Notre Dame AD Calls Division I Breakup ‘Inevitable’

Hwk-I-St8

HR Legend
Gold Member
Nov 10, 2009
13,374
8,943
113
Lower Slobovia
As pointed out, this will be a Title IX issue before long.
Probably not. Football at the big schools will break away and be pro...title IX not longer applies to them. That gets rid of a crap-ton of male scholarships and most of the AD's funding. College sports for big schools will go away if they lose their cash cow football programs.
 

Mountain Man Hawk

HR Heisman
Gold Member
Mar 30, 2010
5,769
3,641
113
Paying the players directly won't solve anything and will introduce a bunch of issues. I don't know what an NFL budget looks like, but I doubt there's enough money to pay the players like they do in the NFL. Certainly the only way you could realistically pay them anything meaningful would be to drop all non-revenue sports since a huge portion of football revenue goes to support the other sports.

Second, the NFL uses a draft system to keep some semblance of parity. Even with direct pay, NIL can still be used to induce kids to attend certain schools. Add that to the dynasty effect we already have and the lock the blues bloods have on NC will be even stronger. A couple other wealthy schools may break past the glass ceiling, but the vast majority will fall further behind. That will trigger a drop in interest and the very break up of divisions discussed in the article.

The bottom line is that "college football" will likely look much, much different 15 years from now. It will be a relatively fast evolution followed by a radical restructuring. Then...elements of it may die off.

I've said for years we need minor league football...well we're heading inexorably in that direction IMO.
I don’t really disagree with any of that. It’s a hard problem to fix and I don’t see any easy solutions. You need at least some semblance of competitive balance and the Supreme Court has said you can’t cap/curtail NIL so we have to look elsewhere if we want to do that. It’s a billion dollar business with none of that currently going to the players because as you point out, a bunch of it is currently being used to support the non-revenue sports.

Because it’s not easily fixable I think the decision makers will just keep their heads in the sand a few more years until the system collapses and something like what’s described in the article happens and the top 40 or so programs break away and do their own thing so they don’t have to follow the rules anymore.
 

cidhawkeye

HR Legend
Jun 21, 2009
13,118
7,897
113
As pointed out, this will be a Title IX issue before long.
I think there will be people who attempt to tie this to Title IX. There will need to be some changes to tie this to Title IX since the money is outside the school. Any limits on this will need to pass through the Supreme Court and they were pretty absolute on no limits for this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hawkeyebob62
May 17, 2021
1,216
2,611
113
YOU'RE DAMN STRAIGHT. But mooching is the new norm in soft modern America!!!

I'll NEVER be ok with that.... I can't believe you are, what a shame.


Pretty sure they serve all colors not just black white and brown fyi ;)
By “mooching” do you mean our biggest corporations paying no taxes, or getting billions in government subsidies, or our billionaires paying on average about 3% in taxes?

not everything can be valued in dollars. Most things actually can’t. Trying to do so is insane, and will lead to insane consequences.

by your “market logic” iowa should eliminate ALL sports except football, mens basketball, and mens wrestling.

sorry Caitlin and Megan. Sorry track athletes.
Sorry baseball and softball. Etc.

and most of the big donors to the UI have been white men over the decades. So those John Galt like “heroes” being men, we should therefore funnel their male money to scholarships for white male students and white male professors. Right?

i mean, I’m a white male. What if I don’t want my money miscegenated with non Aryans or mingled with women?

people who think like that donate to virtually all-white and proudly corporate-fascist hillsdale college.

we’ve got politicians from a certain party openly stating that they don’t trust democracy and equating it to “mob rule” (forgetting that little “tourist visit” that was obviously not a deadly insurrectionist mob seeking a coup Jan 6), and that community and equity don’t matter.

dont people see that NIL and selling everything to the highest (usually most corrupt and corrupting) bidder, making everything corporate and giving most rights to people who have the most money lays waste to all that we love - university and sports and even what’s left of community?
 

