NCAA, Power 5 agree to let schools pay players
The NCAA and its leagues are moving forward with a multibillion-dollar settlement agreement that will allow schools to directly pay players for the first time in the history of college sports.
NCAA to allow schools to directly pay players (link).
- Thread starter Radio Zero
- Start date
I don't know that I am a big fan but it will level out the playing field. It will also be fairer to women.
Last edited:
Given Title IX, this is an amazing event for women athletes. Women's sports are going to be getting ~$10M to dispense which I suspect dwarfs most NIL money they have been seeing.
V, depends on how you think about fair. If you assume both women's and mens sports should be considered equally deserving, then it is fair. If you think the sports that generate the revenue/profits that fund the athletic department deserve the lion's share of the compensation then it isn't fair. In the end, I think an equal split between women and men will be implemented which will suddenly change recruiting for women's athletics. I think the men's sports outside of Football and Basketball will be left out.
What is fair is the next big question that needs to be answered with this move. As employees it seems that all will be paid the same income. I am guessing NIL will still exist but not be as prevalent as it is now.
All it means to me is that everyone will get paid a little bit and the bad old days of those who are willing to cheat to win will return with the under the table payments becoming even bigger (and even more professionally organized) operations...
I expect there will still be some sort of NIL outside of direct compensation. Capping compensation for athletes (I.e., eliminating NIL collectives) seems to risk more anti trust risk. NIL collectives are the way boosters who only want to see their money going to football will get around what they will perceive as a 50% Title XI tax.
The SEC says:
“This is old news. We been doing it for years.”
“This is old news. We been doing it for years.”
So, I suspect the next shoe to drop will be on Jr. High athletes. Amateur sports will be nothing but a term in history.
I think (am guessing) the good news for IU is we can pay this $20M from the TV contract revenue increases coming over the next two years. I don’t think our boosters will need to pay for any of this (assuming the AD donations are consistent with current levels), so they can keep donating to NIL and the AD as they are today.
Of course this will be true for most other B1G and SEC schools, but at least we are in the club.
Outside of those big two conferences and it may get tougher to cover rev share with TV $ and they will need to look for other sources such as donations. And if those donors prefer to give to just FB or BB, they may go the NIL route and avoid the revenue sharing to men’s and women’s sports as you said. Therefore, some schools may not pay out the full $20M, making their women’s sports less competitive vs IU who will have $10M ready to go for women’s sports.
Sounds like a step in the right direction. Perhaps bring some semblance of order to NIL and the transfer portal.NCAA, Power 5 agree to let schools pay players
The NCAA and its leagues are moving forward with a multibillion-dollar settlement agreement that will allow schools to directly pay players for the first time in the history of college sports.www.espn.com
'Fair' ... lol Should be interesting. So the QB is going to get the same as the 3rd string running back? Or the woman's volleyball player? Or maybe it'll be a salary cap per sport to be distributed.
NIL is still out of the bottle. And it'll stay out.
Paying players from the revenue means they'll just make even more. Instead of a NIL bidding war, it'll be 'base pay + NIL bidding war' .
Not a big change other than a big chunk of revenue formerly going to the schools now goes to the players.
NIL is still out of the bottle. And it'll stay out.
Paying players from the revenue means they'll just make even more. Instead of a NIL bidding war, it'll be 'base pay + NIL bidding war' .
Not a big change other than a big chunk of revenue formerly going to the schools now goes to the players.
The one thing it does change is the President/AD can allocate more money to football than the collectives likely would have on their own.
Great point. This is a key question on the men’s side: how do they allocate between FB and BB? Assuming there aren’t agreed to caps for each sport and it’s up to the AD/Pres, that is very interesting. Out of the $10M for men, perhaps there is $8-9M to allocate to BB and FB. Dolson will need to decide where the best return is. Could be some interesting internal politics in the athletic dept!
I would allocate it more to football. Football brings in more revenue, there are like 6.5x more players and our fans are probably more willing to take care of the basketball side via NIL.
Interesting indeed. It seems there will be more scholarships available for other sports so that may be the biggest benefit for non-revenue men’s teams. As I and others have previously written, think the best model would be to greatly skew the direct comp to FB w/ BB largely supported by NIL (as that is the sport alumni seem most motivated to write checks for)
Yea, there really seems to be more upside in FB. If we can get to be a mid pack team, attendance increases and sponsor interest is worth $10M+/yr in revenue pretty easily (without much additional expense). The athletic dept rev in the B1G and SEC pretty much follows the popularity/revenue of their FB teams as we know.
As for BB, I am blown away by the NIL support. I would like bball to get rev share that keeps up top-5/10 in the country for player comp, though FB needs to eat first. The bball staff need to prove they can deliver results proportional to the resources they get, before giving them even more resources. Just my opinion.
It will very interesting to see how they allocate the direct compensation on the women's side. Which of our 11 women's sports do we want to prioritize?
Last edited:
Basketball. Soccer. Swim and Dive, Volleyball would be where I would go and in that order.
Outside of WBB, NIL has to be very small. First I’d give Teri all she wants — give her the leg up on the non-B1G/SEC schools that may not have all this TV $. Then probably some our signature sports in soccer and swimming? I don’t know, I don’t think we should shortchange softball or other sports tbh. It’s a hell of an increase for the women’s side wow.
I find the situation fascinating with many possible moves. Which allocation prioritization would give you the biggest bang for your buck?
- Give it to the programs that have the best coaches so the money has the best chance to deliver superior performance?
- Do you focus on teams with fewer players where 1-2 dominating recruits could lead you to a national championship?
- Focus on spreading the wealth to less followed sports (Rowing? Cross Country) where smaller dollops of money would still really stand out in recruiting and allow us to get a leg up?
Most schools will be going through same exercise. Interesting game theory possibilities. (Okay, I confess I’m a geek)
It’s the most interesting thing in college sports imo.
I’d really push in WBB. WBB is starting to generate some real revenue even if they aren’t breaking even yet. The 10K+ crowds imo have a real positive social impact for women’s sports in Indiana. Bball is our thing and we can be a top-5 program. It’s great.
Agree. I think WBB could become a monster if we play our cards right.
Similar threads
