D1 schools to be able to pay athletes?

Thanks for sharing @anotherparent.

Wow, I recall a discussion about this very topic on this website 12+ years ago.  I've been waiting for it, and it's finally out in the open because the NCAA is desperate now.  Would they really be "student athletes" because they would be paid through a trust fund.  Sounds too convenient.  Let me guess, that proposed trust fund is managed by the University or the NCAA or both?  C'mon.  The NCAA is sugar coating this thing in hopes of keeping it under their thumb and making more money to support their platform of lawyers.   This NCAA ruse has been going on for way too many years.   

I want to hear more about Baker's proposed  framework to make what he called “fundamental changes”.  I want to hear how this proposal is going to improve the athletes education first, then discuss the money.   Too many young athletes miss out on a quality education because they are full time athletes first.

JMO.

IMO, they are going to take the "NIL collectives" and turn them into trust funds controlled by the university athletics departments.  And that doesn't seem like a bad idea to me; it's basically how they are operating.  Having these collectives be an arm of the coaches with no required oversight seems like a recipe for worse disaster than having the schools control them officially.

Quotes from piece in the Washington Post about this:

Among the many gawkish scenes of a sport in uncertain transition, nothing will feel more “College Football in 2023” years from now than multimillionaire coaches, fresh from leveraging schools to outbid each other for their limited services, asking you, the fan, to chip in a spare $100 or so to sort of pay their players or else your favorite team will lose. . . . .  Thankfully, Tuesday brought news of a bold new proposal from the NCAA, spearheaded by first-year president Charlie Baker, to end the charade of the circumvented compensation model of an NIL-only format and allow for a new Division I subdivision defined exclusively by a school’s ability to compensate athletes directly.  Baker’s proposal, still in its infancy and yet to be formally approved by the NCAA, would let any current NCAA member school opt into the subdivision as long as it was financially capable of compensating at least half of its athletes at least $30,000 per year and meet Title IX requirements for gender equity that the current, unregulated NIL system doesn’t consider. . . .  Nothing in Baker’s proposal would stop the largest and richest programs from paying far, far past the minimum.

@fenwaysouth posted:

Thanks for sharing @anotherparent.

Wow, I recall a discussion about this very topic on this website 12+ years ago.  I've been waiting for it, and it's finally out in the open because the NCAA is desperate now.  Would they really be "student athletes" because they would be paid through a trust fund.  Sounds too convenient.  Let me guess, that proposed trust fund is managed by the University or the NCAA or both?  C'mon.  The NCAA is sugar coating this thing in hopes of keeping it under their thumb and making more money to support their platform of lawyers.   This NCAA ruse has been going on for way too many years.   

I want to hear more about Baker's proposed  framework to make what he called “fundamental changes”.  I want to hear how this proposal is going to improve the athletes education first, then discuss the money.   Too many young athletes miss out on a quality education because they are full time athletes first.

JMO.

I also think that this program is all about making sure that Title IX Standards are being implemented.   Look, the NCAA and College Administrators are not pragmatic and practical people.  They don't understand free market enterprise, and they live in a bubble of their left leaning friends that do nothing but reinforce their positions.   These people believe that there is a utopian society out there and we need to strive to get there.   

Their biggest concern is equality, and they are angry that College football DT's are getting hundreds of Thousands of dollars through NIL collectives, and yet the women's soccer goalie hasn't received a nickel.   The goal of this proposal is to create a trust that colleges can made a line item on their Athletic budget.  Their hope is that the alumni and boosters who are funding these NIL collectives will stop using collectives and will donate those funds to the Athletic department instead.  The Athletic department then deposits the money into this trust and the money get distributed fairly and equally among all athletes so that the greedy good for nothing football running back won't get $250,000 and the women's golf team not get the priveledge of getting anything.

This proposal is all about getting money redistributed from male athletes to female athletes.   It's all about Title IX.

@Ster posted:

I also think that this program is all about making sure that Title IX Standards are being implemented.   Look, the NCAA and College Administrators are not pragmatic and practical people.  They don't understand free market enterprise, and they live in a bubble of their left leaning friends that do nothing but reinforce their positions.   These people believe that there is a utopian society out there and we need to strive to get there.   