cidhawkeye

HR Legend
Jun 21, 2009
13,118
7,897
113
By “mooching” do you mean our biggest corporations paying no taxes, or getting billions in government subsidies, or our billionaires paying on average about 3% in taxes?

not everything can be valued in dollars. Most things actually can’t. Trying to do so is insane, and will lead to insane consequences.

by your “market logic” iowa should eliminate ALL sports except football, mens basketball, and mens wrestling.

sorry Caitlin and Megan. Sorry track athletes.
Sorry baseball and softball. Etc.

and most of the big donors to the UI have been white men over the decades. So those John Galt like “heroes” being men, we should therefore funnel their male money to scholarships for white male students and white male professors. Right?

i mean, I’m a white male. What if I don’t want my money miscegenated with non Aryans or mingled with women?

people who think like that donate to virtually all-white and proudly corporate-fascist hillsdale college.

we’ve got politicians from a certain party openly stating that they don’t trust democracy and equating it to “mob rule” (forgetting that little “tourist visit” that was obviously not a deadly insurrectionist mob seeking a coup Jan 6), and that community and equity don’t matter.

dont people see that NIL and selling everything to the highest (usually most corrupt and corrupting) bidder, making everything corporate and giving most rights to people who have the most money lays waste to all that we love - university and sports and even what’s left of community?


Ummm,

By “mooching” do you mean our biggest corporations paying no taxes, or getting billions in government subsidies, or our billionaires paying on average about 3% in taxes?

not everything can be valued in dollars. Most things actually can’t. Trying to do so is insane, and will lead to insane consequences.

I am a little confused, paragraph one ties it to dollars and then in paragraph 2 you mention that valuing things in dollars is insane.......

Market logic would axe wrestling as well.
 

SoFla-Hawkeye

HR Heisman
Nov 12, 2001
6,768
8,354
113
YOU'RE DAMN STRAIGHT. But mooching is the new norm in soft modern America!!!

I'll NEVER be ok with that.... I can't believe you are, what a shame.


Pretty sure they serve all colors not just black white and brown fyi ;)
I pay more in taxes than you don’t. Get the eff of my highways moocher
 

nbanflfactory

HR Heisman
Aug 22, 2021
6,497
6,288
113
By “mooching” do you mean our biggest corporations paying no taxes, or getting billions in government subsidies, or our billionaires paying on average about 3% in taxes?

not everything can be valued in dollars. Most things actually can’t. Trying to do so is insane, and will lead to insane consequences.

by your “market logic” iowa should eliminate ALL sports except football, mens basketball, and mens wrestling.

sorry Caitlin and Megan. Sorry track athletes.
Sorry baseball and softball. Etc.

and most of the big donors to the UI have been white men over the decades. So those John Galt like “heroes” being men, we should therefore funnel their male money to scholarships for white male students and white male professors. Right?

i mean, I’m a white male. What if I don’t want my money miscegenated with non Aryans or mingled with women?

people who think like that donate to virtually all-white and proudly corporate-fascist hillsdale college.

we’ve got politicians from a certain party openly stating that they don’t trust democracy and equating it to “mob rule” (forgetting that little “tourist visit” that was obviously not a deadly insurrectionist mob seeking a coup Jan 6), and that community and equity don’t matter.

dont people see that NIL and selling everything to the highest (usually most corrupt and corrupting) bidder, making everything corporate and giving most rights to people who have the most money lays waste to all that we love - university and sports and even what’s left of community?
I wont read all that. You don't want to get me started on the billionaires setting us all up to be commys one day!
 
  • Like
Reactions: IAHUNTER

bumpstock

HR MVP
Feb 27, 2018
2,185
2,660
113
Arizona
Probably not. Football at the big schools will break away and be pro...title IX not longer applies to them. That gets rid of a crap-ton of male scholarships and most of the AD's funding. College sports for big schools will go away if they lose their cash cow football programs.
You are correct.

