Football vs. basketball dilemma?

K

King of Defense

Member
Front Office Sports has a good take on how the upcoming settlement with the NCAA, which would give athletics departments $20.5m to spend on athletes, could be a bonanza for non-football schools because they can focus their money on hoops.

On the other hands, football powerhouses -- say, Notre Dame and Clemson -- would have their money tied up on the football field. And schools with great basketball teams -- like, um, some college from Durham -- would have to think hard about what money it can give to help its football team remain a bowl team most years.

https://frontofficesports.com/newsletter/power-surge-for-hoops-only-schools/

Pardon a semi-political but definitely sports-related side note: I'd also expect massive Title IX implications if not for the fact that we're under an administration that will have no interest whatsoever in defending Title IX.
 
King of Defense said:
Front Office Sports has a good take on how the upcoming settlement with the NCAA, which would give athletics departments $20.5m to spend on athletes, could be a bonanza for non-football schools because they can focus their money on hoops.

On the other hands, football powerhouses -- say, Notre Dame and Clemson -- would have their money tied up on the football field. And schools with great basketball teams -- like, um, some college from Durham -- would have to think hard about what money it can give to help its football team remain a bowl team most years.

https://frontofficesports.com/newsletter/power-surge-for-hoops-only-schools/

Pardon a semi-political but definitely sports-related side note: I'd also expect massive Title IX implications if not for the fact that we're under an administration that will have no interest whatsoever in defending Title IX.
Click to expand...
Not defending Title IX and getting rid of the Department of Education will certainly impact all involved. Fact, not politics.
 
NYBri said:
Not defending Title IX and getting rid of the Department of Education will certainly impact all involved. Fact, not politics.
Click to expand...

It's going to be very interesting to see what happens with women's sports. They may have had the Caitlin Clark boom just in time to get sponsors to make up what's going to be a massive spending gap within universities pretty soon.

Also -- universities are going to be cutting budgets and freezing hiring. That won't directly affect sports, but figure that tuition may shoot up even more than usual, and that's going to make the student fees people are paying hurt that much more. At JMU, students are paying nearly $2,500 a year directly to the athletics department, and now we're talking about those departments' budgets generating even more red ink.

And if colleges start cutting sports, who's going to stop them? Maybe the NCAA will put in a minimum level of investment in Olympic sports? But then will that survive in court or in Congress?
 
King of Defense said:
It's going to be very interesting to see what happens with women's sports. They may have had the Caitlin Clark boom just in time to get sponsors to make up what's going to be a massive spending gap within universities pretty soon.

Also -- universities are going to be cutting budgets and freezing hiring. That won't directly affect sports, but figure that tuition may shoot up even more than usual, and that's going to make the student fees people are paying hurt that much more. At JMU, students are paying nearly $2,500 a year directly to the athletics department, and now we're talking about those departments' budgets generating even more red ink.

And if colleges start cutting sports, who's going to stop them? Maybe the NCAA will put in a minimum level of investment in Olympic sports? But then will that survive in court or in Congress?
Click to expand...
You’d almost think that this was being planned, or something. 😬
 
King of Defense said:
Front Office Sports has a good take on how the upcoming settlement with the NCAA, which would give athletics departments $20.5m to spend on athletes, could be a bonanza for non-football schools because they can focus their money on hoops.

On the other hands, football powerhouses -- say, Notre Dame and Clemson -- would have their money tied up on the football field. And schools with great basketball teams -- like, um, some college from Durham -- would have to think hard about what money it can give to help its football team remain a bowl team most years.

https://frontofficesports.com/newsletter/power-surge-for-hoops-only-schools/

Pardon a semi-political but definitely sports-related side note: I'd also expect massive Title IX implications if not for the fact that we're under an administration that will have no interest whatsoever in defending Title IX.
Click to expand...
Well.......except in the case of transgender college athletes, and, more specifically transgender women. I believe one of the Trump administration's argument is that allowing transgender women to compete with and against other "women" is a violation of Title IX.
 
As I understand the article, $20.5 mil is the max amount a school can handout to athletes, but NIL collectives are in addition to this number. Assuming this max amount is not inflation adjusted, the SEC schools’ NIL portion will likely dwarf total $$ handouts in coming years. For Duke, it will be a tricky allocation, but we seem to have done well with the NIL game.
 
arnie said:
As I understand the article, $20.5 mil is the max amount a school can handout to athletes, but NIL collectives are in addition to this number. Assuming this max amount is not inflation adjusted, the SEC schools’ NIL portion will likely dwarf total $$ handouts in coming years. For Duke, it will be a tricky allocation, but we seem to have done well with the NIL game.
Click to expand...
The interesting part will be the notion that the P4 conferences have hired Deloitte to make sure that what continues as NIL will actually be for N, I, and/or L purposes, and not just cash to play. We'll see how that works.
 
