Iowa FB's success without an offense had a lot to do with the mediocrity of their division in the B1G.
SWARM CEO Brad Heinrichs Explains why they Currently are Unable to Support the Men's Basketball Program like they Need To
- Thread starter Franisdaman
- Start date
Correct. Milque toast west. Soothing and comforting.
Exactly. I love Iowa sports, but let's be real - there are things like house renovations, etc. that I need my disposable income for, and with the way things are right now.. These are pretty much prohibitively expensive. Been to Home Depot lately and look at the price of materials? Gotta save up and do these things when I can. IF I can even get to them all. Not mention property taxes, homeowners/flood insurance increases (Yeah, it makes me question living in FL) and things like that outpacing my merit increases..
Let's just say that donating thousands of dollars so that MAYBE one of my favorite sports teams can get enough good players to have a chance to compete, is not my top priority.
People can deride my fandom if they want. Go right ahead. But this is my reality. I can't be the only one.
Maybe the people sponsoring the coaches' titles should give that money to the Swarm instead.
Lisa Bluder is always announced as the “P. Sue Beckwith” coach, an endowed position. Similar with the AD.
As you clearly know based on your comments above, donating to Swarm and all other needy organizations (or potentially "more deserving" students) is not mutually exclusive. There isn't a single person who demands that you re-allocate funds to Swarm from other organizations you support. If you don't have the money or don't want to support, that's perfectly fine, spend your money how you want (even spend $99/year on an Iowa sports website if it makes you happy). The reasons given for supporting Swarm are simply that, valid reasons for supporting Swarm, obviously doesn't diminish or trump reasons to support other organizations.
My goodness, no one is deriding fandom. I can't fathom anyone thinking you should withhold doing household repairs and paying for your other individual needs so you can donate to Swarm. Each individual gets to decide what their priorities are with their cash, I don't understand why non-donors are taking it so personally?
Non-donors are taking it personally because some folks are absolutely deriding their fandom. It has been posted on more than one occasion that if you are not donating to the Swarm, you are not a real fan, both through subtle implications as well as direct comments.
I have yet to see the direct comment, "If you don't donate to Swarm, you are not a real fan."
I have seen people suggest that it is a hollow complaint if someone complains about poor Iowa sports results without contributing to improve the roster (similar to, "you can't complain if you don't vote). And of course, there are numerous ways to contribute which should help roster-building, not just through Swarm (though Swarm is the most direct way in this current NIL era).
To be clear, NIL payments are not coming from the school, but rather from the Swarm (or any other group who has an endorsement deal with a player).
As for the amount, it was always said that for the Collective side of the Swarm, all players who participate and complete their public service work would get an equal stipend. Only football, MBB, and WBB are included. I haven't heard lately what that number is at the moment, but I know when the Swarm was first announced, it was said that if they raised $2 million, they could afford to give every player $1,000 a month (or roughly $12K a year.) I feel like I read somewhere that for members of the WBB team, the stipends are $15K a year. So, just to guess, I think we are looking at somewhere between $12K-$20K per player.
For those donating to the Swarm, this is where your money is going. I think this is also where revenues from Swarm beer are going.
When it comes to the specific deals given to individual players, that's the corporate side of Swarm, known as Swarm Inc. This is supported by area businesses that sign players to marketing deals. This is where Proctor's money came from (he only got 15% of his deal). I believe this is where the money comes from to help us retain key football players. If we want to land a big fish from the portal or the high school ranks, it is likely Swarm Inc. that will come up with the money.
You can actually donate to either side of the Swarm; however, only donations to the Collective side are tax-deductible. Gifts to Swarm Inc. are not.
Just from today, as an example:
OK, so maybe he didn't specifically say non-donors are not "real fans." But he said they are fat, cheap, and useless. And apparently Marxist, in some cases. The message is the same.
Are you still confused about why folks might take it personally?
One key edit from the bolded language above, as of September, 2023, all 22 sports teams are supported via Swarm.
I'm not sure if all participants in all 22 sports get the same shared stipend, though. I am certainly fuzzy on this point.
Here's what it says on the Swarm's website:
Strange that the website would mention WBB, MBB, and football specifically, if they weren't being treated different somehow.
I suspect that the main fund supports the Big 3 sports mentioned. However, if I make a donation of $1,000 designated for the rowing team, that money (and only that money) would be split among members of the rowing team. (You have to donate $1K to make a designation.)
