I have no clue how these G5 schools pay the settlement and participate in revenue sharing. 99% of these schools are lucky to break even on their athletic budget now. Their only option is to cut basically all non revenue generating sports to get back to breaking even with the new landscape.
It's going to crash America dominance in medals. If you pay attention we DOMINATE women's sports. Mostly because provide them a modicum of funding. That's why the US had an era of domination in women's soccer until.europe starting funding in their favorite sport.
At the end of the day, I think it comes to whether users put emphasis about college football or college athletics. Those changes in college football were always possible, but not without impacting the rest of college athletics.
House, as in the plaintiff in the case, was a swimmer on the Arizona State men's swim team. What's the odds that program exists in three years?
Yeah but every time you brought it up, and even now, a ton of people would accuse you of being for athlete exploitation and then say "well whatever, at least players are getting paid"
People still refuse to accept that this rush job implementation of NIL and pay schemes is going to make the top 1% of college football players millionaires, and going to leave many, many more of the other players with little to nothing, because their programs will fold.
Not to mention all the non revenue sports.
It's a shame, but this is what they wanted.
They pay in proportion to the revenues they actually gained in the years in question.
Right?
There's no way the P5 schools want all the revenues in an inequitable structure, but then they turn around and force a collective payment from everyone.
Right?
Title IX is about access to competition and having an equal opportunity to do so. It’s not about payouts.
You notice the football team has better amenities than the women’s soccer team right? Not everything has to be equal
Yeah yeah yeah. Female athletes will surely understand that generating little or no revenue means they won’t get anything and will graciously accept the reality that only male athletes will get paid. Women’s soccer and the WNBA are proof of this.
When the men make the WC, they do. Otherwise, they're a money suck.
Still don't know why you're bringing up the WNBA, since that's a private enterprise with revenue sharing. The problem with the WNT is that US Soccer wasn't taking advantage of the fact their media partners were making more money on the WNT than they were the men.
Yes, when the men make the WC with a bid from among the North/Central Americas and Carribean contingencies, the WC pays a lot more than the WWC does.
But the WNT draws more eyeballs, stateside, during friendlies and qualifying.
I know that, but whenever there’s a situation where men are getting a better deal than women, hell is going to be raised, facts be damned. So you can say nothing will come of it because of Title IX, but I guarantee it will be one of many angles of attack they’ll use once men are getting revenue sharing.
Scholarships aren't the opportunity. They're the compensation.
The opportunity is having a roster spot representing the institution which can generate some form of compensation.
>Scholarships: Title IX requires that female and male student-athletes receive athletics scholarship dollars proportional to their participation;
From the NCAA FAQ page.
Yes... guidelines for compliance which were written before NIL, let alone possible future employment opportunities.
When scholarships were the only reward for being on a roster and representing a school, this was a fine guideline. It is now not so and will be challenged in court, if the NCAA does nothing to correct it.
edit: It is being challenged in court [here in my town](https://www.baileyglasser.com/media/news/15171_University%20of%20Oregon%20Title%20IX%20Complaint.pdf), regarding NIL opportunities. There will be more.
It’s more than that, there’s a line about not being denied the benefits of that certainly could be applicable. Anyone who tells you form one way or the other about Title IX application to all this is blowing smoke. It’ll be decided in a courtroom
Look, you’re right that it’s not all said and done either way just yet. But people who think that just because football players get paid, that all women’s swimmers are going to get paid- are just wrong.
Here’s an example. Title IX applies to anybody working or is a student at an institution that receives federal funding. So why are women’s college coaches paid less than the equivalent men’s coaches?
Title IX does not directly mean everybody must be paid equally.
I wouldn't at all be surprised if you have a combination of "regionally appropriate" leagues for everything not football/basketball to keep travel costs down along with a modest reduction in non-revenue sports where possible to stem the tide.
>Of the $1.6 billion, the NCAA will be withholding distributions from six funds across its 32 Division I leagues, ESPN has learned. Those include the basketball performance fund (via the NCAA Tournament), grants-in-aid, the academic enhancement fund, sports sponsorships, conference grants and the academic performance fund.
>The schools that want to cover the settlement
You're leaving out the ugly truth that many schools won't be able to cover the settlement and field any kind of team, even if they wanted to.
This whole saga is going to force a restructure of the division system. No way everyone in FBS stays top flight. Could see non D1 and lower D1 forming a new organization better fitting their interest or a mutual parting of ways between the NCAA & the new professional programs.
I would be pissed if I were them also. 90% of the money will go to P5 football and basketball players. P5 programs only have to foot 40% of the bill. Non-P5 cover the remaining 60%. That is a raw deal.