AustinDevil said:
The interesting part will be the notion that the P4 conferences have hired Deloitte to make sure that what continues as NIL will actually be for N, I, and/or L purposes, and not just cash to play. We'll see how that works.
Click to expand...
Yeah, SEC and big Bill will interpret NIL as they please. Bill and Bama “what kind of fish is a Deloitte”?
 
AustinDevil said:
The interesting part will be the notion that the P4 conferences have hired Deloitte to make sure that what continues as NIL will actually be for N, I, and/or L purposes, and not just cash to play. We'll see how that works.
Click to expand...
I don’t see how that doesn’t fail the same restraint of trade arguments that got us to this point in the first place.

Maybe it buys the conferences a year or two while court battles play out?
 
dlmzzz said:
I don’t see how that doesn’t fail the same restraint of trade arguments that got us to this point in the first place.

Maybe it buys the conferences a year or two while court battles play out?
Click to expand...
I don't think audits are violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Condition of play is you have to be in compliance?
 
sagegrouse said:
I don't think audits are violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Condition of play is you have to be in compliance?
Click to expand...
I mean the limitation and enforcement that only “qualified” NIL payments can be made. How does the school or the NCAA have the right to restrict payments between a third party and athletes? That seems like exactly what was ruled against before. What am I missing?
 
Take a look at how much money the Big East distributed to each member versus how much the ACC distributed to each football playing school. In 2023 Big East teams received between $4.5 and $6.5 million each; in the same year the ACC distributed an average of close to $45 million to each football school. As long as it’s playing football, Duke will make sure it’s football players are receiving good compensation.

Second point, the article says that NIL will enforce market rates — what is the market value of a Zion Williamson or Cooper Flagg endorsing a sneaker. Seems to me like there should be plenty of money flowing to Duke basketball players.
 
dlmzzz said:
I mean the limitation and enforcement that only “qualified” NIL payments can be made. How does the school or the NCAA have the right to restrict payments between a third party and athletes? That seems like exactly what was ruled against before. What am I missing?
Click to expand...
They can deny the athlete the right to play.
 
Farlan said:
Take a look at how much money the Big East distributed to each member versus how much the ACC distributed to each football playing school. In 2023 Big East teams received between $4.5 and $6.5 million each; in the same year the ACC distributed an average of close to $45 million to each football school. As long as it’s playing football, Duke will make sure it’s football players are receiving good compensation.

Second point, the article says that NIL will enforce market rates — what is the market value of a Zion Williamson or Cooper Flagg endorsing a sneaker. Seems to me like there should be plenty of money flowing to Duke basketball players.
Click to expand...
What makes me wonder is that the same player will probably have a significantly higher NIL value at Duke, because of the exposure, than at Stanford. If I’m Stanford, that doesn’t seem fair.
 
hallcity said:
What makes me wonder is that the same player will probably have a significantly higher NIL value at Duke, because of the exposure, than at Stanford. If I’m Stanford, that doesn’t seem fair.
Click to expand...
What? There should be equality of exposure rules? A lot of things are not fair. The only equality in life is death.
 
arnie said:
Yeah, SEC and big Bill will interpret NIL as they please. Bill and Bama “what kind of fish is a Deloitte”?
Click to expand...
Right? It brings to mind the apocryphal story of Churchill warning Stalin about what the Pope might do, and Stalin (allegedly) asking, "How many divisions has the Pope?"
 
sagegrouse said:
They can deny the athlete the right to play.
Click to expand...
So far the courts have been ruling for the athletes every time some one tries to deny them the right to play. The professional teams by law can have salary caps, but endorsement, nil, money is unlimited. I don’t see any way to enforce how much money an alum or fan can pay a player. So I own a business and hire Flagg to be a spokesman. Why can’t I pay him whatever I choose? It’s a true free market in college athletics and I don’t think it is going away. Is it unfair to small colleges and programs. Yes. But the old system was totally unfair to the players. I think it’s unfair Elon has more money than me. Tough shiiiiii.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top