If those comments were made with any regularity by sensible posters, I could completely understand. However, I'd suggest that anomalous cheap shots by site trolls should not be taken personally. The trolls say all sorts of stupid stuff on many topics, that's a completely separate issue. The actual adults who know how to engage in regular discourse/discussion aren't saying anything absurd and personal like that on this topic.
At the end of the day, I'd guess 99.8% (exact number) of the fans hate the concept of NIL. It has destroyed the amateur aspect of college athletics and made it more about the $$ for the individual as opposed to the name of the university on the front of the jersey. It's really easy to knock it and not support it, very much low-hanging fruit. However, this is what we as fans have as a system right now. So you can cross your arms and spit at it, or try to address a bad situation with a proactive approach like Swarm. It's fine either way, we as fans just have to acknowledge what it means if the NIL coffers are low. And what keeps me sane with all of this, is this is a very temporary system, and probably by 2030 (or earlier), you won't see fan support collectives like we do today.
I appreciate your comments on this topic all the same.
I believe the Collective fund supports all 22 sports if the student-athletes opt-in. My understanding is there is a low base stipend if they then complete their public service/other requirements, and then there is a sliding scale for more veteran players and the big revenue sports (i.e. a senior starter on the football team could make quite a bit more than a frosh volleyball player via the Collective). Then this can be supplemented further by Inc. facilitated endorsements.
This isn't accurate. Very few schools are actually making millions of dollars.
41 schools athletic departments made a million dollars or more last year IN PROFIT. Iowa profited $7.1 million.
Millions (plural), 32 schools profited $2 million or more.
This is counting only public/reporting universities.
All FBS level schools generated multi million in revenue. Troy and Buffalo generated the least at around $8.7 million, and yes they reinvest that money into the university/non revenue sports. UCLA on the other hand generated $103 million in revenue and somehow still managed to take a $36.5 million loss.
Thanks for the info. This is about what I think players should have been getting all along, in addition to scholarship, etc., and maybe we wouldn't be the NIL mess that we are in. The NCAA has always been marginally useless. Now, I see no value in keeping it around.
Is Fran in on anybody in the portal?
Thanks.
News seems pretty skimpy on that front
Thanks.
News seems pretty skimpy on that front
See Drew Thelwell visiting thread. In on a couple of possible PGs.Is Fran in on anybody in the portal?
Thanks.
News seems pretty skimpy on that front
Correct, outside of the Big 3 then the donation needs to be a single time of $1000 or more. It can also be $100 a month or more then it can be given to any sport.
Is Fran in on anybody in the portal?
Thanks.
News seems pretty skimpy on that front
Not sure how accurate the 10% number is but football gets most of the money for the SWARM INC (big donor) deals.
Fran has a lot to offer; just not hundreds of thousands of dollars.
IU always is able to bring in top recruits. I wonder how long Woodson's accomplishments as a great player will keep the IU donors and fan base from doing something about his lousy coaching.
Yes, but the Iowa Athletic department also has a lot of debt to pay on. They are still paying on the North End Zone rebuild and have a 50 million dollar loan from the University to pay back.
Indiana has the Cooks, Simons, and Cuban that give money. Reportedly 2 of those 3 kicked in several additional million this year to help Woodson get some players. I don't call the shots obviously but if he doesn't do something with next year's roster his seat is going to be on fire.
What follows is talking about the Collective/volunteering side where players get paid when they volunteer.
We still need big donor help on the SWARM INC side for MBB in order to land prospects that cost $400,000 (like Tony Perkins) or more
We still need big donor help on the SWARM INC side for MBB in order to land prospects that cost $400,000 (like Tony Perkins) or more
AJ Storrs turned down Kansas' original $750,000 offer because he wanted $1 million.
Looks like they came up with a compromise.
This was where things stood at the beginning of April:
Looks like they came up with a compromise.
This was where things stood at the beginning of April:
That can’t be. The narrative around here is that Fran hates NIL. This seems to contradict that.
I think he's ok with NIL. Now, pay to play is a different story.
Tony was looking for $500,000 for one year of his services; he got $400,000 from Missouri.
I think he's ok with NIL. Now, pay to play is a different story.
Tony was looking for $500,000 for his services; he got $400,000 from Missouri.
I don’t even think he’s against that, specifically. Fran has always been outspoken with the tampering that clearly goes along with pay to play and/or NIL. Somewhere that got turned into, Fran hates NIL. The pay to play part is a negative, because at Iowa, the men’s basketball side has very little to offer in terms of the pay part of it.