The "leftover" men's and women's college sports will equally have chump change; there's your equality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nbanflfactory

kceasthawk

HR Legend
Nov 5, 2016
11,965
13,575
113
Paying the players directly won't solve anything and will introduce a bunch of issues. I don't know what an NFL budget looks like, but I doubt there's enough money to pay the players like they do in the NFL. Certainly the only way you could realistically pay them anything meaningful would be to drop all non-revenue sports since a huge portion of football revenue goes to support the other sports.

Second, the NFL uses a draft system to keep some semblance of parity. Even with direct pay, NIL can still be used to induce kids to attend certain schools. Add that to the dynasty effect we already have and the lock the blues bloods have on NC will be even stronger. A couple other wealthy schools may break past the glass ceiling, but the vast majority will fall further behind. That will trigger a drop in interest and the very break up of divisions discussed in the article.

The bottom line is that "college football" will likely look much, much different 15 years from now. It will be a relatively fast evolution followed by a radical restructuring. Then...elements of it may die off.

I've said for years we need minor league football...well we're heading inexorably in that direction IMO.
As I've said before, I'll be shocked if the schools EVER pay the players directly. I'm pretty certain that would end their tax exempt status, and create an avalanche of tax problems, including paying the feds on that monstrous 50-60 million/year per school TV pay out, not to mention probably on all those funds donated by boosters. The tax bracket these schools would be, this would be a huge blow. Once they start paying the players they become employees, and literally everything changes........Might be a heck of a deal for the national debt though... :rolleyes:
 
May 27, 2010
15,288
19,136
113
If a super conference occurs, it's going to be a travesty and it will end college football as we know it and love it. This is not what college athletics is about. Let's say that Gundy's prediction is correct and 32 football programs break away into a super conference. Those on the outside looking in will have to drop the majority of their athletic programs as football is king and pays the majority of the bills within their respective athletic departments. Since TV networks dictate the money flowing into the system, they will likely want only the most watched football programs. Fortunately Iowa would likely make that cut, but gone would be Indiana, Northwestern, Minnesota, Iowa State, Maryland, Purdue, Illinois, Rutgers, the list goes on. The ACC would likely lose 10 teams, the PAC will lose 7, B10 loses 7, B12 loses 5 of their current member schools, even the SEC would lose 4.

All of those schools on the outside represent ~30 million viewers a week watching college football. Many of them will move on and those viewers will be lost. Networks won't pay as much for less viewers. The traditions of college football will be shattered, lost and forgotten. This will absolutely end the college game as we know it, and maybe all of college sports, likely forever.
 

Fan In Black

HR Legend
Nov 9, 2001
18,176
20,080
113
The NCAA makes no money from CFB, right? Thats what was reported when they had to cancel the NCAA basketball tourney. That is their cash cow. Im suprised they even bother governing anything but CBB.
 

jo12208

All-Conference
Gold Member
Sep 9, 2006
380
204
43
Wow.

my son and I attended to Iowa women’s basketball games that sold out Carver.

Last I checked, we aren’t women, and a solid 50% of the attendees were boys and men.

with your logic, all non-revenue supporting men’s sports should be eliminated also.

I just can’t believe what some people think and say on these boards.

this is a UNIVERSITY serving men and women and even people who don’t identify as either, and black and white and brown and atheistic and fundamentalist and foreign and national etc etc. Sharing resources is what makes a university and community function.

predatory Orwellian corporate capitalism has warped and pulverized minds to an incredible degree.
I identify as a 5 star recruit and I want equal pay.
 

thejazzcat

HR Heisman
Sep 25, 2001
5,053
4,503
113
As I've said before, I'll be shocked if the schools EVER pay the players directly. I'm pretty certain that would end their tax exempt status, and create an avalanche of tax problems, including paying the feds on that monstrous 50-60 million/year per school TV pay out, not to mention probably on all those funds donated by boosters. The tax bracket these schools would be, this would be a huge blow. Once they start paying the players they become employees, and literally everything changes........Might be a heck of a deal for the national debt though... :rolleyes:
The presence of paid employees has no bearing on the tax exempt status of a non-profit entity. The university already has paid employees, as does nearly every non profit. That's not to say the university's tax exempt status couldn't/wouldn't be challenged - but it wouldn't be because of paying the players, per se. Tax exempt status is granted to entities whose mission and purpose benefit the public and society, rather than the pursuit of profit (even though they do, indeed, make money). I can see the issue being challenged, but not successfully.
 

