https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Sports/ncaa-power-5-agree-deal-schools-pay-players/story?id=110522995

Let the court games begin on NIL. This is just a move to insulate against future litigation, but it's also the first shot fired in getting the NCAA to act like what it really is now (for the revenue sports)…. a collection of "owners" (aka universities) that governs semi-pro teams affiliated with schools. Not sure what it all means yet, but I don't think NIL is long for this world (not meaning that they won't pay players, meaning they won't have to pretend the money is about marketing).
Thoughts?

Good quote from Notre Dame president, though I disagree with him that the athletes aren't employees:
" The settlement, though undesirable in many respects and promising only temporary stability, is necessary to avoid what would be the bankruptcy of college athletics.
To save the great American institution of college sports, Congress must pass legislation that will preempt the current patchwork of state laws; establish that our athletes are not employees, but students seeking college degrees; and provide protection from further antitrust lawsuits that will allow colleges to make and enforce rules that will protect our student-athletes and help ensure competitive equity among our teams."

"competitive equity"

Ah-ha

barsad said:

---

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Sports/ncaa-power-5-agree-deal-schools-pay-players/story?id=110522995

Let the court games begin on NIL. This is just a move to insulate against future litigation, but it's also the first shot fired in getting the NCAA to act like what it really is now (for the revenue sports)…. a collection of "owners" (aka universities) that governs semi-pro teams affiliated with schools. Not sure what it all means yet, but I don't think NIL is long for this world (not meaning that they won't pay players, meaning they won't have to pretend the money is about marketing).
Thoughts?

Good quote from Notre Dame president, though I disagree with him that the athletes aren't employees:
" The settlement, though undesirable in many respects and promising only temporary stability, is necessary to avoid what would be the bankruptcy of college athletics.
To save the great American institution of college sports, Congress must pass legislation that will preempt the current patchwork of state laws; establish that our athletes are not employees, but students seeking college degrees; and provide protection from further antitrust lawsuits that will allow colleges to make and enforce rules that will protect our student-athletes and help ensure competitive equity among our teams."

---

"NIL" as payment for ONLY for "name, image and likeness" was a temporary transition phase that most NIL groups ignored anyway. There was never any way to really distinguish between actual NIL and pay-to-play. The NCAA rules were really unenforceable and almost certainly illegal, ready to be struck down as soon as challenged,

The players being paid from the media revenues was inevitable. Some schools may even welcome it as it is a sensible business decision to use the revenues to get better players, win championships, and generate more revenues.

The ruling, with damages to be paid by the "P5" seems particularly bad for Cal, as we are likely the P5 program in the worst situation financially as far as paying damages and paying players from our meager media earnings going forward. Even with Calimony.

It will not be the end of NIL as players will still get earnings from their name, image and likeness and pay to play from boosters, but it will be the end of the NIL fiction, for sure.

I don't see Cal being able to handle having the players be university employees. Too much bureaucracy, too political. Non-revenue sports, especially woman's sports will credibly argue for equal pay.

That is why I have saying for years now that Cal should outsource the management of the revenue sports to an alumni run not for profit that would receive the revenues, take over the Learfield contract, hire and pay the coaches and players, market the team, manage the game day experience, etc with all net proceeds donated to the university. Fans could buy shares that would be used to create a fund and would also would grant voting rights for election of the board and other key decisions. The entity might even borrow money against the current shortfalls until we get to full ACC payout.

The university could greatly downsize its athletics administration as it would only be overseeing the non-revenue sports in compliance with Titie IX. Those sports might even compete in a seperate league like the Big West or WCC, with a budget comparable to other UCs.

Everything about your idea makes sense to me. Sounds like you should be on the board, too… do you have the ear of someone on the inside who would listen?
The primary obstacle for history-making reform proposals is that those working for an institution, whose paychecks depend on a broken system, have zero interest in making history.

