HuskyWarrior611
Mid range white knight
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2011
- Messages
- 4,761
- Reaction Score
- 15,204
Hopefully this will start the process of moving away from this NIL free for all.
As I read it, there's revenue sharing involved where "top end" schools could get $15-$20 million paid out by the NCAA. Whether we're a top end school or not, who knows, but we'd likely be getting 8 figures.
I deleted the original post so I could go back and read the article a third time. I misinterpreted some of what I read.No one is getting money…that’s outgoing cash.
The money would go to players. We’re going to share revenue and retroactive revenue that we’re not receiving and have never received.
The retroactive stuff is just bizarre.No one is getting money…that’s outgoing cash.
The money would go to players. We’re going to share revenue and retroactive revenue that we’re not receiving and have never received.
I deleted the original post so I could go back and read the article a third time. I misinterpreted some of what I read.
Still, I don't know if it's as cut and dried as nothing in/$20 million out. Does conference NIL include football? If so, we may not have a lot to worry about. Texas, tOSU and LSU are pretty much already at the proposed NIL cap. Can't imagine that's all NCAA sports - has to include football. There would seem an argument that football NIL may not be the NCAA's problem and would defer to the individual schools. And a case could be made for individual schools like UConn that certainly wouldn't/shouldn't have a liability placed on them equal to a P4 school. Who was really denied - or more importantly, deserved NIL from our collectives.
Also, IIRC, while the NCAA made about $1.3 bill this year, expenses were $1.17 bill, so they only net $130 million. A suit seeking $4 billion is ludicrous to pay out to the limited numbers of players included in the suit. Subtracting $1B-$1.3B for the lawyers, that close to $3B to be shared among what, 1000 players tops? $3 million per more or less? That seems ludicrous to me, coming at the expense of breaking the back of 100-200 athletic programs.
I'll defer to the expert legal minds here.
So schools would be paying students who lose money for the schools. None of this makes any sense. At this point get rid of all non-revenue sports.Okay. There’s two components - the lawsuit from athletes suing for lost NIL opportunities they suffered before the NCAA allowed NIL. That lawsuit will involve retroactive payment to 15,000 athletes across a broad spectrum of sports. (House vs NCAA….Graham House was a swimmer at Arizona State, so you can see how broad the beneficiaries will be.)
We will be on the hook to pay football, basketball and women’s basketball players going back to 2016. Whether we would have to pay swimmers, soccer players, track athletes, hockey players….I don’t know. How big the hit will be to UConn? I don’t know. In any event, I don’t think this is the main source our troubles. Read on…
In the settlement of that case, there is expected to be a framework in place to pay athletes going forward - basically, NIL will come in house. The article theorizes a $20M top end per year with schools able to opt in and decide how much they’re going to share with their athletes. Opting out means oblivion; we’re likely going to have to match our ACC/Big 10/B12 peers or suffer the consequences.
In addition, you still have the Charlie Baker proposal out there that would create a subset of schools that would obligate themselves to pay something like $30,000 a year into a fund for every eligible athlete on campus. We have 600 athletes.
With the school proposing 15% across the board cuts to departments to cover the (poorly planned for) budget gaps over the next few years, one department that already loses $35,000,000 a year is going to need to either start losing $50,000,000 a year or sacrifice nearly everything other than our three revenue programs or try to compete while offering much less to student athletes.
Do you see the issue?
Thanks for the write up. It appears that the big football schools are one again using the the NCAA the install price cap and floor measures to solidify their standings. While they will likely be accountable for the vast majority of retroactive NIL out, their large TV contracts easily cover the $20mil NIL/salary opt in. I don't think we necessarily see a straight $20mil loss however since I would imagine the school would be able to resell the NIL rights it would automatically acquire through this framework, potentially matching or exceeding current NIL fundraising. Ironically I kind of see this as the NCAA negotiating against the majority of its members which could indeed lead to it's own destruction. Seems like a tough deal for any non top 40 football school, including all private schools. Juice ain't worth the squeeze here imoOkay. There’s two components - the lawsuit from athletes suing for lost NIL opportunities they suffered before the NCAA allowed NIL. That lawsuit will involve retroactive payment to 15,000 athletes across a broad spectrum of sports. (House vs NCAA….Graham House was a swimmer at Arizona State, so you can see how broad the beneficiaries will be.)
We will be on the hook to pay football, basketball and women’s basketball players going back to 2016. Whether we would have to pay swimmers, soccer players, track athletes, hockey players….I don’t know. How big the hit will be to UConn? I don’t know. In any event, I don’t think this is the main source our troubles. Read on…
In the settlement of that case, there is expected to be a framework in place to pay athletes going forward - basically, NIL will come in house. The article theorizes a $20M top end per year with schools able to opt in and decide how much they’re going to share with their athletes. Opting out means oblivion; we’re likely going to have to match our ACC/Big 10/B12 peers or suffer the consequences.
In addition, you still have the Charlie Baker proposal out there that would create a subset of schools that would obligate themselves to pay something like $30,000 a year into a fund for every eligible athlete on campus. We have 600 athletes.
