I am VERY skeptical about getting anything through Congress. It isn't that it is (only) a dysfunctional Washington - is is that the solution CBA without employment status hits subjects that are core to each parties identify (right to work, employment status for labor). So pretty sure we are NOT getting a salary cap or transfer restrictions anytime soon.

But I wanted to know if you could use carrots so asking the lawyers if this were to work.

4 Years eligibility (so far no one has litigated all the way saying that NCAA can't keep to this rule)
1 year additional (up to a maximium of 2) for each 4 semesters/6 quarters at teh same institution
1 Year additional for enrollment or continuing enrolment in an accredited masters program (we could say doctorate but that is somewhat unlikely but sure....)

So 7 years. Increases the incentive to stay and not test the market. Encourages degree completion. But also alleviates the challenge these kids face - 4 or 5 years max with a ticking eligibility close to make bank.

Would this pass anti-trust restrictions? Or would litigants argue they are fine with 7 years but anything else is an illegal restriction on trade?

And yes - we COULD have 26 year olds playing. But essentially what we are encouraging is the development of players who have BB skills but not the body type to excel in the NBA. Consider Jerome Randle (Cal fans). He was/is a baller and a great young man (from all reports). But he just wasn't ever going to be tall enough to get a fair look in the NBA. But give that guy 7 years to make good college bank and get a masters. Boy that seems like a huge win-win-win.

socaltownie said:

---

I am VERY skeptical about getting anything through Congress. It isn't that it is (only) a dysfunctional Washington - is is that the solution CBA without employment status hits subjects that are core to each parties identify (right to work, employment status for labor). So pretty sure we are NOT getting a salary cap or transfer restrictions anytime soon.

But I wanted to know if you could use carrots so asking the lawyers if this were to work.

4 Years eligibility (so far no one has litigated all the way saying that NCAA can't keep to this rule)
1 year additional (up to a maximium of 2) for each 4 semesters/6 quarters at teh same institution
1 Year additional for enrollment or continuing enrolment in an accredited masters program (we could say doctorate but that is somewhat unlikely but sure....)

So 7 years. Increases the incentive to stay and not test the market. Encourages degree completion. But also alleviates the challenge these kids face - 4 or 5 years max with a ticking eligibility close to make bank.

Would this pass anti-trust restrictions? Or would litigants argue they are fine with 7 years but anything else is an illegal restriction on trade?

And yes - we COULD have 26 year olds playing. But essentially what we are encouraging is the development of players who have BB skills but not the body type to excel in the NBA. Consider Jerome Randle (Cal fans). He was/is a baller and a great young man (from all reports). But he just wasn't ever going to be tall enough to get a fair look in the NBA. But give that guy 7 years to make good college bank and get a masters. Boy that seems like a huge win-win-win.

---

I think you are getting into area that is more difficult for plain ol' attorneys to opine on and more likely need someone with actual expertise. I've thought that an age limit vs. number of years of eligibility would likely be an easier lift, but I don't know.

But honestly, I don't think your suggestions really do much. People will almost always take the bird in hand and I would say they still should in this case. You are putting a lot of power into the hands of the home school to undercut on salary. You don't know if you are going to get a big pay day 3 years from now, so if you get it now, you should take it. I'd expect this to be more of a tie break if the offers are close. And players with NBA aspirations will ignore it completely because they don't want to play 6 years.

As for enrolling in a masters program, I'm totally against this. One player legitimately got into graduate school, wanted to play his last year, the NCAA stupidly wouldn't let him and he won. Then schools set up essentially bullshyte graduate programs or pushed existing graduate programs to use their slots for athletes and suddenly everybody is getting into graduate programs and leaving after a year. This would not encourage true education. It would further *******ize graduate schools. Leave them out of it.

SCT - I appreciate you looking for solutions, but I think the thing you are not seeing is that it is entirely a problem of the universities' making. I'm not bending over backward for them because they don't want extend rights to players.

Here is the solution. Accept that they are employees with all the rights and benefits employees have. Now you can have a collective bargaining agreement that will set a fair revenue share in exchange for fair rules on player movement. It also would make clear what is already true - that this is pay for play. Once you do that, you can sign multi-year contracts with a salary for a playing commitment. And yes, it will then require they give players things like healthcare benefits, which we should all want.