kceasthawk

HR Legend
Nov 5, 2016
11,965
13,575
113
The presence of paid employees has no bearing on the tax exempt status of a non-profit entity. The university already has paid employees, as does nearly every non profit. That's not to say the university's tax exempt status couldn't/wouldn't be challenged - but it wouldn't be because of paying the players, per se. Tax exempt status is granted to entities whose mission and purpose benefit the public and society, rather than the pursuit of profit (even though they do, indeed, make money). I can see the issue being challenged, but not successfully.
I guess the issue is what EXACTLY is the Universities mission at this point when they simply become a farm system for the pro leagues. This arms race for facilities, the huge TV contracts, and now this open recruitment of teenagers by throwing huge $$ at them certainly blur the line. Regardless whom is supposedly financing all of this its hard for the schools to hide their obvious involvement.
 

thejazzcat

HR Heisman
Sep 25, 2001
5,053
4,503
113
I guess the issue is what EXACTLY is the Universities mission at this point when they simply become a farm system for the pro leagues. This arms race for facilities, the huge TV contracts, and now this open recruitment of teenagers by throwing huge $$ at them certainly blur the line. Regardless whom is supposedly financing all of this its hard for the schools to hide their obvious involvement.
I don't disagree with that, at all. In fact, I wonder about the position as things stand right now. But clearly the current situation establishes an acceptable precedent. And if laws and tax code need to be tweaked to accommodate a new model, there are powerful forces to help "encourage" that to happen. "Tweaked" actually isn't the right word - this will obliterate the current model (in every way), and everything will need to be rebuilt.
 

doughuddl2

HR All-American
Sep 5, 2009
4,495
3,434
113
I recommend reading the whole article as there are a lot of interesting quotes from Notre Dame’s AD regarding the current state of NIL, transfers, conference realignment, football playoffs, etc.

To briefly summarize, he says college sports are changing very rapidly to become a big business and it will soon reach a point where some schools will throw in the towel and realize they can’t keep up and then we will see a split between the two and we will have FBS split into the big $$$$ division and the small $ division.

Here are a few interesting quotes from the article. It was hard not to cut and paste the whole article as so much of it is relevant to a lot of threads on these boards recently.



The expectation is that the Big Ten and SEC will continue to leave the rest of the Power Five conferences behind in terms of revenue. The widening gap will place more stress on the current landscape, leading some schools to move away from their existing conference affiliations—and possibly leading some leagues to boot longtime members that don’t bring as much to the revenue trough.

“We’re going to have these two conferences that have so distanced themselves from anyone else financially,” Swarbrick said. “That’s where I see it starting to break down. There are so many schools trying to get out of their current conference, and they can’t get there.”

Asked if the current Name, Image and Likeness landscape is sustainable, the answer was a blunt no. Recruiting inducements were not the original idea, but that’s what NIL has become in many instances.

“This morphed so quickly into talent acquisition fees that it’s just stunning,” he said. “Two things happened. The schools that have been doing [under the table] this a long time just had a way they could describe it now and be covered. That created a whole bunch of pressure on other schools that said, ‘Oh my god, we’ve got to do that, too.’

“We went from what people thought was an overly restrictive market to the most unrestricted labor market in the history of sports.”

Does Swarbrick see NCAA Enforcement having any chance of reining it in?

“No. I hate to be so pessimistic, but it’s been a lot of years of not seeing them have any,” he said. “I can see a lot of that [rules compliance and enforcement] being transferred to the conferences.”

Swarbrick predicts that the current NIL marketplace will severely damage Olympic sports, as investments and donations continue to tilt toward revenue-producing sports.

