Conference Realignment

Following up, is this looking ahead to post the recent settlement which will allow the universities to start making NIL payments to athletes directly?

I assume there will be some formula where maybe a female swimmer gets a dollar for every 100 dollars given to an offensive lineman. At this point, I can at least understand a perverse incentive to start killing non-rev sports.

Really hope it never comes to this...
 
I don't understand this point of view. The Duke athletic department is not even directly funding NIL. The collectives are.

All women's swimming needs to exist is for the Duke athletic department to continue paying for coaches' salaries, uniforms, travel, etc like it has not many decades. What do NIL payments to football players have to do with this?

I guess if the powers that be want to use football and basketball NIL as an excuse to start axing non-rev sports, they can. But the reasoning seems very disingenuous. Am I missing something?
Perhaps it's how NIL is already impacting the "non-revenue" sports and will impact them more significantly in the near future. I have already heard of various non-revenue sports athletes negotiating for at least "matching" deals. In other words, we may need NIL to maintain our recruitment competitiveness.

To be clear, I don't know much about this, but the anecdotes I've come across are reliably sourced. This source believes that the NIL factor will grow in importance. I would greatly appreciate hearing from someone who knows much more than I do. thanks.
 
Following up, is this looking ahead to post the recent settlement which will allow the universities to start making NIL payments to athletes directly?

I assume there will be some formula where maybe a female swimmer gets a dollar for every 100 dollars given to an offensive lineman. At this point, I can at least understand a perverse incentive to start killing non-rev sports.

Really hope it never comes to this...
It already is. It was inevitable from day one. The "collectives?" LOL. Just boosters diverting money from the school directly to the players....it might as well have been the schools paying them. This was 100% inevitable unavoidable, and predictable. I mean, money is fungible.
 
Once revenue sport revenue is being shared with the revenue sport athletes,....
In effect that's been the case for many decades. Two sports pay for everything else at most schools. Maybe a handful have a revenue positive baseball team or womens BB team.....but those are rare. That's why the vast majority of programs lost money over all in athletics, even with the huge football and hoops income. All these sports are expensive as heck.
 
I guess if the powers that be want to use football and basketball NIL as an excuse to start axing non-rev sports, they can. But the reasoning seems very disingenuous. Am I missing something?

It's not really even an option for women's non-revenue sports as it would be illegal under Title IX. As long as football is getting 85 scholarships, there's going to have to be a roughly equal number of scholarships accounted for by women's sports. But, I would certainly not be surprised to see significant cutbacks in men's non-rev sports.
 
It already is. It was inevitable from day one. The "collectives?" LOL. Just boosters diverting money from the school directly to the players....it might as well have been the schools paying them. This was 100% inevitable unavoidable, and predictable. I mean, money is fungible.
Ok, yes, but still not explaining why non-rev sports may be on the chopping block. No one is forcing the collectives to give NIL dollars to female swimmers... 😁
 
In effect that's been the case for many decades. Two sports pay for everything else at most schools. Maybe a handful have a revenue positive baseball team or womens BB team.....but those are rare. That's why the vast majority of programs lost money over all in athletics, even with the huge football and hoops income. All these sports are expensive as heck.
Yes, that is my point. The revenue from revenue generating sports comes from a variety of sources, but once that revenue starts to be shared with the players from those sports there is less revenue to be shared with the other sports that do not generate revenue. As you correctly note, while the NIL collectives are not part of the universities, they are just receiving funds that the universities otherwise would have received.
 
Ok, yes, but still not explaining why non-rev sports may be on the chopping block. No one is forcing the collectives to give NIL dollars to female swimmers... 😁
There is not the wall of separation between the "collectives" and the athletic departments that you think there is. There was never going to be that wall, even as some insisted there would be. That was sophistry, and that "wall" is collapsing rapidly. Money is fungible and limited and that money is being diverted back into FB and BB to attract players......money that would have gone to by the baseball team 8 more uniforms and travel and coaching and fields and housing and so on. You need to understand that the collectives are in effect extensions of the athletic department fund raising......unofficially as it may be.
 
There is not the wall of separation between the "collectives" and the athletic departments that you think there is. There was never going to be that wall, even as some insisted there would be. That was sophistry, and that "wall" is collapsing rapidly. Money is fungible and limited and that money is being diverted back into FB and BB to attract players......money that would have gone to by the baseball team 8 more uniforms and travel and coaching and fields and housing and so on. You need to understand that the collectives are in effect extensions of the athletic department fund raising......unofficially as it may be.
Agreed. Suffice it to say that there is regular interaction between Nina King and the Duke Development Office on the topic of NIL.
 
There is not the wall of separation between the "collectives" and the athletic departments that you think there is. There was never going to be that wall, even as some insisted there would be. That was sophistry, and that "wall" is collapsing rapidly. Money is fungible and limited and that money is being diverted back into FB and BB to attract players......money that would have gone to by the baseball team 8 more uniforms and travel and coaching and fields and housing and so on. You need to understand that the collectives are in effect extensions of the athletic department fund raising......unofficially as it may be.
I understand all this. Very clearly. It still doesn't explain why suddenly we might not be able to afford a women's swimming team that we have funded for 50+ years.