Given the amount of money revenue sports rake in, these are reasonable concessions. They just don't want to give them, because they are holding out hope that someone like the government is going to come in and strip players of their rights and they can get all these things like restricting player movement and dramatically cut player pay without having to give the players anything in return. A fair revenue share will mean there will be less money for coaches and administrators - I wonder why they don't want that.

Mark Madsen, who is not a particularly high paid coach, makes $2.8M a year. Again, I will point out that Bruce Snyder left Cal for $1.2m a year in today's dollars. That was a glorious salary back then. I'd rather pay a coach a very nice $1M a year and give 9 rotational players an extra $200K each. Add in the bloated salaries of a lot of administrators, and we can do a better job for the players and maintain reasonable rules that stop the current madness. But the universities, coaches, and administrators aren't willing to do it. Personally, I think it is laughable all these big name coaches complaining when they have done the same exact thing as players are doing now - jump from program to program driving up salaries. I don't see them offering to give up $5M a year in compensation to help with program stability, yet they want players to. The bottom line is they know with a reasonable revenue share there will be less money around for them, so they want us to blame the players. Notice absolutely no one is upset that coaches can make their name at a school and then drop them for more money with no restrictions even though that can devastate a program.

Don't fall into the trap. Tell the universities to treat players like they are - employees with negotiation rights. As soon as they do that, we will find a reasonable new balance point.

> . .. .. Tell the universities to treat players like they are - employees with negotiation rights. As soon as they do that, we will find a reasonable new balance point...

makes a whole lotta sense to me, thanks BCA.

we were men and women's season ticket holders during the Randle years, appreciated what he did for Cal, all the best to him and family..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome_Randle
> Jerome Jerry Randle (born May 21, 1987; Ukrainian: ) is an American-Ukrainian former professional basketball player. He played college basketball for the California Golden Bears before playing professionally in several European countries. Randle has a Ukrainian passport and represented Ukraine at EuroBasket 2015.
> While playing for the Golden Bears, Randle was a two-time first-team All-Pac-10 honoree and won the Pac-10 Player of the Year in 2010. He was named to the Pac-12 Hall of Honor in January 2017.

I think the employment model becomes a challenge in that I think at that point won't ALL athletes have the right to seek employment status (and with title IX especially get some of the same benefits)

Consider Scholarships. Likely taxable. To avoid it opens even more of a can of financial worms. So I don't see how you can give an offset in payment to make the athletes whole and NOT give that same benefit to every women athlete.

Also with the CBA I think one issue is the NRLB doesn't extend to public sector workers (such as at a public university) or religious schools. Work arounds to that (employed not by the college but by the NCAA).

socaltownie said:

---

I think the employment model becomes a challenge in that I think at that point won't ALL athletes have the right to seek employment status (and with title IX especially get some of the same benefits)

Consider Scholarships. Likely taxable. To avoid it opens even more of a can of financial worms. So I don't see how you can give an offset in payment to make the athletes whole and NOT give that same benefit to every women athlete.

Also with the CBA I think one issue is the NRLB doesn't extend to public sector workers (such as at a public university) or religious schools. Work arounds to that (employed not by the college but by the NCAA).

---

I think courts can distinguish between a couple of sports that universities market to bring in millions of dollars of revenue vs. traditional sports that have virtually no revenue potential. That's kind of like saying if I have to pay students who work in the bookstore I have to pay the president of the UC hiking club.

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

I think the employment model becomes a challenge in that I think at that point won't ALL athletes have the right to seek employment status (and with title IX especially get some of the same benefits)

Consider Scholarships. Likely taxable. To avoid it opens even more of a can of financial worms. So I don't see how you can give an offset in payment to make the athletes whole and NOT give that same benefit to every women athlete.

Also with the CBA I think one issue is the NRLB doesn't extend to public sector workers (such as at a public university) or religious schools. Work arounds to that (employed not by the college but by the NCAA).

---

I think courts can distinguish between a couple of sports that universities market to bring in millions of dollars of revenue vs. traditional sports that have virtually no revenue potential. That's kind of like saying if I have to pay students who work in the bookstore I have to pay the president of the UC hiking club.

---

No. What it says if you pay a student who works in the bookstore you can't have the student "volunteering" for UC outbound who has a fixed set of hours and an expectation he shows up not. That would be the rub. I KNOW that would be a problem - especially if gender disparity.

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Given the amount of money revenue sports rake in

---

The amount of money revenue sports rake in for whom?

