Scholarship caps are eliminated?

[LIV4GOD]

It's talking about that latest ruling that allow NCAA athletes to get paid. Am I reading this right? I got this from the Gazette Online.

It also eliminates scholarship caps and adds NIL accountability measures. But most notably, the settlement paves the way for schools to pay athletes directly. More specifically, schools can set aside up to $21 million of their revenue to share with athletes.​

​

 

[dtripp26]

How many years before non-revenue sports are cut in massive numbers?

How many years before college sports ,as we know them, is no longer a thing?

 

[AFHawk86]

How many years before non-revenue sports are cut in massive numbers?

How many years before college sports ,as we know them, is no longer a thing?

Maybe it’s time for colleges to get out of the athletics business. Let the pro organizations for revenue sports figure out how to produce talent; everything else falls under the USOC umbrella. I doubt the NCAA wants to give up the revenue stream though.

 

[OILCHECKER]

It's talking about that latest ruling that allow NCAA athletes to get paid. Am I reading this right? I got this from the Gazette Online.

It also eliminates scholarship caps and adds NIL accountability measures. But most notably, the settlement paves the way for schools to pay athletes directly. More specifically, schools can set aside up to $21 million of their revenue to share with athletes.​

​

I don't think that means eliminating the # of scholarships per sport

 

[jmadden1998]

I don't think that means eliminating the # of scholarships per sport

It actually does but roster size is capped so basically it eliminates walk ons. See link to article from Athlon. However, Title IX still applies.

https://athlonsports.com/college/ncaa-power-5-settle-class-action-cases-schools-pay-athletes-revenue-sharing-scholarships

 

[DropitlikeitsHawk]

How many years before non-revenue sports are cut in massive numbers?

How many years before college sports ,as we know them, is no longer a thing?

Aren’t they pretty much done now?

 

[HawkeyeMass]

It actually does but roster size is capped so basically it eliminates walk ons. See link to article from Athlon. However, Title IX still applies.

https://athlonsports.com/college/ncaa-power-5-settle-class-action-cases-schools-pay-athletes-revenue-sharing-scholarships

It does not eliminate walk on’s. If anybody thinks that wrestling schools are going to fund scholarships up to the roster limit, they are nuts. The majority of universities do not have the money to fund that on top of paying athletes.

 

[dtripp26]

Aren’t they pretty much done now?

Inching closer every day...

 

[DropitlikeitsHawk]

Inching closer every day...

I mean it took what 2 years to completely change the landscape. Add in the Covid year and Christ there is no chance to know is where and getting what. I’m all for players making money but it’s insane.

 

[LIV4GOD]

It actually does but roster size is capped so basically it eliminates walk ons. See link to article from Athlon. However, Title IX still applies.

https://athlonsports.com/college/ncaa-power-5-settle-class-action-cases-schools-pay-athletes-revenue-sharing-scholarships

Informative article.

Concerning Title IX, it states there must be equal opportunity for men and women concerning access to scholarships. What about the amount paid per athlete? Will that be the same across sports?

 

[DavidHawk324]

Informative article.

Concerning Title IX, it states there must be equal opportunity for men and women concerning access to scholarships. What about the amount paid per athlete? Will that be the same across sports?

In the latest “Legends and Listeners” podcast (via Iowa Everywhere), Scott Dochterman gives a good breakdown.

It sounds like the question of whether mens sports and womens sports athletes in total have to be paid equally isn’t resolved and may have to go through the courts. He talked to several ADs who thought it would need to be split (i.e., if you pay the full $20m, approx. $10m would be paid to men and $10m paid to women).

It does not need to be equal across sports. So, if Title IX applies, a school could pay $9m to football, $1m to mens bball, and nothing to every other mens sport (although I do think scholarships count toward the total). Also could pay one football player $1m and another $1k.

Addressed wrestling and thought it would hurt the sport. The thought is if schools are racing to fund football and basketball, they’ll need to cut costs elsewhere, which would be facilities and mens non-revenue sports. Obviously Iowa would keep wrestling but many schools may not. At Iowa, not many mens sports left to cut (track/CC, golf and baseball).

 

[98lberEating2Lunches]

although I do think scholarships count toward the total

True, the ~$20 million is only revenue sharing. I thought Title IX was about championship opportunities being proportional to the student population regarding two sexes.