“I hate to see that,” he said. “It’s going to be interesting to see how the federal government approaches it. If all of this revenue is disproportionately coming to men, even if you didn’t set it up, how does Title IX analyze that?”





Yes there will be two divisions. The Haves and the Have Nots.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mountain Man Hawk

SDHawkDoc

HR Heisman
Jan 27, 2013
8,841
9,113
113
I guess the issue is what EXACTLY is the Universities mission at this point when they simply become a farm system for the pro leagues. This arms race for facilities, the huge TV contracts, and now this open recruitment of teenagers by throwing huge $$ at them certainly blur the line. Regardless whom is supposedly financing all of this its hard for the schools to hide their obvious involvement.
Personally I think, despite the attention I give to the football and men's b-ball teams, sports are a side activity and have little to do with what should be the university's primary mission. Money, of course, says otherwise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GeorgePeeples

doughuddl2

HR All-American
Sep 5, 2009
4,495
3,434
113
How is everyone surprised by this? All of this was caused by two things:
1) Lack of leadership in CFB across all conferences
2) ESPN sowing the seeds to get higher rated games / less properties they need to bid on. Their talk programming (radio and tv) set the conversation in their favor.
What I'm surprised is we have not seen a school's big donors pool $8-10 million to pay 8-9 players to buy a championship.

You have the one and done high-schoolers and the transfer portal to pick your talent from. If you had a great season you can make a fortune entering the portal.
 

David1979

HR Legend
Oct 17, 2013
13,856
14,106
113
I have always thought a breakup was going to happen at some point. It was clear because of the amount of money involved. There is just a huge difference between say Iowa and a small school. The same rules don't need to apply and it is silly to have them apply. Both basketball and football have too many teams deemed Division 1.
 
  • Angry
Reactions: ROCKY MOUNTAIN HAWK

kceasthawk

HR Legend
Nov 5, 2016
11,965
13,575
113
Personally I think, despite the attention I give to the football and men's b-ball teams, sports are a side activity and have little to do with what should be the university's primary mission. Money, of course, says otherwise.
I agree totally, hence my concern. Whats going on right now has absolutely NOTHING to do with why these Universities even exist. At some point i fear there's going to be a reckoning for all of this and it won't be good...
 

Rambler Hawk

HR Legend
Oct 10, 2001
10,419
3,052
113
Yeah, I’m not at all convinced this will be a good thing for Iowa. I’m reasonably confident Iowa would be included if the top teams break away. But whereas today we can be happy about being a top 25 team because we win 9-10 games, when there are only ~40 teams total then being top 25 doesn’t mean much and we won’t win nearly as many games because most of our schedule would be facing teams with big advantages over us.
100% agree - Iowa just doesn’t have the Alumni purse strings. I can see a school like U of Illinois moving up the ladder though…
 

pistachio1999

HR MVP
Nov 29, 2021
2,442
2,880
113
They need to end the 4 or 5 year eligibility deal too. Let people play as long as they want and coach wants them.
 

Hawk_4shur

HR Legend
Jan 2, 2009
15,423
20,525
113
The presence of paid employees has no bearing on the tax exempt status of a non-profit entity. The university already has paid employees, as does nearly every non profit. That's not to say the university's tax exempt status couldn't/wouldn't be challenged - but it wouldn't be because of paying the players, per se. Tax exempt status is granted to entities whose mission and purpose benefit the public and society, rather than the pursuit of profit (even though they do, indeed, make money). I can see the issue being challenged, but not successfully.
Yeah, I don't think this is right.

The tax-exempt status of athletic programs has already been under scrutiny, due to the money they bring in and the questionable exempt purpose - that being "education". The athletic department has remained tax-exempt - argument being that this is part of the education mission at the universities.

If you pay players, it's pretty much impossible to argue that they are there to "learn" - the players are there to get paid and entertain.