Most colleges that play Division I sports have very little revenue. The 34 that are in either the Big Ten or SEC have the most. There's a second tier of revenue for 33 in the ACC or Big 12. Notre Dame is its own special snowflake. Colleges outside those 68 don't even generate enough athletic revenue to cover their expenses for the so-called revenue sports. That's more than half of FBS football, plus more than 200 Division I schools that don't have FBS football.

That's why there is no one-size-fits-all solution.

BearSD said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Given the amount of money revenue sports rake in

---

The amount of money revenue sports rake in for whom?

Most colleges that play Division I sports have very little revenue. The 34 that are in either the Big Ten or SEC have the most. There's a second tier of revenue for 33 in the ACC or Big 12. Notre Dame is its own special snowflake. Colleges outside those 68 don't even generate enough athletic revenue to cover their expenses for the so-called revenue sports. That's more than half of FBS football, plus more than 200 Division I schools that don't have FBS football.

That's why there is no one-size-fits-all solution.

---

You are confusing revenue with net revenue. Most colleges have tons of revenue. They have little net revenue or operate at a loss because they couldn't pay players before so they chucked tons of money into other aspects of the program and because they care more about winning than making a profit. I'd submit to you that coaching salaries, for instance, never would have gotten this out of hand if colleges were always paying players leaving less discretionary spending for coaches.

Most of the spending in revenue sports is discretionary in order to keep up with the arms race that has been brought about largely because of the gobs of revenue. Cal has conservatively $40M in revenue tied to football, not including money from the chancellor.

It is kind of like when you have a non-profit who is paying their president $10M a year. Is that really a non-profit?

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

I am VERY skeptical about getting anything through Congress. It isn't that it is (only) a dysfunctional Washington - is is that the solution CBA without employment status hits subjects that are core to each parties identify (right to work, employment status for labor). So pretty sure we are NOT getting a salary cap or transfer restrictions anytime soon.

But I wanted to know if you could use carrots so asking the lawyers if this were to work.

4 Years eligibility (so far no one has litigated all the way saying that NCAA can't keep to this rule)
1 year additional (up to a maximium of 2) for each 4 semesters/6 quarters at teh same institution
1 Year additional for enrollment or continuing enrolment in an accredited masters program (we could say doctorate but that is somewhat unlikely but sure....)

So 7 years. Increases the incentive to stay and not test the market. Encourages degree completion. But also alleviates the challenge these kids face - 4 or 5 years max with a ticking eligibility close to make bank.

Would this pass anti-trust restrictions? Or would litigants argue they are fine with 7 years but anything else is an illegal restriction on trade?

And yes - we COULD have 26 year olds playing. But essentially what we are encouraging is the development of players who have BB skills but not the body type to excel in the NBA. Consider Jerome Randle (Cal fans). He was/is a baller and a great young man (from all reports). But he just wasn't ever going to be tall enough to get a fair look in the NBA. But give that guy 7 years to make good college bank and get a masters. Boy that seems like a huge win-win-win.

---

I think you are getting into area that is more difficult for plain ol' attorneys to opine on and more likely need someone with actual expertise. I've thought that an age limit vs. number of years of eligibility would likely be an easier lift, but I don't know.

But honestly, I don't think your suggestions really do much. People will almost always take the bird in hand and I would say they still should in this case. You are putting a lot of power into the hands of the home school to undercut on salary. You don't know if you are going to get a big pay day 3 years from now, so if you get it now, you should take it. I'd expect this to be more of a tie break if the offers are close. And players with NBA aspirations will ignore it completely because they don't want to play 6 years.

As for enrolling in a masters program, I'm totally against this. One player legitimately got into graduate school, wanted to play his last year, the NCAA stupidly wouldn't let him and he won. Then schools set up essentially bullshyte graduate programs or pushed existing graduate programs to use their slots for athletes and suddenly everybody is getting into graduate programs and leaving after a year. This would not encourage true education. It would further *******ize graduate schools. Leave them out of it.

SCT - I appreciate you looking for solutions, but I think the thing you are not seeing is that it is entirely a problem of the universities' making. I'm not bending over backward for them because they don't want extend rights to players.

Here is the solution. Accept that they are employees with all the rights and benefits employees have. Now you can have a collective bargaining agreement that will set a fair revenue share in exchange for fair rules on player movement. It also would make clear what is already true - that this is pay for play. Once you do that, you can sign multi-year contracts with a salary for a playing commitment. And yes, it will then require they give players things like healthcare benefits, which we should all want.