Their biggest concern is equality, and they are angry that College football DT's are getting hundreds of Thousands of dollars through NIL collectives, and yet the women's soccer goalie hasn't received a nickel.   The goal of this proposal is to create a trust that colleges can made a line item on their Athletic budget.  Their hope is that the alumni and boosters who are funding these NIL collectives will stop using collectives and will donate those funds to the Athletic department instead.  The Athletic department then deposits the money into this trust and the money get distributed fairly and equally among all athletes so that the greedy good for nothing football running back won't get $250,000 and the women's golf team not get the priveledge of getting anything.

This proposal is all about getting money redistributed from male athletes to female athletes.   It's all about Title IX.

No. Not even close.

The NCAA's business model is in danger. And they are trying to stay relevant in a rapidly changing environment.

Baker's proposal to pay athletes by creating a new D1 subdivision is a way to protect against further financial losses (in addition to NIL dollars flowing directly to athletes, the P5/P4 schools are again threatening to break away from the NCAA) and legal jeopardy (there are 3 major lawsuits against the NCAA making their way through the courts, including one which seeks to invalidate the NCAA completely). Remember, it was a Supreme Court ruling that allowed NIL. And Justice Kavanaugh pulled no punches in his criticism of the NCAA.

Baker wants to keep the NCAA relevant as athletes gain more and more control over the financial rewards of their talent. Making the case that female athletes will get paid is an attempt to make his proposal more enticing to the universities. Title IX is not driving this, the courts and public opinion are. ESPN’s actions are not helping.

"they live in a bubble of their left leaning friends that do nothing but reinforce their positions"

This crap has no place here. Talk baseball, STFU, or GTFO.

Texas and Florida - the great bastions of the left - are indeed part of the United States.  Ben Sasse, president of Florida U, is a well known left leaning liberal, as is New College's Chris Rufo.

@Goosegg posted:

"they live in a bubble of their left leaning friends that do nothing but reinforce their positions"

This crap has no place here. Talk baseball, STFU, or GTFO.

Texas and Florida - the great bastions of the left - are indeed part of the United States.  Ben Sasse, president of Florida U, is a well known left leaning liberal, as is New College's Chris Rufo.

Ster had every right to express his opinion. It happens on HSBBW quite often.

And I will add that the state of higher education in America has been reduced to a joke at many universities

People render opinions here all the time - it's essentially the purpose of this site.

Labeling "right" or "left" - unless its batting, pitching or fielding - is not a baseball opinion, it's a political opinion and conclusion.

That helps no one looking for guidance or offering - in this case - a view on the direction of athletic money.

Want to exchange political opinions - which will ultimately lead to the demise of the site - do it in PMs. We went thru this with Covid and it almost destroyed a very valuable resource.

We have lots of people from differing backgrounds, education, perspectives, and political beliefs; baseball focuses us to a singular topic. Politics throws a figurative hand grenade into the group.

So if we leave insults aside, I do think that part of what is going on is that the NCAA wants to enforce Title IX parity between men's and women's sports.  But that is just one part of controlling the situation.

The NIL collectives are completely out of anyone's control.  Sooner or later, collectives are going to cut off money that has been promised to athletes - let's say for poor performance - and there will be lawsuits.  Right now coaches are not supposed to be controlling who gets NIL money - but the coaches aren't even hiding that that IS what they are doing, they are using NIL collective money as their alt-scholarship money.

So, if it's basically an alternative way to give money that used to be only scholarships, why shouldn't the NCAA create rules for it, and/or the universities be able to control it?

@Goosegg posted:

People render opinions here all the time - it's essentially the purpose of this site.

Labeling "right" or "left" - unless its batting, pitching or fielding - is not a baseball opinion, it's a political opinion and conclusion.

That helps no one looking for guidance or offering - in this case - a view on the direction of athletic money.

Want to exchange political opinions - which will ultimately lead to the demise of the site - do it in PMs. We went thru this with Covid and it almost destroyed a very valuable resource.

We have lots of people from differing backgrounds, education, perspectives, and political beliefs; baseball focuses us to a singular topic. Politics throws a figurative hand grenade into the group.