It's a conscious decision to move that swimming team budget over to pay football players, is it not? So what you're saying is if you cancel that $1M swim team budget you'll be able to afford a couple of 4* receivers, right? If I'm missing something, please enlighten me. I'm genuinely curious.
 
I understand all this. Very clearly. It still doesn't explain why suddenly we might not be able to afford a women's swimming team that we have funded for 50+ years.

It's a conscious decision to move that swimming team budget over to pay football players, is it not? So what you're saying is if you cancel that $1M swim team budget you'll be able to afford a couple of 4* receivers, right? If I'm missing something, please enlighten me. I'm genuinely curious.
First of all, if you're upset, take it up with Nina King. Second, take it up with Jay Bilas, who assured us this would not happen. Third, take it up with all who said the players who are in the revenue sports should be paid, without regard apparently to what that meant for the non revenue athletes. I mean it was obvious to me.

I'm just reporting the news and connecting the dots. But yeah, in the sports NIL / portal economy, a couple of 4* receivers are more valuable than the swim team. And this was obvious years ago for anyone daring to connect the dots. So few people realized this obvious inevitability. The train wreck is not new in the making.

NOTE: I'm not blaming Nina for anything, her job went from difficult to impossible....just using her name since she (apparently) made the comment about swimming teams to a concerned swimmer.
 
Last edited:
First of all, if you're upset, take it up with Nina King. Second, take it up with Jay Bilas, who assured us this would not happen. Third, take it up with all who said the players who are in the revenue sports should be paid, without regard apparently to what that meant for the non revenue athletes. I mean it was obvious to me.

I'm just reporting the news and connecting the dots. But yeah, in the sports NIL / portal economy, a couple of 4* receivers are more valuable than the swim team. And this was obvious years ago for anyone daring to connect the dots. So few people realized this obvious inevitability. The train wreck is not new in the making.

NOTE: I'm not blaming Nina for anything, her job went from difficult to impossible....just using her since she made the comment about swimming teams...
Hold on. I'm not upset with you or anyone. I'm just trying to understand.

Sticking with the women's swim team, it's been funded by Duke for 50+ years. What value does it give? Not much if any direct economic value. But it is enriching the university as a whole - the historical argument for college sports.

So should we cancel the team to upgrade our football talent on the field?

Isn't that the crux of the debate here?

We don't have to keep the women's swimming team. We don't have to invest an extra $1M in our football players. It's a choice. Can we agree on that? So then it just comes down to institutional philosophy and what the role of sports are at Duke, right?

Nina is trying to polish up the football program as much as she can to keep us attractive to the big conferences. She is doing her job and seems to be doing it well. But I trust if she's ever recommending that we axe non-rev sports to fund football that the President and Board of Trustees and other senior folks will be very involved in that decision.
 
First of all, if you're upset, take it up with Nina King. Second, take it up with Jay Bilas, who assured us this would not happen. Third, take it up with all who said the players who are in the revenue sports should be paid, without regard apparently to what that meant for the non revenue athletes. I mean it was obvious to me.

I'm just reporting the news and connecting the dots. But yeah, in the sports NIL / portal economy, a couple of 4* receivers are more valuable than the swim team. And this was obvious years ago for anyone daring to connect the dots. So few people realized this obvious inevitability. The train wreck is not new in the making.

NOTE: I'm not blaming Nina for anything, her job went from difficult to impossible....just using her since she made the comment about swimming teams...
"More valuable," in what sense.? We'll have a garage sale of women's sports to have a tiny increase in football funding? If exposed, it would cost Duke ten times as much each year in donations to DU and ID.

Your strategic viewpoint of what drives decisions and principles at Duke is way different from mine. Mercantile, I might say. Not to mention the uncertainty around the benefits accruing to a few extra bucks for Duke football.

I have heard Nina King speak at length on Duke athletics, as I assume have you and many others, and she and Kevin White appear to have totally bought into Duke principles.

Sorry to preach, but I never could get my own pulpit.
 
"More valuable," in what sense.? We'll have a garage sale of women's sports to have a tiny increase in football funding? If exposed, it would cost Duke ten times as much each year in donations to DU and ID.

Your strategic viewpoint of what drives decisions and principles at Duke is way different from mine. Mercantile, I might say. Not to mention the uncertainty around the benefits accruing to a few extra bucks for Duke football.

I have heard Nina King speak at length on Duke athletics, as I assume have you and many others, and she and Kevin White appear to have totally bought into Duke principles.

Sorry to preach, but I never could get my own pulpit.
Thanks. This makes me feel better... Thought I might be missing a big shift that had happened.
 
Hold on. I'm not upset with you or anyone. I'm just trying to understand.

Sticking with the women's swim team, it's been funded by Duke for 50+ years. What value does it give? Not much if any direct economic value. But it is enriching the university as a whole - the historical argument for college sports.