I'm no expert, but there is this thing called UBIT (Unrelated Business Income Tax). Exempt organizations currently pay tax on unrelated business activities. It's very possible, for example, that the U of I already has to pay tax on the profit earned by the Hawk Shop since the sale of apparel is not part of their exempt purpose.

I am convinced that, at a minimum, the athletic departments would have to pay UBIT on their profit. I believe it is more likely that they would end of paying regular income tax on their taxable income at the corporate tax rates.

But, the tax itself is not the danger - these athletic departments don't have much "profit" anyway. It would be loss of donor's ability to deduct contributions. That would hurt.
 

hawkeyebob62

HR MVP
Jul 27, 2006
1,229
1,082
113
Probably not. Football at the big schools will break away and be pro...title IX not longer applies to them. That gets rid of a crap-ton of male scholarships and most of the AD's funding. College sports for big schools will go away if they lose their cash cow football programs.
Interesting perspective, and one I hadn't really considered. But if they "break away", is it really college football at that point?
 

thejazzcat

HR Heisman
Sep 25, 2001
5,053
4,503
113
Yeah, I don't think this is right.

The tax-exempt status of athletic programs has already been under scrutiny, due to the money they bring in and the questionable exempt purpose - that being "education". The athletic department has remained tax-exempt - argument being that this is part of the education mission at the universities.

If you pay players, it's pretty much impossible to argue that they are there to "learn" - the players are there to get paid and entertain.

I'm no expert, but there is this thing called UBIT (Unrelated Business Income Tax). Exempt organizations currently pay tax on unrelated business activities. It's very possible, for example, that the U of I already has to pay tax on the profit earned by the Hawk Shop since the sale of apparel is not part of their exempt purpose.

I am convinced that, at a minimum, the athletic departments would have to pay UBIT on their profit. I believe it is more likely that they would end of paying regular income tax on their taxable income at the corporate tax rates.

But, the tax itself is not the danger - these athletic departments don't have much "profit" anyway. It would be loss of donor's ability to deduct contributions. That would hurt.
We're both close to the same page. You missed the "per se" of my comment. They wouldn't be disqualified because they paid the players, per se, but would be disqualified if paying the players removed the "social benefit" from their mission. As I said in a further response, I don't disagree that this could be challenged even under the current framework, let alone a new one. Whatever hoops they create to remain tax exempt, would address UBIT issues, as well. I'm a Chartered Advisor in Philanthropy and I'll just say there are myriads of ways to hold business assets and income in charitable frameworks to deal with UBIT (often more complicated than it's worth IMO).
If you pay players, it's pretty much impossible to argue that they are there to "learn" - the players are there to get paid and entertain.
BTW, I agree with this 100%. I meant to mention earlier that there would be tremendous scrutiny on the educational component to support the social benefit argument.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hawk_4shur

Hawk_4shur

HR Legend
Jan 2, 2009
15,423
20,525
113
We're both close to the same page. You missed the "per se" of my comment. They wouldn't be disqualified because they paid the players, per se, but would be disqualified if paying the players removed the "social benefit" from their mission. As I said in a further response, I don't disagree that this could be challenged even under the current framework, let alone a new one. Whatever hoops they create to remain tax exempt, would address UBIT issues, as well. I'm a Chartered Advisor in Philanthropy and I'll just say there are myriads of ways to hold business assets and income in charitable frameworks to deal with UBIT (often more complicated than it's worth IMO).
You're right - I did miss that.

But you also go on to say that you don't think a challenge by the Government/IRS would be successful. Why do you think that?

Paying players means that it's a professional activity engaged in to make money for people (players, coaches, administrators) rather than their stated tax-exempt purposes of education.

If the players were to be compensated "reasonably" and all the profit went to the General Fund, then I could definitely see a UBIT issue - but the athletic department retaining the profit to build better "entertainment" facilities or acquire better players is way outside the exempt purpose.

I mean, what if the U bought several grocery stores, and all the profit was either paid out to employees or retained? It would simply be a for profit business - don't you think that would be subject to corporate tax?

EDIT - I see that UBIT is at corporate tax rates! My bad.