It just sucks that pay to play is being disguised as NIL and there's nothing to stop it. The NCAA keeps losing in court and it now appears that anything goes when it comes to paying players.
Imagine if Josh Dix and Owen Freeman entered the transfer portal and simply sat back and waited for the offers?
ughhh....
2 years after a meeting between Kevin Warren & football players to discuss revenue sharing, things are moving along.
Check this out & then click on ESPN.com in the tweet below to take you to the story.
Here is another good story on revenue sharing. As you will read, administrators briefed on a proposed new revenue-sharing model are expecting to share as much as $15-20 million per school, with a spending limit similar to a professional sports team’s salary cap.
Note that a player likely would get their NIL and their portion of the revenue.
Ross Dellenger
Senior College Football Reporter
Tue, Apr 30, 2024, 8:26 AM CDT
The next evolution of college athlete compensation is on the horizon.
College leaders and plaintiff lawyers, in negotiations now for months, are inching closer to arriving at an agreement to settle the House antitrust lawsuit and usher into the sport a new model that features sharing revenue with athletes.
But it’s not here just yet, and plenty of hurdles lie ahead.
The negotiations have been no real secret within the college sports industry. In fact, discussions have grown serious enough that a potential revenue-sharing model has been socialized with administrators — something Yahoo Sports reported earlier this month.
On Monday, reporting from ESPN shined more of a light on the negotiations: They are heating up.
But what does a settlement of the House v. NCAA case entail exactly? What does it mean for your school? How does it impact the future of college sports? And are all of the school presidents on board?
We'll try to explain what is a very complicated — and fluid — situation.
The first is likely to cost college sports as much as, or more than, $1 billion in back-pay (damages) owed to athletes over the four years preceding the NCAA permitting athletes to earn compensation from their NIL (2017-2020). The amount is likely to be paid over a certain stretch of time.
The second is more impactful to the future of the industry: an agreement from, specifically, power conference schools to directly share revenue with their athletes and even buy their exclusive NIL rights.
As reported by Yahoo Sports earlier this month, administrators briefed on a proposed new revenue-sharing model are expecting to share as much as $15-20 million per school, with a spending limit similar to a professional sports team’s salary cap.
The per-school figure was determined from an average of power league athletic department revenues (ticket sales, sponsorships, etc.) and is expected to be the same for all schools despite wide variance in resources. Ohio State’s athletic department, for instance, led all programs with $250 million in revenue last year — $100 million more than the program that ranked 20th in the nation (Arkansas at about $150 million).
A $20 million price tag for Ohio State is 8% of its budget. A $20 million price tag for Arkansas is 13% of its budget.
This settlement-related revenue model isn’t a new concept.
In fact, it shares similarities with a proposal that NCAA president Charlie Baker unveiled in December to permit schools to compensate athletes directly for the use of their name, image and likeness (NIL). For months now, schools have been gearing up to provide direct compensation to athletes, some of them even encouraging their lawmakers to make changes to state law. In Virginia, a law permitting state schools to directly pay college athletes for their NIL rights takes effect July 1.
The topic, in fact, has generated plenty of spirited debate within meetings among conference presidents and athletic directors over the last year. The approval of any settlement likely needs a majority or supermajority vote from a league’s board of university presidents — a potential sticking point.
Over the last several months, a vast majority of those in college athletics have been convinced that a settlement is the only way forward, so much so that the SEC and Big Ten created a joint advisory board whose primary purpose was to explore a new model. Why is a settlement so necessary?
(1) The settlement will offer the NCAA and power leagues protection from further lawsuits for a set stretch of time, likely in the range of 8-10 years, those briefed on the matter say. This is essential as the NCAA has lost virtually every antitrust case brought against it, most notably the Supreme Court’s 2021 decision (9-0) in the Alston case over educationally related benefits to athletes.
(2) The settlement is expected to include other active cases such as the Hubbard and Carter lawsuits, both brought against the NCAA and power leagues by the same attorney, Jeffrey Kessler, who is leading the House plaintiff legal team. In short, the Hubbard case seeks back compensation stemming from the Alston Supreme Court decision, and Carter is seeking to eliminate all NCAA rules prohibiting athlete compensation. Can the settlement kill three proverbial birds with one stone? Perhaps.
(3) Any settlement avoids a much steeper price tag. If the NCAA and power leagues decide to challenge the case in court and lose, damages owed to athletes are tripled. A price of $1-2 billion could turn to $4-6 billion in a hurry.
