• You do not need to register if you are not going to pay the yearly fee to post. If you register please click here or log in go to "settings" then "my account" then "User Upgrades" and you can renew.

HuskerMax readers can save 50% on  Omaha Steaks .

New NCAA Subdivision Coming?- Schools Paying Players


The term "scholar-athlete" is being replaced with "paid mercenary". Why they still offer a scholarship to these guys is a mystery to me. I wonder these days, how many even think about working toward a degree. For those who go on and make a ton of money in the NFL, that works out for them, but for the guys who don't make it in the NFL, unless they get a meaningful degree, they better make enough NIL money to last.
 
Cornhuskers7 said:
sports.yahoo.com

NCAA proposing new college athletics subdivision rooted in direct athlete compensation

The NCAA will introduce a proposal that would grant certain schools more power to compensate athletes in a new way.
sports.yahoo.com sports.yahoo.com

Proposal from the new NCAA president. Quite a bit to unpack here. Article seems to do a good job outlining what the proposal would mean.
Click to expand...
The article was a lengthy read, but these are the major notes I pulled from it:
  • In order to join this new subdivision, schools would be required to put $30k per athlete each year into a trust that would be paid out at the discretion of the schools. Meaning a four year athlete would receive at least $120k. Trust payouts must also comply with Title IX.
    • The part regarding pay outs being at the discretion of the schools makes me wonder if this opens the door for schools to require graduation in order for the amount to be paid out? This wasn't asked or answered in the article. If it did, it would be a way to help curb people running to the portal.
  • What benefit would these schools get? More autonomy over rules, such as coaching limits and number of scholarships.
  • Schools in this subdivision would still remain within the confines of Division 1 competition.
    • This part is the most confusing to me. I think it would open the door for a football subdivision that doesn't fall under this model (since the NCAA isn't over the CFP), but in every other sport the schools that opt into this would be competing with those who don't.
Things that are unclear to me from article:
  • What this would mean for conferences? Does everyone in the conference need to opt in? Could we have a situation where some conferences have schools playing under different set of rules/benefits? Would we see schools that don't want to move to this model kicked out of a major conference that does want to move to this model?
  • The article talked about being "being able to buy the NIL rights of their athletes". To me, this would mean that schools who opt in would move away from the model we are currently in, and move to a model where you would sign your rights away to the institution you go to. This would effectively mean that the only profiting you could have from your name, image, and likeness would be what the school pays you, and that you wouldn't be able to go find opportunities on your own. Again, this is my interpretation of literally one phrase that was used in a few different spots. Not sure if that is how it would actually work.
  • It appears that this model would help the majority of athletes, especially female athletes and non-profit generating sport's athletes, while hurting the star athletes (again if they aren't able to profit on NIL on their own).
Obviously, this is something that still needs to be voted on and more information will come out as time goes on. The fact that the NCAA is even suggesting this is a monumental shift from where they were when Emmert was in charge.
 



Too many questions to even know where to begin.

Two quick ones come to mind.

#1 To stay compliant with Title IX, must female athletes receive "payout" as male athletes? Or is it a male pool and female pool that must be equal?

#2 Do the participating schools have to agree to the same payout per athlete? Seems like they'd have to if "parity" is goal of the plan.
 
I will always follow the Huskers, but I am losing interest quickly in watching college football in general. Not saying the changes are good or bad, I'm just saying I just don't care to watch pro football disguised as college ball. Maybe my money would be better spent at the small NAIA school in my home town. Kids just want to play for the love of the game.
 
'Skers Assualtman said:
Too many questions to even know where to begin.

Two quick ones come to mind.

#1 To stay compliant with Title IX, must female athletes receive "payout" as male athletes? Or is it a male pool and female pool that must be equal?

#2 Do the participating schools have to agree to the same payout per athlete? Seems like they'd have to if "parity" is goal of the plan.
Click to expand...
As to #1, the pools have to be equal.
 
joncarl said:
I will always follow the Huskers, but I am losing interest quickly in watching college football in general. Not saying the changes are good or bad, I'm just saying I just don't care to watch pro football disguised as college ball. Maybe my money would be better spent at the small NAIA school in my home town. Kids just want to play for the love of the game.
Click to expand...
I think a big part of it is the move from the Big 8. We had YEARS of traditions/rivalries with the little kitties in Manhatten, Misery, urine bombing puffs, dirt burglars, etc... The Big12 at least kept those and added a good healthy hatred for down horns.

Outside of Iowa, that doesn't exist at all in the B1G. While I'll love watching NU v. USC, I'll never get into the UCLA v. USC game like I would watch KU v. KSU.
 




This is just the NCAA reacting to House and the NLB. It is just a matter of time before athletes in revenue generating college sports are paid fair market value.

