the same rate if all our money will now be going to just the football and men's basketball players and not the school?
|
|
planoaggie
Official BDF member
Posts: 2,239
Member is Online
|
Post by planoaggie on May 24, 2024 17:31:14 GMT -5
I wonder if yesterday's big announcement that colleges can start paying athletes directly now makes this whole NIL model obsolete? It's seems as soon as we try to get in the game, they always just change the rules. Like I said, no consistency in these NIL and transfer rules. Maybe in another year or two.
|
|
planoaggie
Official BDF member
Posts: 2,239
Member is Online
|
Post by planoaggie on May 24, 2024 17:38:56 GMT -5
House v. NCAA settlement winners and losers: Athletes take monumental step, non-revenue sports at riskHere are the winners and losers from the House v. NCAA settlement cbssports.com The House v. NCAA settlement signifies a line in the sand. Not since 1984's NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma have we seen a court ruling fundamentally alter the landscape of college athletics in this manner. Not only does the settlement distribute roughly $2.8 billion in NIL backpay, but it also establishes a framework for future athlete revenue-sharing. Details still need to be sorted out, but it's a landmark step toward getting players in on the financial windfall they generate. While the NCAA is responsible for roughly 40% of the settlement, much of the burden will fall on its member universities. The power conference schools are poised to contribute roughly 24% of the bill, leaving the often cash-strapped schools that comprise the remainder of Division I to cover the remaining 36% of the total settlement. It's a historic moment in college sports that will generate multiple layers of fallout over the months and years to come. For now, here's an early look at the winners and losers from the House v. NCAA case. Winner: The players At long last, the players will get a cut of the billions of dollars flooding into the NCAA, conferences and individual schools. While the advent of NIL compensation was a step in this direction, those payments come largely through third-party collectives funded by big-money boosters and average fans. Now, the athletic departments themselves are finally on the hook financially for the labor that fuels their products and underpins their budgets. While the $2.8 billion owed in backpay is eye-popping, that figure will be dwarfed by the amount paid out to athletes in the coming years as part of the revenue-sharing framework established by the case. Loser: The NCAA For decades the NCAA fought on behalf of its member schools to preserve the amateurism model. This officially marks the end of that war. While the House treaty ensures the NCAA's survival as an organization, it will be a diminished entity on the hook for $1.1 billion of the settlement. That money will come from its reserves and through budget cuts, as CBS Sports' Brandon Marcello reported. That means some lean years are ahead for the NCAA office in Indianapolis as it finds its footing in a new era. While the alternative to a settlement would have been a potentially fatal adjudication, this is still a big loss for the NCAA. Winner: Boosters and fan pocketbooks Athletic departments are still going to need boosters to make big-money contributions, arguably now more than ever as their budgets are squeezed amid a decrease in NCAA distributions and the advent of revenue-sharing. But the boosters and casual fans won't be so directly needed to fund talent acquisition. The term "booster fatigue" has become common in the college sports lexicon. Now, the primary onus for paying the players will be on the athletic departments. That takes financial pressure off supporters, who are already shelling out for seat licenses, season tickets, travel, merchandise, parking, concessions, cable packages and all the other expenses that come with being a college sports fan.Loser: Competitive balance Power conference schools are preparing to share in the neighborhood of 20% of their media rights revenue with the athletes. The total could surpass $20 million annually per school, further establishing the big boys as the premier destinations for the nation's most talented players. Even if Group of Five or FCS teams set aside a similar percentage of their media rights deals for player compensation, it will pale in comparison and widen the gulf between the haves and have-nots. While the big-brand schools have always been the preferred landing spots for most high-profile players, the compensation model of the pre-NIL era was equal: Players weren't supposed to make anything. Then came NIL and the abolition of transfer restrictions, which made it more difficult for the resource-strapped programs to attract and keep talent. This settlement is another setback for the competitive aspirations of those outside the power conference structure. Winner: the NCAA Tournament While a larger portion of the bill for the House settlement is falling on the other 27 Division I conferences than on the Power Four, there is a silver lining for the little guys: Preservation of the NCAA Tournament. The settlement essentially tethers the power leagues to the NCAA for the next decade. That makes a full-on breakaway from the Power Four to form its own postseason hoops championship even less likely than it was before. Whether the Big Dance will expand is another question entirely, but we should still see the Cinderellas getting a crack at the blue bloods each March. Loser: Non-revenue sports The fate of non-revenue sports (which at most schools means everything besides football and men's basketball) will hang in the balance as athletic administrators grapple with the financial ramifications of the settlement. In addition to potential measures such as staff cuts and delayed facilities upgrades, non-revenue sports could be on the chopping block. That's especially true for departments already struggling with financial solvency. With hits coming to their NCAA distributions and pressure rising to pay players in high-profile sports, don't be surprised to see lower-tier Division I departments axe some of their financially inefficient programs for the sake of making ends meet. NCA&T programs like bowling and golf may get cut. Do we get decent revenue from baseball or tennis?
|
|
|
Post by Bornthrilla on May 24, 2024 17:56:34 GMT -5
A&T baseball games are free and tennis matches dont even attract friends and families of the players. So no, I do not believe they generate any revenue.
|
|
planoaggie
Official BDF member
Posts: 2,239
Member is Online
|
Post by planoaggie on May 24, 2024 18:26:21 GMT -5
A&T baseball games are free and tennis matches dont even attract friends and families of the players. So no, I do not believe they generate any revenue. I guess we will have to see how our AD manage this mine field.
|
|
bluehaze
Official BDF member
Posts: 6,237
|
Post by bluehaze on May 24, 2024 18:52:54 GMT -5
This would be a good opportunity for an off-season podcast. Get Sam Herder back as a guest and also invite whoever is in charge of The Pride Collective.
|
|
planoaggie
Official BDF member
Posts: 2,239
Member is Online
|
Post by planoaggie on May 24, 2024 20:34:18 GMT -5
Are we not going to have none to a few walk-ons if roster are cut to 85 to 90 players all on scholarship? I thought we needed the extra players on the roster (>100) for practice.
|
|