Given the amount of money revenue sports rake in, these are reasonable concessions. They just don't want to give them, because they are holding out hope that someone like the government is going to come in and strip players of their rights and they can get all these things like restricting player movement and dramatically cut player pay without having to give the players anything in return. A fair revenue share will mean there will be less money for coaches and administrators - I wonder why they don't want that.

Mark Madsen, who is not a particularly high paid coach, makes $2.8M a year. Again, I will point out that Bruce Snyder left Cal for $1.2m a year in today's dollars. That was a glorious salary back then. I'd rather pay a coach a very nice $1M a year and give 9 rotational players an extra $200K each. Add in the bloated salaries of a lot of administrators, and we can do a better job for the players and maintain reasonable rules that stop the current madness. But the universities, coaches, and administrators aren't willing to do it. Personally, I think it is laughable all these big name coaches complaining when they have done the same exact thing as players are doing now - jump from program to program driving up salaries. I don't see them offering to give up $5M a year in compensation to help with program stability, yet they want players to. The bottom line is they know with a reasonable revenue share there will be less money around for them, so they want us to blame the players. Notice absolutely no one is upset that coaches can make their name at a school and then drop them for more money with no restrictions even though that can devastate a program.

Don't fall into the trap. Tell the universities to treat players like they are - employees with negotiation rights. As soon as they do that, we will find a reasonable new balance point.

---

I don't think enough players will create or join a union in order to restrict their own movement or earnings in a CBA. Especially top players in "right to work states" which happen to significantly overlap the SEC and B1G (and the Big-12 much of our own ACC). I think top players will want to retain the right to receive unregulated money from boosters or will just accept and fight any penalty in the courts.

I think the revenue sports should be split off to an alumni run organization in order to avoid the players being university employees. If the players working for that organization want to organize, I could see that happening, but just for media revenue shares, minimum wages, etc.

In order to avoid the annual free agency, we need to accept that the players are paid to play, not for their "name, image and likeness" and then have multi-year employment contracts that are enforceable nationally (by the NCAA?) and that requires that Congress pass a law and the president signs it.

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

BearSD said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Given the amount of money revenue sports rake in

---

The amount of money revenue sports rake in for whom?

Most colleges that play Division I sports have very little revenue. The 34 that are in either the Big Ten or SEC have the most. There's a second tier of revenue for 33 in the ACC or Big 12. Notre Dame is its own special snowflake. Colleges outside those 68 don't even generate enough athletic revenue to cover their expenses for the so-called revenue sports. That's more than half of FBS football, plus more than 200 Division I schools that don't have FBS football.

That's why there is no one-size-fits-all solution.

---

You are confusing revenue with net revenue. Most colleges have tons of revenue. They have little net revenue or operate at a loss because they couldn't pay players before so they chucked tons of money into other aspects of the program and because they care more about winning than making a profit. I'd submit to you that coaching salaries, for instance, never would have gotten this out of hand if colleges were always paying players leaving less discretionary spending for coaches.

Most of the spending in revenue sports is discretionary in order to keep up with the arms race that has been brought about largely because of the gobs of revenue. Cal has conservatively $40M in revenue tied to football, not including money from the chancellor.

It is kind of like when you have a non-profit who is paying their president $10M a year. Is that really a non-profit?

---

I'm not confusing anything. There are G6 schools with gross athletic revenue that isn't enough to pay for their football program, let alone the entire athletic department. Schools in the MAC, for example, receive only $1 million in annual TV revenue for the entire athletic department. Some of them average about 10,000 per home football game, or even less, and that includes counting concession workers, security guards, and ticket takers in the attendance numbers. (That counting is expressly permitted by the NCAA, btw.)

"Football pays the bills" at Ohio State, sure. Not at Akron.

Some Division I schools, including some of the Cal State and UC campuses, fund athletics almost entirely with university subsidies and student fees, i.e., those athletic departments generate very little gross revenue at all.

BearSD said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

BearSD said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Given the amount of money revenue sports rake in

---

The amount of money revenue sports rake in for whom?

Most colleges that play Division I sports have very little revenue. The 34 that are in either the Big Ten or SEC have the most. There's a second tier of revenue for 33 in the ACC or Big 12. Notre Dame is its own special snowflake. Colleges outside those 68 don't even generate enough athletic revenue to cover their expenses for the so-called revenue sports. That's more than half of FBS football, plus more than 200 Division I schools that don't have FBS football.