Not sure how many players want all their money tied up in a trust? I get the idea, but most will be 18 or over and can legally enter contracts. They will want some money while performing the actual job. Just like anyone else.

The NCAA is losing control, but they made their own bed by running a slave-like, labor exploitating operation for all these years.
 
Sounds desperate and perhaps satisfactory to smaller non football oriented schools. Not so much for those not in that category. NCAA is late to the game. Portal and NIL in a couple of years will be in cement, and good chance there will be a withdrawal from NCAA governance for football for many top tier schools.

Not a mystery where this is headed.
 
'Skers Assualtman said:
Too many questions to even know where to begin.

Two quick ones come to mind.

#1 To stay compliant with Title IX, must female athletes receive "payout" as male athletes? Or is it a male pool and female pool that must be equal?

#2 Do the participating schools have to agree to the same payout per athlete? Seems like they'd have to if "parity" is goal of the plan.
Click to expand...
I feel like it won't happen if the bowling team (just for example) gets paid out the same as the football players. I believe you will see some schools get in serious financial trouble or will begin to challenge the need to carry multiple sports regardless of male or female involvement. Throw in added cost of travel now due to coast to coast coverage of the conference and this may get out of hand quickly. The value of the scholarship MUST be applied, it's a joke to get all the benefits for the student portion of "student/athlete" and claim it holds no value to the athlete.

IF they even the playing field to regulate total amounts players can receive to a consistent amount across the board for football, it can work. I always thought the point in the beginning for NIL was for the player to make money on the side for themselves, not to hold schools hostage if the school cannot come up with perceived/estimated value of a specific player. This doesn't even take into account not playing a snap after getting injured or transferring within a year after getting the deal.
 
'Skers Assualtman said:
Too many questions to even know where to begin.

Two quick ones come to mind.

#1 To stay compliant with Title IX, must female athletes receive "payout" as male athletes? Or is it a male pool and female pool that must be equal?

#2 Do the participating schools have to agree to the same payout per athlete? Seems like they'd have to if "parity" is goal of the plan.
Click to expand...

NU_Alum said:
As to #1, the pools have to be equal.
Click to expand...
Yes, the way I've read it, if you have $3 million allocated for all the male athletes, you have to have the same amount for women's.
 



joncarl said:
I will always follow the Huskers, but I am losing interest quickly in watching college football in general. Not saying the changes are good or bad, I'm just saying I just don't care to watch pro football disguised as college ball. Maybe my money would be better spent at the small NAIA school in my home town. Kids just want to play for the love of the game.
Click to expand...
I made that point in another thread. Old school college football (and sports) are still out there. FCS, DII, DIII, NAIA, JUCO have kids that are out there just playing for the love of the game and a college scholarship. My alma mater is a DII school (doesn't have football) and I love following them in basketball and going to their games. I've coached a number of players who have gone on to play at schools where they aren't going to go pro. It can be refreshing to watch and it is important to support those schools, similarly to other amateur athletics (high schools, middle schools).

It doesn't mean I don't still enjoy college football, but it definitely isn't played under the same "tone" as it was decades ago.
 
Speedlimit said:
This is just the NCAA reacting to House and the NLB. It is just a matter of time before athletes in revenue generating college sports are paid fair market value.

Not sure how many players want all their money tied up in a trust? I get the idea, but most will be 18 or over and can legally enter contracts. They will want some money while performing the actual job. Just like anyone else.

The NCAA is losing control, but they made their own bed by running a slave-like, labor exploitating operation for all these years.
Click to expand...
The article did touch on some of this, as well. The NCAA and its schools have been busted with litigation over lack of NIL in the past and essentially "free labor". This definitely does seem like a way for the NCAA to try and cover themselves (and their member institutions) from litigation in the future.

Like I've said in other places, major college football will turn into professional football at some point. It is too big at this point to not evolve into that. The market is what is going to dictate that status, and there is too much money around college football for it to not head that way.
 

EastOfEden said:
Sounds desperate and perhaps satisfactory to smaller non football oriented schools. Not so much for those not in that category. NCAA is late to the game. Portal and NIL in a couple of years will be in cement, and good chance there will be a withdrawal from NCAA governance for football for many top tier schools.

Not a mystery where this is headed.
Click to expand...
I do think this is also in an effort for the NCAA to keep those top brands under the umbrella of the NCAA, rather than breaking off and doing their own thing.

By opening up avenues to pay athletes, schools can continue to use the NCAA as a shield from litigation. If they break off and do their own thing, there is more risk involved. This move would also essentially turn the keys of rule making over to the top dollar schools, which would be the other benefit of breaking off.

It is a smart move to try and get out ahead of a break off that I think is looming. If the NCAA can find a way to make staying under their governance a benefit, rather than a hassle, they might end up being safe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

GET TICKETS


Get 50% off on Omaha Steaks

Back
Top