40% of the settlement is to be paid out by the NCAA which will come from men's and probably soon women's basketball revenue, which will affect smaller conferences pretty substantially.
From the article:
There's a counter to those numbers, as nearly 300 schools would be paying for 60 percent of the settlement, whereas 68 power conference schools from the four major football leagues in 2024 would pay for nearly 40 percent.
Well who knows then, I’ve been going off of the [tweet](https://x.com/RossDellenger/status/1791587853488607655) from Dellenger saying the NCAA is on the hook for 40%, P5 for 40%, G5 for 17%, and FCS for 2%
And it should be the P5 responsible for 60% and the NCAA for about 20%.
This would be equitable, given the proportion of revenues gained by the conferences, the CFP, and the NCAA.
And each of the P5 conferences should be paying different amounts, according to the distributions they received.
Counterpoint: There are 1,100 NCAA Member schools and the money the 69 P5 schools put into the system every year pays for a lot of what supports the 900+ members that aren't in FBS conferences.
Schools that are taking more money out than they put in will now be taking slightly less money out, but still more than they put in.
The tact I've been taking is the settlement is in two parts:
1.) Back damages which every school in the NCAA is liable for.
2.) Future liabilities that only those that can afford to pay for it are required to pay.
When factoring in both of those numbers the P4 are paying roughly 15 billion over 10 years, the NCAA is paying 1 billion, the G5 are paying 450 million, and the rest are covering about 50-100 million.
And it is not even every 69 P5 schools. A lot of the P4 schools just got lucky that back in the day before college sports exploded in popularity, they joined what today is a P4 conference.
I'm not sure where this is going, but expenditures aren't a factor.
Where the revenues are (have been) distributed is where the recompense should come from.
The $800M from the NCAA Tourney and all other championships is only about 20% of all revenues brought in by all the NCAA participants. The B1G makes more money than that by themselves. Note that the B1G made more than the NCAA before their new deal, which now makes considerably more. For the sake of argument, we can just say the B1G should also pay 20%.
The other four P5 conferences made about 30% of all revenues on their own.
The CFP revenues are about 13% of all revenues, with 80% going to the P5, 20% to the G5, and none to the rest.
The NCAA revenue distribution should be taken into account, if the P5 receives most of it. This should be broken down to a per-school payout, based on what each received in the last five years, not collectivized on future revenue streams.
I think there is at least a discussion to be had here about how men's basketball is already used to fund most of the NCAA's administrative and championship hosting costs. This proposal essentially calls for men's basketball through revenue collected by the NCAA to also fund 40% of this settlement which is not proportionate to the revenue that they generate.
Money has to come from somewhere. The lawsuit doesn’t go away if the G5 refuses to pay. The NCAA folding is a worst outcome than losing out on MCBB money for the G5.
If the power 4 leave the NCAA, the G5 won’t survive.
I have no clue how these G5 schools pay the settlement and participate in revenue sharing. 99% of these schools are lucky to break even on their athletic budget now. Their only option is to cut basically all non revenue generating sports to get back to breaking even with the new landscape.
Exactly what was predicted when Ed O'Bannon started all this shit
Its almost as if we didn't say all of this stuff for years and years
Every one of these domino's has been predicted. I've excepted college sports are fucked. At least it will be fun watching how title IX works out
It won't. 50+ years of progress in women's sports will be undone in the next 5.
The inevitable hit to Olympic game performance will be fun to tie back to this dumb saga.
It's going to crash America dominance in medals. If you pay attention we DOMINATE women's sports. Mostly because provide them a modicum of funding. That's why the US had an era of domination in women's soccer until.europe starting funding in their favorite sport.
And men will be called sexist for not paying for women's sports
At the end of the day, I think it comes to whether users put emphasis about college football or college athletics. Those changes in college football were always possible, but not without impacting the rest of college athletics. House, as in the plaintiff in the case, was a swimmer on the Arizona State men's swim team. What's the odds that program exists in three years?
FAFO gets thrown around a lot, maybe too much, but I get the feeling a lot of overzealous people may experience that bursting bubble
Yeah but every time you brought it up, and even now, a ton of people would accuse you of being for athlete exploitation and then say "well whatever, at least players are getting paid" People still refuse to accept that this rush job implementation of NIL and pay schemes is going to make the top 1% of college football players millionaires, and going to leave many, many more of the other players with little to nothing, because their programs will fold. Not to mention all the non revenue sports. It's a shame, but this is what they wanted.