That's why there is no one-size-fits-all solution.

---

You are confusing revenue with net revenue. Most colleges have tons of revenue. They have little net revenue or operate at a loss because they couldn't pay players before so they chucked tons of money into other aspects of the program and because they care more about winning than making a profit. I'd submit to you that coaching salaries, for instance, never would have gotten this out of hand if colleges were always paying players leaving less discretionary spending for coaches.

Most of the spending in revenue sports is discretionary in order to keep up with the arms race that has been brought about largely because of the gobs of revenue. Cal has conservatively $40M in revenue tied to football, not including money from the chancellor.

It is kind of like when you have a non-profit who is paying their president $10M a year. Is that really a non-profit?

---

I'm not confusing anything. There are G6 schools with gross athletic revenue that isn't enough to pay for their football program, let alone the entire athletic department. Schools in the MAC, for example, receive only $1 million in annual TV revenue for the entire athletic department. Some of them average about 10,000 per home football game, or even less, and that includes counting concession workers, security guards, and ticket takers in the attendance numbers. (That counting is expressly permitted by the NCAA, btw.)

"Football pays the bills" at Ohio State, sure. Not at Akron.

Some Division I schools, including some of the Cal State and UC campuses, fund athletics almost entirely with university subsidies and student fees, i.e., those athletic departments generate very little gross revenue at all.

---

Nobody is talking about G6 schools here. They aren't even really in this conversation.

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

BearSD said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

BearSD said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Given the amount of money revenue sports rake in

---

The amount of money revenue sports rake in for whom?

Most colleges that play Division I sports have very little revenue. The 34 that are in either the Big Ten or SEC have the most. There's a second tier of revenue for 33 in the ACC or Big 12. Notre Dame is its own special snowflake. Colleges outside those 68 don't even generate enough athletic revenue to cover their expenses for the so-called revenue sports. That's more than half of FBS football, plus more than 200 Division I schools that don't have FBS football.

That's why there is no one-size-fits-all solution.

---

You are confusing revenue with net revenue. Most colleges have tons of revenue. They have little net revenue or operate at a loss because they couldn't pay players before so they chucked tons of money into other aspects of the program and because they care more about winning than making a profit. I'd submit to you that coaching salaries, for instance, never would have gotten this out of hand if colleges were always paying players leaving less discretionary spending for coaches.

Most of the spending in revenue sports is discretionary in order to keep up with the arms race that has been brought about largely because of the gobs of revenue. Cal has conservatively $40M in revenue tied to football, not including money from the chancellor.

It is kind of like when you have a non-profit who is paying their president $10M a year. Is that really a non-profit?

---

I'm not confusing anything. There are G6 schools with gross athletic revenue that isn't enough to pay for their football program, let alone the entire athletic department. Schools in the MAC, for example, receive only $1 million in annual TV revenue for the entire athletic department. Some of them average about 10,000 per home football game, or even less, and that includes counting concession workers, security guards, and ticket takers in the attendance numbers. (That counting is expressly permitted by the NCAA, btw.)

"Football pays the bills" at Ohio State, sure. Not at Akron.

Some Division I schools, including some of the Cal State and UC campuses, fund athletics almost entirely with university subsidies and student fees, i.e., those athletic departments generate very little gross revenue at all.

---

Nobody is talking about G6 schools here. They aren't even really in this conversation.

---

The same rules for eligibility/compensation/transferring would apply to P4 schools, G6 schools, FCS schools, and no-football Division I schools, unless you are proposing a new and separate NCAA division that would only consist of the 68 power conference members.

BearSD said:

---

The same rules for eligibility/compensation/transferring would apply to P4 schools, G6 schools, FCS schools, and no-football Division I schools, unless you are proposing a new and separate NCAA division that would only consist of the 68 power conference members.

---

This is the critical rub. You have to figure out either a rule that covers all and a way in which the NCAA Basketball Tournament can subsidize athletic departments across the country or something tailored for the P4. I don't think you can have both and that is why the NCAA is deeply "stuck". It isn't that they are stupid - it is that this is a real problem once you start cutting away at the Gordian Knot.

socaltownie said:

---

BearSD said:

---

The same rules for eligibility/compensation/transferring would apply to P4 schools, G6 schools, FCS schools, and no-football Division I schools, unless you are proposing a new and separate NCAA division that would only consist of the 68 power conference members.