Regarding when student athletes become employees, all will pivot to total compensation package, which would include health care, tuition reimbursement (i.e., scholarship), and room and board. These will be subject to federal taxes (as well as state where applicable) either as pre-tax or after tax. No and low income tax states (e.g. FL, NV) may have an advantage.

When it comes to salary being equal between the sexes, unfortunately I don't see it. WNBA doesn’t pay as NBA. What I read indicates salary surveys may be used. Women have historically been underpaid.

 

[LIV4GOD]

When it comes to salary being equal between the sexes, unfortunately I don't see it. WNBA doesn’t pay as NBA. What I read indicates salary surveys may be used. Women have historically been underpaid.

Unfortunately? It's just the market. Are women really underpaid, or just lesser paid? It's according to the money made by their sport/image through its various ways. Caitlin Clark is getting great money through whatever means because she's outrageously popular. Rightly so. She puts out a super entertaining product that packs arenas. She makes shots the men don't even often try. More power and money to her.

 

[98lberEating2Lunches]

Unfortunately? It's just the market.

I was speaking historical and beyond sports.

Equal pay for an equivalent work position has not been the norm between men and women. Additionally, positions, such as teachers and nurses, which have typically been and continue to be filled by a larger percentage of women than men, can be seen to have suffered from somewhat suppressed salaries. So it is not just "the market," rather it is the policies of those who control these institutions of employment.

So yes, I consider this circumstance unfortunate. And I would consider any backward looking salary analysis as lacking in regard to an expectation for future equity.

Caitlin Clark is getting great money through whatever means because she's outrageously popular.

Caitlin is an exception that proves the general rule. Most D1 sports have no post graduate professional opportunities at all, let alone for women.

 

[AFHawk86]

Not sure where to put this but I needs to be shared…

 

[Mountain Man Hawk]

It does not eliminate walk on’s. If anybody thinks that wrestling schools are going to fund scholarships up to the roster limit, they are nuts. The majority of universities do not have the money to fund that on top of paying athletes.

I guess that’s one way to look at it. The reason everyone is saying no more walk-ons is because the roster limit and the scholarship limit will now be the same, whereas previously they were different.

But to your point, if schools want to still offer the sport even though they know they won’t be that competitive, then they can still have walk-ons and just not give out as many scholarships as their peers.

Take Iowa baseball for example, with all of the new spending needs, is the university going to be willing to go from offering 11.7 baseball scholarships to the new limit of 40? It would feel like a precarious position to me to still have the sport but just basically admit we aren’t as serious about it as other schools because half our roster will be walk-ons (I’m assuming schools that take baseball seriously will have a roster full of scholarship players).

It’s going to be interesting to see how it all shakes out. I worry there will be about 8 schools that still compete in wrestling and it feels like a coin flip if Iowa will cut baseball but I obviously have no idea and I hope that doesn’t happen.

 

[HawkeyeMass]

I guess that’s one way to look at it. The reason everyone is saying no more walk-ons is because the roster limit and the scholarship limit will now be the same, whereas previously they were different.

But to your point, if schools want to still offer the sport even though they know they won’t be that competitive, then they can still have walk-ons and just not give out as many scholarships as their peers.

Take Iowa baseball for example, with all of the new spending needs, is the university going to be willing to go from offering 11.7 baseball scholarships to the new limit of 40? It would feel like a precarious position to me to still have the sport but just basically admit we aren’t as serious about it as other schools because half our roster will be walk-ons (I’m assuming schools that take baseball seriously will have a roster full of scholarship players).

It’s going to be interesting to see how it all shakes out. I worry there will be about 8 schools that still compete in wrestling and it feels like a coin flip if Iowa will cut baseball but I obviously have no idea and I hope that doesn’t happen.

Agree with you completely. There’s this misconception that the power five have all this money and that’s just not the case. Many do but many are breakeven at best. Universities are going to have to pick and choose what they want to be competitive in. That is potentially going to result in many sports programs being cut and unfortunately most will be men’s.

 

[grapplefann]

Maybe it’s time for colleges to get out of the athletics business. Let the pro organizations for revenue sports figure out how to produce talent; everything else falls under the USOC umbrella. I doubt the NCAA wants to give up the revenue stream though.

That's the problem. Also, the alumni get upset when they don't get to see major sports teams as well.
Maybe this IS the time when colleges start to drop sports other than club sports. Wasn't the University of Chicago once in the Big Ten, and then dropped out when football started to become too important, or something like that?