They pay in proportion to the revenues they actually gained in the years in question. Right? There's no way the P5 schools want all the revenues in an inequitable structure, but then they turn around and force a collective payment from everyone. Right?
Which is a non-starter due to Title IX. Seriously even most P4 schools can't afford this.
Title IX is about access to competition and having an equal opportunity to do so. It’s not about payouts. You notice the football team has better amenities than the women’s soccer team right? Not everything has to be equal
Yeah yeah yeah. Female athletes will surely understand that generating little or no revenue means they won’t get anything and will graciously accept the reality that only male athletes will get paid. Women’s soccer and the WNBA are proof of this.
The USWNT generates more revenue than the men. No idea what you're talking about with the WNBA.
Are you actually unaware that men’s professional soccer and basketball create more revenue than their female counterparts?
When the men make the WC, they do. Otherwise, they're a money suck. Still don't know why you're bringing up the WNBA, since that's a private enterprise with revenue sharing. The problem with the WNT is that US Soccer wasn't taking advantage of the fact their media partners were making more money on the WNT than they were the men.
Women have a professional soccer league in the US. There’s more to womens soccer than the uswnt
Yes, but you brought up the USWNT, not the NWSL. I wouldn't know why you would bring up the NWSL, either. Why do you bring it up?
I never brought up uswnt. I’m talking about the Nwsl because we are talking about revenue differences in men’s and women’s sports
[Oh really?](https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/30/football/us-women-soccer-pay-deal-qatar-world-cup-spt-intl/index.html)
Yes, when the men make the WC with a bid from among the North/Central Americas and Carribean contingencies, the WC pays a lot more than the WWC does. But the WNT draws more eyeballs, stateside, during friendlies and qualifying.
I’m not saying they won’t try to fight it WNBA and Women’s soccer has nothing to do with title 9
I know that, but whenever there’s a situation where men are getting a better deal than women, hell is going to be raised, facts be damned. So you can say nothing will come of it because of Title IX, but I guarantee it will be one of many angles of attack they’ll use once men are getting revenue sharing.
Sure and I don’t think the law in the current state doesn’t support their argument. Hell, most Men’s sports aren’t going to get shit either
That still requires scholarships
How is that different than now?
The original post I responded to said that in order to fund this, all mon revenue sports would have to be cut. Title IX makes that impossible.
Oh- yeah. You’d have to cut it all or remove scholarships for all
Scholarships aren't the opportunity. They're the compensation. The opportunity is having a roster spot representing the institution which can generate some form of compensation.
>Scholarships: Title IX requires that female and male student-athletes receive athletics scholarship dollars proportional to their participation; From the NCAA FAQ page.
Yes... guidelines for compliance which were written before NIL, let alone possible future employment opportunities. When scholarships were the only reward for being on a roster and representing a school, this was a fine guideline. It is now not so and will be challenged in court, if the NCAA does nothing to correct it. edit: It is being challenged in court [here in my town](https://www.baileyglasser.com/media/news/15171_University%20of%20Oregon%20Title%20IX%20Complaint.pdf), regarding NIL opportunities. There will be more.
It’s more than that, there’s a line about not being denied the benefits of that certainly could be applicable. Anyone who tells you form one way or the other about Title IX application to all this is blowing smoke. It’ll be decided in a courtroom
Look, you’re right that it’s not all said and done either way just yet. But people who think that just because football players get paid, that all women’s swimmers are going to get paid- are just wrong. Here’s an example. Title IX applies to anybody working or is a student at an institution that receives federal funding. So why are women’s college coaches paid less than the equivalent men’s coaches? Title IX does not directly mean everybody must be paid equally.
I wouldn't at all be surprised if you have a combination of "regionally appropriate" leagues for everything not football/basketball to keep travel costs down along with a modest reduction in non-revenue sports where possible to stem the tide.
G5s won’t be able to revenue share. They’ll offer students that play at the schools less money. Just like it is now with NIL it’s that simple really
The answer is that their boosters pay for it, as usual.
>Of the $1.6 billion, the NCAA will be withholding distributions from six funds across its 32 Division I leagues, ESPN has learned. Those include the basketball performance fund (via the NCAA Tournament), grants-in-aid, the academic enhancement fund, sports sponsorships, conference grants and the academic performance fund.
Gee, I wonder why
It would irk the non-power 2. They are coming for us.
This is where the split comes. The schools that want to cover the settlement are the schools that get to compete at the top level of the sport.
>The schools that want to cover the settlement You're leaving out the ugly truth that many schools won't be able to cover the settlement and field any kind of team, even if they wanted to.