Note that a player likely would get their NIL and their portion of the revenue.
What would House v. NCAA settlement mean? A Revenue-Sharing model to end college amateurism
Ross Dellenger
Senior College Football Reporter
Tue, Apr 30, 2024, 8:26 AM CDT
The next evolution of college athlete compensation is on the horizon.
College leaders and plaintiff lawyers, in negotiations now for months, are inching closer to arriving at an agreement to settle the House antitrust lawsuit and usher into the sport a new model that features sharing revenue with athletes.
But it’s not here just yet, and plenty of hurdles lie ahead.
The negotiations have been no real secret within the college sports industry. In fact, discussions have grown serious enough that a potential revenue-sharing model has been socialized with administrators — something Yahoo Sports reported earlier this month.
On Monday, reporting from ESPN shined more of a light on the negotiations: They are heating up.
But what does a settlement of the House v. NCAA case entail exactly? What does it mean for your school? How does it impact the future of college sports? And are all of the school presidents on board?
We'll try to explain what is a very complicated — and fluid — situation.
What’s the settlement?
Any settlement of the case comes in two parts: (1) compensation owed to college athletes for universities using their name, image and likeness in broadcasts; and (2) a future compensation model featuring revenue sharing with athletes.The first is likely to cost college sports as much as, or more than, $1 billion in back-pay (damages) owed to athletes over the four years preceding the NCAA permitting athletes to earn compensation from their NIL (2017-2020). The amount is likely to be paid over a certain stretch of time.
The second is more impactful to the future of the industry: an agreement from, specifically, power conference schools to directly share revenue with their athletes and even buy their exclusive NIL rights.
As reported by Yahoo Sports earlier this month, administrators briefed on a proposed new revenue-sharing model are expecting to share as much as $15-20 million per school, with a spending limit similar to a professional sports team’s salary cap.
The per-school figure was determined from an average of power league athletic department revenues (ticket sales, sponsorships, etc.) and is expected to be the same for all schools despite wide variance in resources. Ohio State’s athletic department, for instance, led all programs with $250 million in revenue last year — $100 million more than the program that ranked 20th in the nation (Arkansas at about $150 million).
A $20 million price tag for Ohio State is 8% of its budget. A $20 million price tag for Arkansas is 13% of its budget.
This settlement-related revenue model isn’t a new concept.
In fact, it shares similarities with a proposal that NCAA president Charlie Baker unveiled in December to permit schools to compensate athletes directly for the use of their name, image and likeness (NIL). For months now, schools have been gearing up to provide direct compensation to athletes, some of them even encouraging their lawmakers to make changes to state law. In Virginia, a law permitting state schools to directly pay college athletes for their NIL rights takes effect July 1.
Why settle?
Not everyone in college athletics believes that a settlement is the right move.The topic, in fact, has generated plenty of spirited debate within meetings among conference presidents and athletic directors over the last year. The approval of any settlement likely needs a majority or supermajority vote from a league’s board of university presidents — a potential sticking point.
Over the last several months, a vast majority of those in college athletics have been convinced that a settlement is the only way forward, so much so that the SEC and Big Ten created a joint advisory board whose primary purpose was to explore a new model. Why is a settlement so necessary?
(1) The settlement will offer the NCAA and power leagues protection from further lawsuits for a set stretch of time, likely in the range of 8-10 years, those briefed on the matter say. This is essential as the NCAA has lost virtually every antitrust case brought against it, most notably the Supreme Court’s 2021 decision (9-0) in the Alston case over educationally related benefits to athletes.
(2) The settlement is expected to include other active cases such as the Hubbard and Carter lawsuits, both brought against the NCAA and power leagues by the same attorney, Jeffrey Kessler, who is leading the House plaintiff legal team. In short, the Hubbard case seeks back compensation stemming from the Alston Supreme Court decision, and Carter is seeking to eliminate all NCAA rules prohibiting athlete compensation. Can the settlement kill three proverbial birds with one stone? Perhaps.
(3) Any settlement avoids a much steeper price tag. If the NCAA and power leagues decide to challenge the case in court and lose, damages owed to athletes are tripled. A price of $1-2 billion could turn to $4-6 billion in a hurry.
Why are some against it?