---

This is the critical rub. You have to figure out either a rule that covers all and a way in which the NCAA Basketball Tournament can subsidize athletic departments across the country or something tailored for the P4. I don't think you can have both and that is why the NCAA is deeply "stuck". It isn't that they are stupid - it is that this is a real problem once you start cutting away at the Gordian Knot.

---

Yes. And this is related to the end of P12.

For awhile now (30 years?) The majority of money seems to come from TV contracts (Primarily ESPN, FOX, etc). Prior to that, it was primarily venue(ticket) sales. The colleges were generally reactionary and simply spent the money, raising their expenses (primarily by paying coaches and building palaces) without consideration of future sustainability.

From the payers perspective, the to 30 or 40 programs (p4) are all that matter. BIG 10 and SEC understood and that and leveraged it for a bigger piece of the pie. The P12 thought (incorrectly) that a smaller self controlled regional network was the future. Similarly, ESPN structured many counterparts (like the ACCn, etc). The competition proved out and 2 conferences won. I don't expect the ACCn to last forever. Similarly, a number of regional sports networks emerged. Many failed. Those that survived were generall connected to a local Baseball or NBA team.

There is still some concern that the NEXT TV contracts will not be on the same scale as current - primarily due to changing viewing habits. And the focus may need to pivot to somewhere else - Gambling, Tech disruption. Not many (including their parent companies) seem to think that ESPN and FOX sports are the right answer (so they may internally pivot as well). Who knows?


So the money is really about those top programs and they don't want to share anymore. If the NCAA tries to change it in any way - the top teas will simply ignore them or create their own organization. Smaller programs need to find a sustainable source of revenue or adjust their expenses accordingly.

Having 100-300 programs operating like a pro league with collective bargaining does not seem feasible. I think the bets solution is for Football and MBB spilt away from NCAA and operate as Pro leagues (with appropriate waivers for Title IX and such). MBB may have enough teams to set up something similar to soccer levels with promotion and relegation. But I don't think that model forks for Football - the scale between divisions will be too much.

socaltownie said:

---

BearSD said:

---

The same rules for eligibility/compensation/transferring would apply to P4 schools, G6 schools, FCS schools, and no-football Division I schools, unless you are proposing a new and separate NCAA division that would only consist of the 68 power conference members.

---

This is the critical rub. You have to figure out either a rule that covers all and a way in which the NCAA Basketball Tournament can subsidize athletic departments across the country or something tailored for the P4. I don't think you can have both and that is why the NCAA is deeply "stuck". It isn't that they are stupid - it is that this is a real problem once you start cutting away at the Gordian Knot.

---

They aren't stupid. They are greedy. They don't want to give up on the dream of big TV money and elite status, but they don't want to pay the players for it either.

Yes, there needs to be a league separation between major schools who are going all in on revenue generation and the rest who don't get big media contracts. And frankly, that number is not 68 because over half of those 68 are being stupid.

Schools that are largely subsidized by university and student funds should not be subjected to rules made for schools that are paying coaches $10M a year. By there nature, they will have their rosters picked over by schools willing to pay, but nothing I can do about that. Players need to be able to move on to greener pastures. I don't think NIL is going to be a big issue there.

But schools that are generating 10's of millions in revenue should expect to share that revenue with players.

And yes, there are a lot of schools who think they in the neighborhood with the big boys that need to get a serious reality check and stop bleeding cash in a losing endeavor.

"And yes, there are a lot of schools who think they in the neighborhood with the big boys that need to get a serious reality check and stop bleeding cash in a losing endeavor."

Name one.

BeachedBear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

BearSD said:

---

The same rules for eligibility/compensation/transferring would apply to P4 schools, G6 schools, FCS schools, and no-football Division I schools, unless you are proposing a new and separate NCAA division that would only consist of the 68 power conference members.

---

This is the critical rub. You have to figure out either a rule that covers all and a way in which the NCAA Basketball Tournament can subsidize athletic departments across the country or something tailored for the P4. I don't think you can have both and that is why the NCAA is deeply "stuck". It isn't that they are stupid - it is that this is a real problem once you start cutting away at the Gordian Knot.

---

Yes. And this is related to the end of P12.