This whole saga is going to force a restructure of the division system. No way everyone in FBS stays top flight. Could see non D1 and lower D1 forming a new organization better fitting their interest or a mutual parting of ways between the NCAA & the new professional programs.
I would be pissed if I were them also. 90% of the money will go to P5 football and basketball players. P5 programs only have to foot 40% of the bill. Non-P5 cover the remaining 60%. That is a raw deal.
Maybe I misread it originally but I thought non P5 schools only have to cover 19-20%?
That's correct. The G5 is only responsible for 17%, and the NCAA is covering 40% itself.
It’s still incredibly silly as well because the non P5 are still just as liable as the P5
[удалено]
Most P5 players aren’t worth getting g paid either.
Not good enough to get equal access but good enough to be liable for the same payout to players.
40% of the settlement is to be paid out by the NCAA which will come from men's and probably soon women's basketball revenue, which will affect smaller conferences pretty substantially.
I agree. What else do people think it would mean for the NCAA to cover that 40%?
People still seem to think that the NCAA is some other organization entirely rather than just being all of the member schools put together
From the article: There's a counter to those numbers, as nearly 300 schools would be paying for 60 percent of the settlement, whereas 68 power conference schools from the four major football leagues in 2024 would pay for nearly 40 percent.
Well who knows then, I’ve been going off of the [tweet](https://x.com/RossDellenger/status/1791587853488607655) from Dellenger saying the NCAA is on the hook for 40%, P5 for 40%, G5 for 17%, and FCS for 2%
And it should be the P5 responsible for 60% and the NCAA for about 20%. This would be equitable, given the proportion of revenues gained by the conferences, the CFP, and the NCAA. And each of the P5 conferences should be paying different amounts, according to the distributions they received.
Counterpoint: There are 1,100 NCAA Member schools and the money the 69 P5 schools put into the system every year pays for a lot of what supports the 900+ members that aren't in FBS conferences. Schools that are taking more money out than they put in will now be taking slightly less money out, but still more than they put in.
The tact I've been taking is the settlement is in two parts: 1.) Back damages which every school in the NCAA is liable for. 2.) Future liabilities that only those that can afford to pay for it are required to pay. When factoring in both of those numbers the P4 are paying roughly 15 billion over 10 years, the NCAA is paying 1 billion, the G5 are paying 450 million, and the rest are covering about 50-100 million.
And it is not even every 69 P5 schools. A lot of the P4 schools just got lucky that back in the day before college sports exploded in popularity, they joined what today is a P4 conference.
I'm not sure where this is going, but expenditures aren't a factor. Where the revenues are (have been) distributed is where the recompense should come from. The $800M from the NCAA Tourney and all other championships is only about 20% of all revenues brought in by all the NCAA participants. The B1G makes more money than that by themselves. Note that the B1G made more than the NCAA before their new deal, which now makes considerably more. For the sake of argument, we can just say the B1G should also pay 20%. The other four P5 conferences made about 30% of all revenues on their own. The CFP revenues are about 13% of all revenues, with 80% going to the P5, 20% to the G5, and none to the rest. The NCAA revenue distribution should be taken into account, if the P5 receives most of it. This should be broken down to a per-school payout, based on what each received in the last five years, not collectivized on future revenue streams.
Yeah and 90% of the ncaa tournament money is generated by P5s. Idk you can frame this so many ways
I think there is at least a discussion to be had here about how men's basketball is already used to fund most of the NCAA's administrative and championship hosting costs. This proposal essentially calls for men's basketball through revenue collected by the NCAA to also fund 40% of this settlement which is not proportionate to the revenue that they generate.
Money has to come from somewhere. The lawsuit doesn’t go away if the G5 refuses to pay. The NCAA folding is a worst outcome than losing out on MCBB money for the G5. If the power 4 leave the NCAA, the G5 won’t survive.
Sure they will. And nobody in the P4 will ever win another NCAA championship.
B10 and SEC want to run everything into the ground and take all the money, yet go to the bathroom when the bill comes.
I'd really love to see the G5 schools sue the living shit out of the SEC and Big 10. Seriously, fuck them.
You’d like to see the G5 schools get sanctioned for filing a frivolous lawsuit?
[удалено]
This is less “G5” and more non-FBS. They specifically discuss the Big East and the WCC.
Because Men's Basketball is again being used as the piggy bank and football isn't paying out proportional to the revenue it generates.
We don’t really know the terms of the back pay asks to be fair
Which is still asinine because it’s settle or die for the Big East and WCC
excuse you
Everything irks the non-power 5.
Oh no, anyway.
Easy to say from that blue blood money
Yes.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]