you think collectives are going away? LOL
Schools to pay players directly.
- Thread starter obfuscating
- Start date
you think collectives are going away? LOL
players aren't giving up their NIL deals. collectives aren't going away.
the courts have stated very clearly that NIL will never be over.
revenue sharing simply adds to players' income
Yup. Collective pays a basketball player a couple million dollars and he swings by their football tailgate for a meet and greet.
“Value” and what people consider “excessive money” is subjective.
keep hoping, but it won't do you any good. NIL is not going away; players' NIL income can't be restricted. the courts have already decided that.
he can offer revenue sharing (which all the of the big schools will have) but he can't offer the big NIL deal
so, no, the playing field will still not be even
I hope eventually that will be the case. Just like I’m sure NFL players that sign with the Cowboys make a lot more NIL than players that sign with small market teams but nobody seems to care that much because they make so much in their base salary that they don’t really pick teams based on NIL opportunities anymore.
The 60+ member of women’s crew going to get the same as the 5 Star QB?
Lawyers and the social media mob can’t wait to find out.
I posted this information before but it looks like, because of Title IX, that a lot of male & female athletes would get a cut of the $21m to $22M PER YEAR but the vast majority of the revenue sharing would be directed towards football and men's basketball.
When it comes to female sports, here are some excerpts from the linked article:
But how does Title IX apply in a revenue-sharing model?
That question remains unclear and there is ongoing litigation in Oregon that could, eventually, provide the answer.
In an interview in January, Baker said he believed that Title IX terminology is more “about equal participation” and not “so much about equal amounts.” That would open the door for a school to share more total revenue with men athletes as long as the school offers revenue to an equal number of women athletes.
In his appearance in Washington D.C., Kessler noted that he “hopes” Title IX is applied in any future athlete compensation model.
What would House v. NCAA settlement mean? A revenue-sharing model to end college amateurism
After months of negotiations in the House antitrust case, the next evolution of athlete compensation is on the horizon.
sports.yahoo.com
as much as I hate this path, this is the correct answer.
RIP traditional college athletics
So basically teams will max out their salary caps just like scholarships in the past and they'll cheat and pay above and beyond to continue to have an advantage.
This is the big question. If they're now employees rather than student-athletes...is the student part optional? Or is this like work-study (or what ever it's called now) where the jobs are only available to enrolled students?
Because the schools do not want the athletes to be employees, with everything that would entail, my guess is the school will buy the media/broadcast rights of the athletes, and the players will essentially become a vendor. The issue with this is it brings all the non-revenue sports into the equation which is why there are questions around title IX and paying everyone.
Field hockey games are broadcast, soccer games are broadcast, tennis matches are broadcast which would mean the school would have to buy those media rights as well; even though the income from those is negligible to football and basketball.
If you think about it this is not that much money and I would expect it will result in not much change. If you think about just men's basketball and football, there are about 100 scholarship athletes (plus 100 makes the math easier). If the pool of money is $20,000,000 that works out to about $200,000 per player, not bad. However you then would have to include the walk ons because they are being broadcast as well (even sitting on the bench) so you are probably looking closer to 150 athletes making it closer to $130,000 per player.
Once you start to add in women's basketball, wrestling and other sports the number probably lands under $100,000 per athlete. A nice check but not earth shattering, decision making money.
My expected consequence to this is reduced walks ons and cutting non-revenue sports in order to maximize the payments to FB and BB. In order to keep the title IX balance it will likely be 2 mens sports cut for every one womens sport. Given there are only 4 mens sports (outside of FB and BB) at Iowa, wrestling and/or baseball would be potentially on the chopping block which would almost be criminal.
Field hockey games are broadcast, soccer games are broadcast, tennis matches are broadcast which would mean the school would have to buy those media rights as well; even though the income from those is negligible to football and basketball.
If you think about it this is not that much money and I would expect it will result in not much change. If you think about just men's basketball and football, there are about 100 scholarship athletes (plus 100 makes the math easier). If the pool of money is $20,000,000 that works out to about $200,000 per player, not bad. However you then would have to include the walk ons because they are being broadcast as well (even sitting on the bench) so you are probably looking closer to 150 athletes making it closer to $130,000 per player.
Once you start to add in women's basketball, wrestling and other sports the number probably lands under $100,000 per athlete. A nice check but not earth shattering, decision making money.
My expected consequence to this is reduced walks ons and cutting non-revenue sports in order to maximize the payments to FB and BB. In order to keep the title IX balance it will likely be 2 mens sports cut for every one womens sport. Given there are only 4 mens sports (outside of FB and BB) at Iowa, wrestling and/or baseball would be potentially on the chopping block which would almost be criminal.