I agree wholeheartedly with the notion that the university should find a way to offload the whole business of IC athletics. The dual burden of reparations imposed by House and future revenue sharing while paying our way into the ACC via reduced media revenue,(to say nothing of the stadium debt albatross) is crushing. Going forward, I don't see how, barring legislative exemption, paid athletes are not deemed to be employees. Also, as yet undefined Title IX implications further complicate matters. With the cost of a college education already well beyond the breaking point for many, how do you justify possibly subsidizing what is obviously a professional sports enterprise with tax money? Some schools (tOSU et al) run the ADs at a profit; most (Cal, WSU) do not.
Some non-revenue sports have already been sacrificed in the name of economy or for TitleIX balance; more will likely become history.

59bear said:

---

I agree wholeheartedly with the notion that the university should find a way to offload the whole business of IC athletics. The dual burden of reparations imposed by House and future revenue sharing while paying our way into the ACC via reduced media revenue,(to say nothing of the stadium debt albatross) is crushing. Going forward, I don't see how, barring legislative exemption, paid athletes are not deemed to be employees. Also, as yet undefined Title IX implications further complicate matters. With the cost of a college education already well beyond the breaking point for many, how do you justify possibly subsidizing what is obviously a professional sports enterprise with tax money? Some schools (tOSU et al) run the ADs at a profit; most (Cal, WSU) do not.
Some non-revenue sports have already bee sacrificed in the name of economy or for TitleIX balance; more will likely become history.

---

But what of the laundry?

When I hear "revenue sports", I think football and basketball (generally men's and in some cases like UConn, women's). It's kind of a sloppy term, isn't it? Do we mean any sports that generate revenue through ticket sales or TV coverage? Or do we mean any sport that generates a net profit , meaning returns money to the Athletic Department after all expenses? Because there are certainly hundreds of teams that do the former but not the latter.

Why should a UC Davis, Cal Poly, or Sacramento State start paying players when their programs don't generate a profit? I believe UC Davis has an extra student fee that goes to underwrite intercollegiate sports. As a student, I'd be really pissed if my extra fee was literally going into the pocket of a football player who was already getting the same education for free that I'm paying for.

NCAA Finances: Revenue and Expenses by School
https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances

I would say UC Davis and Sac State should pay their players because they are doing work for the university, the same way the kid who runs the department mailroom gets paid $15/hr (in California).
What we're really talking about is pay scale, and who sets the scale. I think it's reasonable for a conference like the Big Sky or Big West (not competing for the top 100 players in the country) to set a wage based on what the 90th percentile student worker makes, adjusted by geographical cost of living. Or make it 120% to sweeten the deal, but it's still a modest paycheck.
Then the players get a raise every year just like all the other working stiffs.
The competition would be between conferences on pay scale, not the current free-for-all bidding war on individuals.
This system only works for the UC Davises of D1, not so much the P5 teams that will throw whatever $$ they can at the top prospects.
If the salaries of players were more in line with a regular employee of the university, I would have no problem as a taxpayer supporting that salary, the same way I support the kid in the mailroom (are there even mailrooms anymore? Probably not.)

barsad said:

---

I would say UC Davis and Sac State should pay their players because they are doing work for the university, the same way the kid who runs the department mailroom gets paid $15/hr (in California).
What we're really talking about is pay scale, and who sets the scale. I think it's reasonable for a conference like the Big Sky or Big West (not competing for the top 100 players in the country) to set a wage based on what the 90th percentile student worker makes, adjusted by geographical cost of living. Or make it 120% to sweeten the deal, but it's still a modest paycheck.
Then the players get a raise every year just like all the other working stiffs.
The competition would be between conferences on pay scale, not the current free-for-all bidding war on individuals.
This system only works for the UC Davises of D1, not so much the P5 teams that will throw whatever $$ they can at the top prospects.
If the salaries of players were more in line with a regular employee of the university, I would have no problem as a taxpayer supporting that salary, the same way I support the kid in the mailroom (are there even mailrooms anymore? Probably not.)

---

Most student jobs don't also come with full scholarships, including room and board so you need to value that for the comparison.

If a football player at Sac State gets paid, then shouldn't a volleyball player or any other athlete? None of them are generating net revenues for the university so they should be treated the same. Should high school football players be paid? Cheerleaders?