With the school proposing 15% across the board cuts to departments to cover the (poorly planned for) budget gaps over the next few years, one department that already loses $35,000,000 a year is going to need to either start losing $50,000,000 a year or sacrifice nearly everything other than our three revenue programs or try to compete while offering much less to student athletes.
Do you see the issue?
I interpreted the article differently although I could be mistaken. I believe the big football schools want to inhouse NIL with a cap at $20mil. Otherwise how would their retroactive payout be calculated?This is very very bad news for UConn. We do not remotely have the money to do this.
This is not going to replace NIL, this will be happening in conjunction with it. And I would expect eventually the $20M school revenue sharing number gets litigated higher until there is no cap (just like NIL) unless there is some sort of collective bargaining agreement in place for it
I would strongly advise in actually spending LARGE amounts of money to support our football program. Long term not being in the P4 will be absolutely detrimental to this athletic department and anyone else’s outside of it. Anyone pretending that to not be the case at this point is a lost cause.
Good idea. Get rid of non-revenue generating band, cheerleaders, student managers (even future NBA coaches of the year) and philosophy majors too.So schools would be paying students who lose money for the schools. None of this makes any sense. At this point get rid of all non-revenue sports.
You would have to completely kill football to stay in compliance with Title IX.So schools would be paying students who lose money for the schools. None of this makes any sense. At this point get rid of all non-revenue sports.
Our football was killed like 15 years ago, if this goes through I think a lot of football programs will be killed.You would have to completely kill football to stay in compliance with Title IX.
Or someone uses this to challenge Title IX, and good luck with that.
Okay. There’s two components - the lawsuit from athletes suing for lost NIL opportunities they suffered before the NCAA allowed NIL. That lawsuit will involve retroactive payment to 15,000 athletes across a broad spectrum of sports. (House vs NCAA….Graham House was a swimmer at Arizona State, so you can see how broad the beneficiaries will be.)
We will be on the hook to pay football, basketball and women’s basketball players going back to 2016. Whether we would have to pay swimmers, soccer players, track athletes, hockey players….I don’t know. How big the hit will be to UConn? I don’t know. In any event, I don’t think this is the main source our troubles. Read on…
In the settlement of that case, there is expected to be a framework in place to pay athletes going forward - basically, NIL will come in house. The article theorizes a $20M top end per year with schools able to opt in and decide how much they’re going to share with their athletes. Opting out means oblivion; we’re likely going to have to match our ACC/Big 10/B12 peers or suffer the consequences.
In addition, you still have the Charlie Baker proposal out there that would create a subset of schools that would obligate themselves to pay something like $30,000 a year into a fund for every eligible athlete on campus. We have 600 athletes.
With the school proposing 15% across the board cuts to departments to cover the (poorly planned for) budget gaps over the next few years, one department that already loses $35,000,000 a year is going to need to either start losing $50,000,000 a year or sacrifice nearly everything other than our three revenue programs or try to compete while offering much less to student athletes.
I read the article as Fishy did, that NIL basically comes in house.This is not going to replace NIL, this will be happening in conjunction with it. And I would expect eventually the $20M school revenue sharing number gets litigated higher until there is no cap (just like NIL) unless there is some sort of collective bargaining agreement in place for it
I would strongly advise in actually spending LARGE amounts of money to support our football program. Long term not being in the P4 will be absolutely detrimental to this athletic department and anyone else’s outside of it. Anyone pretending that to not be the case at this point is a lost cause.
Nope, we would just drop football and other sports and basketball would still be a Big East powerhouse. We are full steam ahead for a legendary 3peat and the women are winning a title next year too.We've had a great ride the past 35 years but we'd better get in a major league soon if this proposal is passed. Otherwise, we'd best enjoy the next few years before the implosion while figuring out how to spend a lot of soon to be freed up time.
Or, maybe go with the common sense solution. Professionalize the revenue sports and allow them to use the university brand so there's some (faux) affiliation. I'm not sure how content fans will be with such a setup but I'm sure it would go over very well in Alabama, Ohio, Michigan, Florida and Georgia.So schools would be paying students who lose money for the schools. None of this makes any sense. At this point get rid of all non-revenue sports.
Ironically schools suffered a double whammy when it came to full cost because the Obama administration insisted that full costs be made public. But these big schools wanted to maximize full cost payouts to athletes so they jacked up the full costs. It inflates costs with things that are not paid to universities and have nothing to do with attending a university (I'm surprised they didn't include underwear as a cost of attendance, as though a generation of young people would otherwise go commando if they didn't attend university).The B1G and SEC are the ones that pushed for NIL after "full cost of attendance" wasn't enough to kill off the "lesser" schools like UConn.
We will pay and so will the rest of the Big East.This isn’t good news.
Basically, it will be an eight figure hit to our yearly athletic budget.
State income tax $10/year surcharge for each of the state’s 2 million taxpayers.This is a disaster for UConn.
The NIL booster stuff is still going to go on regardless. Nothing to stop it.
But now schools are going to pay $20m on top of that?
Where is UConn going to find an extra $20m per year?
And how is all that backpay going to happen? Where is it going to come from?
It's a weird concept too. The NLRB has ruled against colleges when it comes to unionization of TAs. No doubt it found exploitation. Are they going to pay every former TA some money into perpetuity?