The DOL may have something to say about this in the future. Book that.
NIL isn’t going away. The best players will still make truck loads of cash via NIL and still transfer for more NIL.
This does zero and does zero for competitive balance.
This does zero and does zero for competitive balance.
It does likely separate the Big 2 conferences more from the middle class of schools.
True NIL has nothing to do with this. Theres no reason that Nike or State Farm wouldn't sign someone like CC because of her overwhelming popularity. Hopefully the perversion of NIL will be less, but who knows.....
You would certainly think so. May bring a union into this as well. Wait until players start getting fired for "underperforming". Get your popcorn ready.......
I doubt it.
My hunch is Iowa State basketball players are all doing quite well with NIL as an example.
We are moments away from programs hiring salary cap folks. Along with the lawyers to keep them out of lawsuits. Brave new world for sure.I posted this information before but it looks like, because of Title IX, that a lot of male & female athletes would get a cut of the $21m to $22M PER YEAR but the vast majority of the revenue sharing would be directed towards football and men's basketball.
When it comes to female sports, here are some excerpts from the linked article:
But how does Title IX apply in a revenue-sharing model?
That question remains unclear and there is ongoing litigation in Oregon that could, eventually, provide the answer.
In an interview in January, Baker said he believed that Title IX terminology is more “about equal participation” and not “so much about equal amounts.” That would open the door for a school to share more total revenue with men athletes as long as the school offers revenue to an equal number of women athletes.
In his appearance in Washington D.C., Kessler noted that he “hopes” Title IX is applied in any future athlete compensation model.
What would House v. NCAA settlement mean? A revenue-sharing model to end college amateurism
After months of negotiations in the House antitrust case, the next evolution of athlete compensation is on the horizon.
Basketball?? Money isn't there like football. If it were Iowa State would be rolling in dough.
Yeah, how do you divide up $22M per year? that's gonna be interesting, to say the least....
And think about what a top QB might get vs a female athlete; the difference could be huge. Will lawsuits occur as a result?
It will be interesting. If they "share revenue" based on who actually creates revenue then football will swallow most of this . Consider though Iowa womens basketball draws pretty well, at least in comparison to many schools, so will the lady Hawks benefit financially more then most?
"Dating back to 2016." So...the NCAA found a way to screw Drew Ott over one more time.
Iowa State wasn’t a football school before NIL and isn’t with NIL.
Lesser schools can compete in basketball with NIL and they do because it doesn’t take as much money. This new money won’t change that.
Iowa didn’t compete with the big boys in football before NIL and won’t with NIL. The same schools are good at football with NIL that were without it.
When a top qb is getting multiple millions via NIL this new money isn’t going amount to jack squat for a school like Iowa and their chance to compete.
I think it’s a big nothing burger. If the new money isn’t split up evenly among all athletes at a school the lawyers will have a big say.
Every school Iowa tries to compete with gets this same money plus the mountains of NIL they have.
Last edited:
You can bet there will be plenty of people calling for equal distribution. One only need look at how "casual" fans were so outraged that WNBA players like CC get paid so much less than their NBA counterparts. Economic illiteracy is rampant.I posted this information before but it looks like, because of Title IX, that a lot of male & female athletes would get a cut of the $21m to $22M PER YEAR but the vast majority of the revenue sharing would be directed towards football and men's basketball.
When it comes to female sports, here are some excerpts from the linked article:
But how does Title IX apply in a revenue-sharing model?
That question remains unclear and there is ongoing litigation in Oregon that could, eventually, provide the answer.
In an interview in January, Baker said he believed that Title IX terminology is more “about equal participation” and not “so much about equal amounts.” That would open the door for a school to share more total revenue with men athletes as long as the school offers revenue to an equal number of women athletes.
In his appearance in Washington D.C., Kessler noted that he “hopes” Title IX is applied in any future athlete compensation model.
What would House v. NCAA settlement mean? A revenue-sharing model to end college amateurism
After months of negotiations in the House antitrust case, the next evolution of athlete compensation is on the horizon.
And? You’d do the same thing. Unless you don’t like money.
Your right. Point is this new money changes nothing. NIL will still be what wins and loses athletes. This new money means nothing be die everybody will be offering it. It’s like minimum wage.
If I'm the schools, i make every athlete a commission only employee. Get paid by what you produce.
NIL can still be used by top athletes like a Caitlin Clark to make more money. And NIL will still be used by the big money NIL collectives to lure and buy the really top recruits.
Similar threads