Threads veer off topic on a regular basis. Political opinions are commonly expressed. It doesn’t have to be a hand grenade. During Covid there was a lot of discourse (because we were all being lied to) but there was also a lot of helpful information shared. This site, IMO, is about helping others. And that sometimes means talking about things outside of baseball.

@adbono posted:

And I will add that the state of higher education in America has been reduced to a joke at many universities

Out of college the cattle call campus interviews from IBM started with …

Do you have a math oriented major?

Is your GPA 3.2 or higher?

Without "yes” to both a candidate was done. Now IBM doesn’t care about college degrees.

Given the expense and too much garbage taught the debate now is where four years of experience will get a person versus four years of college.

I majored in Econ/Quantitative Analytics. I didn’t learn much that applied to my career in sales and marketing. I only proved I could get excellent grades in hard courses in my major.

All my poly sci and philosophy electives were taught by socialists and communists. Getting an A was just a matter of marching to the drumbeat.

My daughter needed an undergrad degree for law school. My son’s, BA, MBA and internship led to an outrageous salary for a 23yo. He also got to play college ball.

@RJM posted:

Out of college the cattle call campus interviews from IBM started with …

Do you have a math oriented major?

Is your GPA 3.2 or higher?

Without "yes” to both a candidate was done. Now IBM doesn’t care about college degrees.

Given the expense and too much garbage taught the debate now is where four years of experience will get a person versus four years of college.

I majored in Econ/Quantitative Analytics. I didn’t learn much that applied to my career in sales and marketing. I only proved I could get excellent grades in hard courses in my major.

All my poly sci and philosophy electives were taught by socialists and communists. Getting an A was just a matter of marching to the drumbeat.

What's your point?

Top 10 NIL deals...men's basketball (Lebron's kid) , football (Deonne's kid), women's gymnastics, football, football, football, football, women's basketball, football, football. The women have huge social media followings (from a valuation standpoint).

@nycdad posted:

What's your point?

I was responding to adbono. Many corporations who required degrees and higher GPAs don’t even care if the applicant has a degree anymore. It’s sad commentary on a college education.

Theres a lot else I could comment on the immediate situation with college. But it would be very political. I’ll only ask, “Has the Penn president been fired yet?”

What is the point of question why I made a post? Wouldn’t it have been easier to ignore it?

.

Those are real NIL deals - actually monetizing their name-image-likeness. It's partly about their athletic value to the team, but partly about their social media branding.  Are the coaches involved in those?

Too funny; given RJM's age, his point is that college isn't recently broken, it was always that way.

Which is probably true; before WWII, college was finishing school for rich young men (and a few women).

In the 19th century, Yale, Harvard, etc. paid poor but athletic young men to play on their sports teams.

@anotherparent I agree. From what I know, schools have invested in NIL in different ways. Some tap into alumni networks for group deals, others have dedicated staff that help the athletes navigate the rules. Some (like LSU) have both. Most of the WBB players I know got a lot of the deals on their own and not through the university.

@PTWood posted:

Top 10 NIL deals...men's basketball (Lebron's kid) , football (Deonne's kid), women's gymnastics, football, football, football, football, women's basketball, football, football. The women have huge social media followings (from a valuation standpoint).

Some (not very many) college women athletes have big social media followings. For the most part, why do you think that is?

@anotherparent posted:

Too funny; given RJM's age, his point is that college isn't recently broken, it was always that way.

Which is probably true; before WWII, college was finishing school for rich young men (and a few women).

In the 19th century, Yale, Harvard, etc. paid poor but athletic young men to play on their sports teams.

I attended a very politically active, large university. Professors had no problem stating their politics if they were on the left. A majority were even then (post Viet Nam).

I didn’t have time for politics. It would have cut into what little free time I had for drinking beer and chasing women. I was busy playing baseball and figuring out how to beat the system (grades). I picked a math oriented major because it was easy for me.

@PTWood posted:

@anotherparent I agree. From what I know, schools have invested in NIL in different ways. Some tap into alumni networks for group deals, others have dedicated staff that help the athletes navigate the rules. Some (like LSU) have both. Most of the WBB players I know got a lot of the deals on their own and not through the university.

Well yes, that's what NIL is supposed to be.  For whatever reason.

This rule change is about the collectives, which are something very different.

