College Power-Brokers Poised to Turn NCAA Upside Down

[northernraider]

New NCAA committee poised to turn college sports upside down - Sports Illustrated

[Hammersmith]

4 hours ago, northernraider said:

New NCAA committee poised to turn college sports upside down - Sports Illustrated

Have you looked at the roster of these power brokers?

[The Sicatoka]

I see a lame duck FCS president that is one of the seven FCS votes on a 21 member committee and the other 14 votes are FBS. We all know the outcome will be rules benefiting the P5. Alabama and Ohio State look out for themselves only and even G5 concerns are no matter. The FCS participants are so the press release can say “all levels participated” in the committee outcomes. 

[nodakvindy]

On 4/27/2022 at 8:17 PM, The Sicatoka said:

I see a lame duck FCS president that is one of the seven FCS votes on a 21 member committee and the other 14 votes are FBS. We all know the outcome will be rules benefiting the P5. Alabama and Ohio State look out for themselves only and even G5 concerns are no matter. The FCS participants are so the press release can say “all levels participated” in the committee outcomes. 

I think one thing you could see going away are the number of sports required to be offered.  You might then see a lot more geographic appropriate offerings, maybe stuff like Curling starting up, or schools going to more boutique combos like Denver has.

And wait for the Title IX lawsuits when you see schools helping line up NLI deals, but only for men's teams.  That will only further the separation between haves and have nots.

[The Sicatoka]

8 hours ago, nodakvindy said:

I think one thing you could see going away are the number of sports required to be offered.  You might then see a lot more geographic appropriate offerings, maybe stuff like Curling starting up, or schools going to more boutique combos like Denver has.

Eliminating mandated numbers of sports would actually be an acceptable outcome to me. You'd still have to be Title IX compliant, but wouldn't have to support some mandatory arbitrary number of M/W sports to be "in NCAA compliance". 

[The Sicatoka]

8 hours ago, nodakvindy said:

And wait for the Title IX lawsuits when you see schools helping line up NIL deals, but only for men's teams.  That will only further the separation between haves and have nots.

The NIL (name image likeness) world gives the schools the easy out: They don't control the money. As the NCAA statement says

Quote

 

The policy provides the following guidance to college athletes, recruits, their families and member schools:

• Individuals can engage in NIL activities that are consistent with the law of the state where the school is located. Colleges and universities may be a resource for state law questions.
• College athletes who attend a school in a state without an NIL law can engage in this type of activity without violating NCAA rules related to name, image and likeness.
• Individuals can use a professional services provider for NIL activities.
• Student-athletes should report NIL activities consistent with state law or school and conference requirements to their school.

 

The NIL agreement is between a person (who just happens to be a student-athlete) and an outside (meaning not the school) party. All the school can do is ask the two parties to comply with state law (see above).

So, the schools: They don't touch the money. They aren't responsible for who gets what. They are not party to the NIL 

School X: "Gee, Title IX inspector, we don't control that local car dealer, who is a football alumnus, and giving $50k each to offensive linemen*; we don't control that he won't even give a broken pool noodle to the women's swimming team. There's nothing we can do about it." 

NIL is the perfect scheme for the rich of college athletics to get richer. 

 

*Reportedly already happening at UT Austin.

[Yote 53]

12 hours ago, nodakvindy said:

I think one thing you could see going away are the number of sports required to be offered.  You might then see a lot more geographic appropriate offerings, maybe stuff like Curling starting up, or schools going to more boutique combos like Denver has.

And wait for the Title IX lawsuits when you see schools helping line up NLI deals, but only for men's teams.  That will only further the separation between haves and have nots.

Don't see that going away because that would remove a barrier of entry into the exclusive D1 club.  I could see the P5 schools adding more layers of compliance in order to separate themselves from us "D2 schools".

[ND-fan]

Sicatoka i guess i don't understand eliminating mandatory number M/W sports but be compliant with title IX how you do that and still be compliant. I am assuming then we would be down to maybe three mens sports here at UND and still have half a dozen women's sports or maybe more to be compliant with title IX.  I thought and I may be wrong its just not scholarship equality with title IX but isn't there component of also on total financial support for the sports per scholarship player. I thought i read that some where to have equality for men and women's programs. I may be all wrong here on what i was thinking and saying here so don't blast me but educate on what your thinking. 

My thoughts have been is that power 5 schools and certain number of g 5 schools are trying to align  themselves up separately going back 50 to 60 years ago when they were division I schools and conferences like  Summit, Missouri Valley, and Big Sky were what used to be what Division II schools. The reason is they could sign some big tv contracts for televising there sports and wouldn't have to split so many ways and keep overhead down to run much smaller tighter organization than it is today.  Also would be easier for them support title IX because lesser number of schools sharing in the profits. Also the recent popularity of Women's basketball may in itself help pay for title IX if was limited to top tier of schools. 

 

[Hammersmith]

Here's Matt Brown's (from Extra Points) current opinion about what will come out of the Transformation Committee this winter. Note: All this would apply to ALL DI, not just FBS.

(Matt talks to a lot of DI athletic directors in the course of his work.)

From CSNBBS:

Quote

This would be my best, educated guess, at the moment:

* The committee won't make membership recommendations until Q1 of 2023.

* Schools will have a three-year waiver period to get into compliance of new recommendations. Nobody is getting booted tomorrow.

* Schools will need to commit to sponsoring somewhere between 18-20 NCAA sponsored sports, NOT including FBS football.

* Most sport-specific scholarship caps and staffing caps will be lifted, as conferences will decide how many scholarships to offer per sport.

* Benchmarks about stadium size and attendance will be removed

* Schools will need to commit to sponsoring X number of scholarships across all sports, unless they get an Ivy waiver

* Schools will need to commit to maintaining a certain ratio of coaches to scholarship athletes, trainers to scholarship athletes, mental health professionals to scholarship athletes AND academic support specialists. The increase in STAFFING will be a bigger financial lift than the requirement to sponsor additional sports.

* In an effort to get around antitrust issues, these guidelines will be set up in a way for schools to "self select" which levels to participate in, rather than entire conferences getting booted.

* In a related move, I believe the NCAA men's and women's basketball tournaments will expand, and that not every conference will be guaranteed championship access to every NCAA sponsored sport.

https://csnbbs.com/thread-949656.html

[The Sicatoka]

@Hammersmith- Thanks for the info.

That "18-20 not counting football" is going to be great for low cost women's sports (bowling), but I do believe that'll separate the haves and have nots. 

UND tried to do DI at 21 and is down to 17. NDSU is at 16.  Montana? 15. Montana State is at 15 (M/W rodeo isn't NCAA sponsored). SDSU is at 19 and USD is at 18. The SD schools have women's emerging sports of equestrian and triathlon. 

What separates the P5 from the rest, the haves and have nots? Money. That's why the sponsored sports, and coaches, and scholarship requirements.  

[Humboldt]

Do you think UND hockey will put together NIL 'collectives' to pay players? My guess is that DU will not be doing that but I am sure the Big 10 will have some donors who will be glad to support hockey with their $$$. BC's new AD says he will not support collectives but most of the other teams in the ACC will be throwing money at their players, especially football. 

https://letsgodu.com/2022/09/09/boston-college-goes-it-alone-with-nil-can-they-compete/#more-86435