For awhile now (30 years?) The majority of money seems to come from TV contracts (Primarily ESPN, FOX, etc). Prior to that, it was primarily venue(ticket) sales. The colleges were generally reactionary and simply spent the money, raising their expenses (primarily by paying coaches and building palaces) without consideration of future sustainability.

From the payers perspective, the to 30 or 40 programs (p4) are all that matter. BIG 10 and SEC understood and that and leveraged it for a bigger piece of the pie. The P12 thought (incorrectly) that a smaller self controlled regional network was the future. Similarly, ESPN structured many counterparts (like the ACCn, etc). The competition proved out and 2 conferences won. I don't expect the ACCn to last forever. Similarly, a number of regional sports networks emerged. Many failed. Those that survived were generall connected to a local Baseball or NBA team.

---

Ticket revenue is now an indicator of disparity. That revenue has increased for about 20 college football teams and no one else. Teams like Ohio State, Michigan, Alabama, LSU, Texas are selling 90,000 or more tickets for 7 or 8 home games a season at prices higher than most others can charge, and every good seat requires an additional annual donation on top of the ticket price. Those teams are probably grossing more than $10 million in game-day revenue from each home game.

That further increases their financial advantage over ACC and Big 12 teams, on top of the TV revenue disparity. Those few teams are even way ahead of their conference mates. UCLA, Maryland, et al. can't possibly keep up with Ohio State's football revenue. Oregon does better than most in the Big Ten, but even if they fill every seat in Autzen and match Ohio State and Michigan in revenue per-seat, they have almost 40,000 fewer seats to sell.

BearSD said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

BearSD said:

---

The same rules for eligibility/compensation/transferring would apply to P4 schools, G6 schools, FCS schools, and no-football Division I schools, unless you are proposing a new and separate NCAA division that would only consist of the 68 power conference members.

---

This is the critical rub. You have to figure out either a rule that covers all and a way in which the NCAA Basketball Tournament can subsidize athletic departments across the country or something tailored for the P4. I don't think you can have both and that is why the NCAA is deeply "stuck". It isn't that they are stupid - it is that this is a real problem once you start cutting away at the Gordian Knot.

---

Yes. And this is related to the end of P12.

For awhile now (30 years?) The majority of money seems to come from TV contracts (Primarily ESPN, FOX, etc). Prior to that, it was primarily venue(ticket) sales. The colleges were generally reactionary and simply spent the money, raising their expenses (primarily by paying coaches and building palaces) without consideration of future sustainability.

From the payers perspective, the to 30 or 40 programs (p4) are all that matter. BIG 10 and SEC understood and that and leveraged it for a bigger piece of the pie. The P12 thought (incorrectly) that a smaller self controlled regional network was the future. Similarly, ESPN structured many counterparts (like the ACCn, etc). The competition proved out and 2 conferences won. I don't expect the ACCn to last forever. Similarly, a number of regional sports networks emerged. Many failed. Those that survived were generall connected to a local Baseball or NBA team.

---

Ticket revenue is now an indicator of disparity. That revenue has increased for about 20 college football teams and no one else. Teams like Ohio State, Michigan, Alabama, LSU, Texas are selling 90,000 or more tickets for 7 or 8 home games a season at prices higher than most others can charge, and every good seat requires an additional annual donation on top of the ticket price. Those teams are probably grossing more than $10 million in game-day revenue from each home game.

That further increases their financial advantage over ACC and Big 12 teams, on top of the TV revenue disparity. Those few teams are even way ahead of their conference mates. UCLA, Maryland, et al. can't possibly keep up with Ohio State's football revenue. Oregon does better than most in the Big Ten, but even if they fill every seat in Autzen and match Ohio State and Michigan in revenue per-seat, they have almost 40,000 fewer seats to sell.

---

Absolutely. But because I am in a snarky mood today remember, Tosh solves all and that someone by winning a few games we are valuted into tOSU and Texas ranks and Memorial becomes just like the Horseshoe.

This has always been my call about understanding the competitive landscape and really asking "Can we really be that?" This isn't macho comeptitiveness. My guess is that OSU is Paying Justin Pippen 3 million NOT because they have whales that love basketball.....it is because they have 20-30K people who want to keep Season tixs between the 20 at the Horseshoe and are spending a significant amount of their discretionary income on a donation to maintain that tix priority because buckeye football is central to their life experience and then the X subsidize other sports.

Shouldn't all of this reality check discussion be on the paid board? I mean, this is some heavy AI deep analysis.