@PTWood posted:

@anotherparent I agree. From what I know, schools have invested in NIL in different ways. Some tap into alumni networks for group deals, others have dedicated staff that help the athletes navigate the rules. Some (like LSU) have both. Most of the WBB players I know got a lot of the deals on their own and not through the university.

That's actually how it is supposed to work!

Many of the athletes that have gained fame and fortune are women!  Many athletes have profited from their NIL by endorsing products they personally use and believe in.

@adbono posted:

Some (not very many) college women athletes have big social media followings. For the most part, why do you think that is?

Could it be because women‘s sports receives 15% of media coverage vs 85% for men?

These figures were 5%/95% in 2019.

@SpeedDemon posted:

Could it be because women‘s sports receives 15% of media coverage vs 85% for men?

These figures were 5%/95% in 2019.

The amount of media coverage could have an impact. But I question the 15/85 ratio you referenced. I did the same google search and got the same results but in my viewing area it sure seems like the ratio is more proportionate than that. I know that ESPN’s coverage of golf, tennis, soccer, and softball/baseball doesn’t reflect that kind of disparity. But that really isn’t what I was asking. I don’t follow many people on social media. So I was asking, of the women athletes that have created big followings (and been able to monetize that, what about them (for the most part) has allowed them to do that? Skill in their sport? Popularity? Timing? Something else? There is probably no one answer. I just think the phenomena of (becoming famous on) social media is strange and something I don’t relate to at all.

https://www.on3.com/nil/rankin...ayer/womens-nil-100/

Beautiful, Brains, Talent and good advice.

I see you Azzi Fudd!

@adbono it depends. Of the two I mentioned, one is a NCAA champion who speaks her mind and generates a lot of controversy. The other is extremely talented AND was an SI model. Both are LSU athletes. The ones I know personally who make quite a bit of NIL $$ are wonderful young women who are extremely talented athletes (HS GPOYs). They have fun with social media, posting videos and interacting with their fans. My son, as a contrast, has no interest in social media and even deleted them from his phone as he thinks the overwhelming net net of social media is negative.

@PTWood posted:

@adbono it depends. Of the two I mentioned, one is a NCAA champion who speaks her mind and generates a lot of controversy. The other is extremely talented AND was an SI model. Both are LSU athletes. The ones I know personally who make quite a bit of NIL $$ are wonderful young women who are extremely talented athletes (HS GPOYs). They have fun with social media, posting videos and interacting with their fans. My son, as a contrast, has no interest in social media and even deleted them from his phone as he thinks the overwhelming net net of social media is negative.

@adbono

What you’re fundamentally asking is why people like certain things more than others.

It’s impossible to answer.

But marketing and exposure certainly play a role, along with talent, hard work and a desire to be successful on those platforms.

@ptwood’s answer above is about as close of an explanation as you’ll get.

@SpeedDemon posted:

@adbono

What you’re fundamentally asking is why people like certain things more than others.

It’s impossible to answer.

But marketing and exposure certainly play a role, along with talent, hard work and a desire to be successful on those platforms.

@ptwood’s answer above is about as close of an explanation as you’ll get.

I don’t doubt any of that. I just agree with Paula’s son.

Should be interesting going forward. The NCAA is being sued coming from every direction for multiple issues many include the legitimacy of the transfer rules.

Today a group of athletes have filed a lawsuit against the NCAA and P5 conferences for not getting paid.

The NCAA President suggesting that paying all D1 college athletes money isn't going to fly.

@adbono posted:

So I was asking, of the women athletes that have created big followings (and been able to monetize that, what about them (for the most part) has allowed them to do that? Skill in their sport? Popularity? Timing? Something else? There is probably no one answer. I just think the phenomena of (becoming famous on) social media is strange and something I don’t relate to at all.

They are either very good at what they do, conventionally good looking, or both. It would appear to really be as simple as that

Being good/creative at developing content is a factor too. It’s what keeps people viewing instead of scrolling past. And that’s a talent outside of sports but one that can lead to many good career outcomes whether in media, marketing, entertainment, education, etc.

@PABaseball or they have built-in name recognition like Bronny's sons.

