JDP
Masters Student
Posts: 582
Reg: 11-23-04
|
05-05-24 03:36 PM - Post#368152
https://sports.yahoo.com/what-would-house-v-nc aa-s...
Perhaps I missed this in another thread - but just coming up to speed on the case, and the potential settlement, and interested on hearing other’s thought on the implications. At a minimum, it feels like the Ivy sports philosophy and any settlement (which the Ivies are a defendant) would necessitate a change in the Ivy model - going to D3 is not a successful fallback.
|
JDP
Masters Student
Posts: 582
Reg: 11-23-04
|
05-23-24 08:33 PM - Post#368674
In response to JDP
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/ _/id/402...
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news /ho...
The Power 5 seeming have come to a settlement ... very little has been written about the exact impact to the other 27 conference, other than they will also shoulder the burden - each ivy school & non peer 6 could lose close to $300k - $400k ... does not seem like much, but as most school sports programs run at a deficit, another hit
The NCAA's settlement is projected at nearly $2.8 billion over the next 10 years. The NCAA will take on 40% of the total cost, with 60% coming from withholding distributions to Division I institutions. Out of that latter number, 40% will be paid by the legacy Power Five, 17% from the Group of Five and 22% from the Football Championship Subdivision, with other compensation coming from non-football conferences. The cost to legacy Power Five schools will be between $1 to $2 million over the next 10 years, based on a memo obtained by Yahoo Sports. Group of Five schools will lose approximately $400,000 annually, with FCS programs losing closer to $280,000. However, the settlement price is only one small piece of the much larger cost.
|
penn nation
Professor
Posts: 21337
Reg: 12-02-04
|
05-23-24 08:58 PM - Post#368676
In response to JDP
You beat me to it.
|
CM
Masters Student
Posts: 442
Reg: 10-11-18
|
05-24-24 06:06 AM - Post#368681
In response to JDP
We will find out (as if we don't have enough evidence already) that Ivy leadership is simply a distillation of the NCAA's head-in-the-sand approach to problems when it comes to the modern college sports challenges. That is, sticking 'boldly' to outdated concepts and realities and then having a 'holy sh*t' moment when then power to control their circumstances has effectively been stripped.
The current Ivy model looks less tenable by the week, literally. And I have no confidence that the people in charge have any capacity to respond in a coherent manner. They seem completely unprepared for both the scale and the speed with which the ground underneath them is shifting. Going D3 may not be a successful fallback but what other options have these people left themselves with?
|
sparman
PhD Student
Posts: 1355
Reg: 12-08-04
|
05-24-24 09:18 AM - Post#368690
In response to CM
Are you advocating that ivies start paying players to keep pace with the football factories?
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32947
Reg: 11-21-04
|
05-24-24 09:22 AM - Post#368692
In response to sparman
I think each Ivy schools should pay the players 1/12 of the profit they make from basketball and 1/60 the profit they make from football.
There, problem solved.
|
CM
Masters Student
Posts: 442
Reg: 10-11-18
|
05-24-24 09:32 AM - Post#368694
In response to sparman
No, of course not.
But thinking that what worked last year is going to work in five years is crazy, and that's basically what the Ivys have reiterated in the last 18 months. There's just too much evidence that's not the case, the landscape of college sport is changing so fast, whether we like it or not.
In five years if the Ivys remain a no-scholarship, no-NIL, no-pay structured league does it seem likely they will still be D1 (whatever that looks like)?
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32947
Reg: 11-21-04
|
05-24-24 09:44 AM - Post#368697
In response to CM
There is no money threshold for Div 1 membership as far as I am aware. The Ivies will be in Division 1 as long as they choose to be, but it certainly is possible that they will be much less competitive. I still see Division 1 basketball breaking into 2 subgroups as did football.
|
CM
Masters Student
Posts: 442
Reg: 10-11-18
|
05-24-24 09:54 AM - Post#368700
In response to palestra38
I understand.
I'm saying they will effectively be D3 (whether they're actually in D3 or not).
|
sparman
PhD Student
Posts: 1355
Reg: 12-08-04
|
05-24-24 11:57 AM - Post#368703
In response to CM
But you seem to be criticizing such an approach. What do you want them to do?
To be clear, I do not believe this pay for play approach will become less onerous in future years.
|
CM
Masters Student
Posts: 442
Reg: 10-11-18
|
05-24-24 12:24 PM - Post#368704
In response to sparman
I am criticizing the mindset that doing nothing will result in no negative effects, that what has worked until now will continue to work despite the seismic landscape changes. So either knock down the scholarship barrier or start working with alumni groups to create some NIL opportunities.
Now, if D1 splits into different levels then I think perhaps this philosophy of intransigence may have fewer ill effects.
|
sparman
PhD Student
Posts: 1355
Reg: 12-08-04
|
05-24-24 03:13 PM - Post#368718
In response to CM
I think you and the presidents disagree on what constitutes a "negative" effect.
|
CM
Masters Student
Posts: 442
Reg: 10-11-18
|
05-24-24 03:23 PM - Post#368719
In response to sparman
No doubt.
|