There are a few main arguments from those who are against settling.(1) Any settlement offers only short-term protection from further lawsuits, meaning it needs codification from Congress to become a long-term or permanent solution. The NCAA and power leagues have spent five years lobbying lawmakers to pass a federal bill to manage athlete compensation. Since 2020, there have been more than 10 congressional hearings and multiple bills filed. No single piece of legislation has even advanced to a House or Senate full committee discussion. Will a settlement change congressional action? That’s the goal.
(2) The settlement may not put a complete end to the NIL-fueled arms race in college sports, where booster-led groups are donating millions to fund their teams because schools are not permitted to directly pay athletes. At some competitive programs with significant resources, NIL collectives may continue to operate much in the way they do now, providing extra cash on top of what’s allowed from schools. If a school purchases its athletes’ NIL rights, any outside NIL could be eliminated (something referred to often as “in-house NIL”). But how many athletes would agree to such? It remains an unanswered question.
Complicating matters is a separate case, brought against the NCAA by attorneys general in Virginia and Tennessee, that has successfully, for now, legalized NIL-related inducements from third parties such as collectives.
(3) The settlement alone may not prevent the current rate of player movement across the college sports landscape. The NCAA recently changed its transfer policies to permit athletes to move freely without penalty, aligning its own rules with a court injunction that did the same in December. That, again, is a separate case complicating matters.
(4) There are several active cases remaining where courts could eventually deem athletes as employees. How the settlement impacts those cases is unclear. This creates anxiety for administrators who wish to avoid employment at all costs.
What happens to the Group of Five?
The House case, and any potential settlement of it, focuses on the power conference programs — those athletic departments within the NCAA that generate the most revenue. Kessler, the lead attorney in House, said as much earlier this month during a speaking engagement in Washington, D.C., noting that those schools that cannot afford to share revenue will not necessarily be required to do so.The settlement would be what several administrators describe as “permissive”: A school does not have to share $20 million with its athletes but the agreement opens the door to give schools the freedom to do so. In a competitive market fueled by the recruiting of high school and college transfers, schools will naturally jockey to offer athletes as much as they can.
Most Group of Five and FCS football programs do not generate a profit, and their athletic departments are often subsidized by university and student fees. There are programs at the G5 level where $20 million in revenue sharing would nearly eclipse their entire department revenue for the year.
“You really have to think about (the Power Four schools) as different,” Kessler said earlier this month. “The reason we get tied in knots is because we conflate those schools who have developed these gigantic independent commercial businesses with the schools who are still just educational institutions with extracurricular activities. When you try to come up with one rule for all, you go crazy. You have to look at the schools differently. For the ones with the money, there is plenty of money to compensate the athletes and share it with the women’s sports.”
Many G5 athletic directors hold such fear that this new revenue-sharing model will put them so far behind that they are at least toying with the idea of holding their own postseason event.
In a new world of revenue sharing, competition between those in the power leagues and those in the Group of Five won’t necessarily end. But the gap between the top and bottom of FBS, already exacerbated in the NIL era, will further grow.
How will a school determine who gets paid and how much?
This is not completely clear. But common sense tells us that athletes participating in a sport that generates the most revenue are likely to earn more of a share of that revenue than those participating in sports that don’t generate as much (or any at all).At many power conference athletic departments, football and, to a lesser extent, men’s basketball are the only sports that produce significant revenue figures. The money that those sports generate is normally pumped back into those sports themselves and the dozens of Olympic sports that lose millions annually.
However, schools are bound by Title IX, a 52-year-old federal law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in schools. Athletic departments are required to provide the same opportunities for women athletes as they do men. The law is heralded as a significant driver in producing a robust and successful women’s athletic movement in the United States and on the world stage at the Olympics. Millions of young women have come through the college sports pipeline in sports specifically sanctioned to adhere to Title IX.
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’s next?
Over the next month, particulars of the new revenue-sharing model are expected to be further socialized across the four major conferences (much of this has already been done). Meetings will be had and arguments will unfold. Many have circled the end of May as a looming deadline to agree on a settlement.In the end, votes from each league’s board of presidents are expected in what could be a historic move to, once and for all, send crumbling the final piece of NCAA amateurism.
Or, perhaps, not.
“Change is here. It is not going to stay the same. It’s already different,” Kessler said earlier this month. “The best thing that everybody should think about is, ‘OK, how can we make this change the most positive change for everyone involved?’
“Stop living a vision that doesn’t exist. Face the realities here, because it’s going to happen. The question is, are you going to be part of that change or not be part of that change?”
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