@adbono posted:

Some (not very many) college women athletes have big social media followings. For the most part, why do you think that is?

I’ll bet most of the thousands of male followers of Olivia Dunne can’t name any gymnastic move she makes. I could pick her out of a crowd. I would have to guess what events are her best. No, I don’t follow her.

If I was going to follow a female athlete it would be Riley Gaines. I strongly support her position. It’s not about being anti trans. It’s about being pro female athlete from having one who was a multi sport high school athlete and played college softball.

The only people I follow on social media are journalists who I read their columns.

For those interested in further reading about what is likely driving the NCAA's new D1 subdivision proposal, here are a couple of good articles.

Recap of a March Congressional hearing: https://apnews.com/article/nca...0926e1c7cae18d4d2368

Overview of a proposed California Assembly bill: https://apnews.com/article/pol...aeb2a2b0ab854b5b843f

Key paragraphs:

“The lack of uniformity across different states and institutions has created confusion and uncertainty and a federal standard is needed, so all athletes are playing by the same rules,” Bilirakis said. “In short, we must strike a delicate balance between the rights of college athletes to profit from their own NIL while keeping the amateur status for all college athletes.”

“We need transparency in the market place,” Washington State athletic director Pat Chun said.

Jason Stahl, executive director of the College Football Players Association, pushed back. He said any NIL regulations would only serve the interests of schools, conferences and the NCAA.

“The federal government should stay out of the NIL free market,” he said.

The concern among many in college sports is NIL is being used as a recruiting inducement or as de facto pay-for-play, which are still against NCAA rules but have become difficult to enforce.

----

Assembly Bill 252 calls for Division I schools in California to share 50% of revenue with athletes who are considered to be undervalued because the amount of their athletic scholarships doesn’t match their market value. That would mostly be aimed at athletes competing in the revenue-generating sports such as football and basketball, but not exclusively.

Money paid toward scholarships would be included in the 50% that goes toward the players. The rest would go into a fund that would pay out yearly. Individual payments would be determined based on what schools bring in and could not exceed $25,000 per year for any one athlete.

Any excess revenue from the athletes’ share would go into a degree completion fund that athletes would be eligible to draw from after they have graduated within six years.

California was the first state to pass a law that gave college athletes the right to be compensated for name, image and likeness back in 2019. That triggered similar action by state legislatures around the country.

My guess is that Baker and the NCAA have some insight that the California bill is going to pass, hence the new FBS D1 subdivision proposal, with terms that are similar to those in the bill but which firmly puts the NCAA in control of athlete's NIL deals.

Thanks for this.  I think that everyone is going to stay out of the true NIL deals, which is to say, players earning money from their names, images, likenesses through advertising, blogs, etc..  Obviously they can't equalize that, nor should they try.

My guess is that this is entirely about collective money, which is being called "NIL" but which is, in fact, pay to play.  And I'm all in favor of their doing that.

Thanks.  I appreciate the different perspectives.  Not sure where this is going, but certainly understand where it came from.   By the time I'm a grandparent with a recruited grandchild this will all be figured out.

What scares me a little bit is we have three dysfunctional organizations jockeying for position including the NCAA, State Gov't, and most likely Fed Govt.  Certainly any level of govt has better things to do these days.   Caught in the middle is the student athlete, and the non-D1 P5 schools who struggle with revenue as state schools have seen a decline in their funding from state govts.  It is going to take some time to fully figure this out.  I'm reminded of an old Will Rogers quote:  "Be Thankful We're Not Getting All The Government We're Paying For."

I'm still waiting to see how this change or inflection point is going to educationally benefit our US students to compete in the world.  It seems to me as a country we've taken our eye off the ball.   Currently, college athletics is a time management high wire act that balances learning and playing a sport.  I just feel this new future model for paying (outright) student athletes is going to demand more time away from studies and put this education vs athletics out of balance...it is going to be much more about the money (short term gratification) and little to do with long-term life skills.   We need more smart & educated people to compete with other countries (you know who they are).  The rest of the world is catching up or has caught up depending on your perspective.

Until we see how this change is going to educationally benefit NCAA student athletes this announcement is just lipstick on the pig.

JMO.

I'm just waiting to see how professional gambling starts to be integrated into this new "professional" conference.