That is why I think non-revenue sports should be treated much the way they have always been treated in high school and college: essentially student activities tgst tge university provides facilities and coaching for. After all, the whole premise of Title IX is that unpaid participation in athletics is a privilege that women should have equal access to.

And that is why, in order to do the above, revenue sports should be outsourced to an alumni-run not for profit that would pay the coaches and the players with net proceeds donated to the university.

Yes, pay all 850 Cal athletes, men and women, big sports and little sports, based on the hours they put in every week (no off-season pay) up to a max of 30. If the cheerleaders compete as NCAA sanctioned athletes (there are such things, though I do not think Cal competes in them), then they get paid, too.
It's the spirit of the court decisions: if you do work that benefits the university's brand - NOT just raise revenue for its bottom line - then you should be compensated.
It will cost… say $8-10 million a year? What is JK bringing down in total during his lengthy contract?
It's fun to talk about, but I guess none of these changes happen without some outside force - Congress, NCAA, another court case - forcing the issue.

Just doing some nosing around on attendance numbers on a "borderline" revenue sport like baseball.
https://247sports.com/board/105475/Contents/college-baseball-attendance-report-2024-229317786/?page=1
Cal is last in the Pac 12 with 480 per game… even though they have a shot at the tournament, we'll find out tomorrow!
Four SEC teams are above 9,000 per game, double the numbers of the top AAA pro teams. Night and day, Pac12 to SEC.
So one is clearly non-revenue, and another clearly is but they compete at the top levels of the college game. The more research you do, the more you want to rage quit.

barsad said:

---

Yes, pay all 850 Cal athletes, men and women, big sports and little sports, based on the hours they put in every week (no off-season pay) up to a max of 30. If the cheerleaders compete as NCAA sanctioned athletes (there are such things, though I do not think Cal competes in them), then they get paid, too.
It's the spirit of the court decisions: if you do work that benefits the university's brand - NOT just raise revenue for its bottom line - then you should be compensated.
It will cost… say $8-10 million a year? What is JK bringing down in total during his lengthy contract?
It's fun to talk about, but I guess none of these changes happen without some outside force - Congress, NCAA, another court case - forcing the issue.

---

Paying all Cal athletes equally will just accelerate the cancellation of the non-revenue sports. And it will detract from the inequity in the revenue sports.

Again, the premise of Title IX is that being an unpaid athlete at a school is a privilege that women should have equal access to. Most of the sports at Cal, or any of the many UCs, CSUs, Community Colleges and public high schools and junior high schools do not generate net revenues or benefits for the "junior high brand." Same with cheerleading, band, drama, art…. They are student activities, there for the enjoyment of the students.

However, at a relatively few schools, football, and to a lesser extent men's basketball, became huge money makers for the school but those revenues were generally used to subsidize the other "non-revenue" or "Olympic" sports, (plus bloated coaching and athletic administration salaries. In answer to your question, Knowlton makes $1.3 million a year).

Requiring that all students be paid for their participation in the subsidized sports will only lead to them no longer being offered. It will lead to those activities being shut down and a reduction of student opportunity to participate in those activities.

Remember, participation in athletics is voluntary.

However, the rule should be, if your sport generates net revenues for the university, if your sport is a money making business, you should be entitled to a share of those revenues. Especially if it is immense revenues like those produced by football.

However, I don't see the university being able to navigate this political minefield, even with a new chancellor that understands business and economics. That is why I think it is best to separate the revenue sports from the non/revenue sports and have them be run as a business, outside the university administration. That would allow the university to continue to treat the non/revenue sports on the traditional "participation" model, like theatre and greatly downsize the athletics administration. Personally, if those sports continue to offer admission slots and scholarships, I am fine with the value of the scholarship being California resident tuition (boosters of that sport can make up the difference if they want to recruit out of state or internationally). Or maybe those sports go to the "Ivy" model with no scholarships, just admissions slots? But paying those athletes a salary on top of full scholarship is not warranted and is counter productive.