So should we cancel the team to upgrade our football talent on the field?

Isn't that the crux of the debate here?

We don't have to keep the women's swimming team. We don't have to invest an extra $1M in our football players. It's a choice. Can we agree on that? So then it just comes down to institutional philosophy and what the role of sports are at Duke, right?

Nina is trying to polish up the football program as much as she can to keep us attractive to the big conferences. She is doing her job and seems to be doing it well. But I trust if she's ever recommending that we axe non-rev sports to fund football that the President and Board of Trustees and other senior folks will be very involved in that decision.
To some extent I think this is reflective of a wider debate going on in higher ed. There is a movement around the country to treat universities as revenue generators, with various academic departments having to justify themselves based on whether or not they are a "profit center." This is the logic that recently led WVU to announce its intent to cut, among other things, its foreign language department (although I think they've subsequently slightly walked that back).

It's a debate about whether universities should adhere to market logic, or whether they are institutions that provide things that are valuable even when they're not also profitable. In the sports context, the question is whether it is worthwhile (for the students, the university, society at large) to have a women's diving team if the team isn't revenue neutral or better.

Private schools with big endowments are a bit insulated from this stuff, athletically and otherwise, since 1) they're rich and can fund what they want, and 2) their budgets aren't a political football. But less wealthy private schools and public schools are having to deal with this dynamic increasingly. There is conceivably a day where the only competition for Duke's non-revenue sports will be the Northwesterns and Stanfords of the world.
 
"More valuable," in what sense.? We'll have a garage sale of women's sports to have a tiny increase in football funding? If exposed, it would cost Duke ten times as much each year in donations to DU and ID.

Your strategic viewpoint of what drives decisions and principles at Duke is way different from mine. Mercantile, I might say. Not to mention the uncertainty around the benefits accruing to a few extra bucks for Duke football.

I have heard Nina King speak at length on Duke athletics, as I assume have you and many others, and she and Kevin White appear to have totally bought into Duke principles.

Sorry to preach, but I never could get my own pulpit.
Dude, this is what is happening. I didn't favor any of it. Sorry not taking the hit for this. So yes, once NIL and portal came to pass, THAT was the mercantilization of the athletic department. I'm just recognizing what some seem unable to admit.
 
Sticking with the women's swim team, it's been funded by Duke for 50+ years. What value does it give? Not much if any direct economic value. But it is enriching the university as a whole - the historical argument for college sports.So should we cancel the team to upgrade our football talent on the field?
Watch this happen. For years the deal was the rev sports paid for all the non rev sports. NOW the rev sports are told to pay the players that are part of that revenue. THATS what changed.........again, I was more willing to stay with the bargain that the rev sports paid for the non rev sports, as long as conditions and perks continued to mount for the rev sports. And they were.....every year...bigger and better facilities and food and housing and training centers and entertainment centers for athletes.

That was not enough for so many. So here is where we are. Again, wait til the womens teams sue under Title IX and win in some venues, and watch the rev sports sue the non rev sports....get the popcorn. I was against all of this. Reap the whirlwind. By the very logic that rev sports should pay the players, then non rev sports I guess should charge the players.... Everyone was so angry at athletic departments for making so much money....where do you think that money went?
 
Watch this happen. For years the deal was the rev sports paid for all the non rev sports. NOW the rev sports are told to pay the players that are part of that revenue. THATS what changed.........again, I was more willing to stay with the bargain that the rev sports paid for the non rev sports, as long as conditions and perks continued to mount for the rev sports. And they were.....every year...bigger and better facilities and food and housing and training centers and entertainment centers for athletes.

That was not enough for so many. So here is where we are. Again, wait til the womens teams sue under Title IX and win in some venues, and watch the rev sports sue the non rev sports....get the popcorn. I was against all of this. Reap the whirlwind. By the very logic that rev sports should pay the players, then non rev sports I guess should charge the players.... Everyone was so angry at athletic departments for making so much money....where do you think that money went?
I'm really struggling to follow your logic. Duke doesn't have to pay football players anything. They could just give them the value of their scholarships. What would happen? We'd still field a team but it would be terrible.

So now it's a question of how much do we pay our football (and basketball) players. You seem to be convinced it's an amount that will force us to start cutting non-rev sports. But why?

Is it better to have 7-3 football teams and kill 6 non-rev sports? Or is it better to keep all non-rev sports and have 4-6 football teams?

Isn't that the type of trade off here when you get to the heart of the matter?

My read is we've probably been playing above our weight in football since the ESPN contract because we've been drafting behind Clemson, UNC, FSU, Virginia. If we are forced to accept TV dollars that actually reflect the value of our football TV viewership, then we will have a lot fewer dollars relatively speaking flowing through our athletic department

At that point, I expect we'll have some tough decisions to make about the future of football and our non-rev sports. I'd like to believe basketball is our untouchable sacred golden goose, but who knows? What am I missing? A lot of you know a lot more about this than me...
 
Back
Top