House vs. NCAA

[bke1984]

The impact on non revenue sports is going to be significant for a few reasons. Most have already pointed to the AA deficits which will put pressure on the departments to cut these programs that eat money. But I also believe one thing that will happen almost immediately is Title IX’s application to sports will be challenged. Right now the sports are considered educational activities. I think now that you pay them a salary there’s a pretty big argument that they are no longer educational activities. If that excludes football and basketball then there’s a pretty good argument that you could eliminate all non revenue sports entirely and just claim you don’t offer any educational athletic programs at all. Or maybe just keep baseball and volleyball for instance.

In the end I think this kills big time college athletics, but it will die slowly. Colleges will no longer fund the AAs, donors will shift spend to tickets and merchandise (which won’t be dollar-for-dollar, attendance will die as ticket prices rise in attempt to fill the gap, and then broadcasts will slowly disappear when interest fades. Programs with big debts used to fund capital projects will go bankrupt and cease to exist once this happens. The big programs that are left may have some small division they continue to play in, but the vast majority of the country won’t care anymore and will follow pro sports instead.

Oh well, it was fun while it lasted.

 

[Vespidae]

In the end I think this kills big time college athletics, but it will die slowly. Colleges will no longer fund the AAs, donors will shift spend to tickets and merchandise (which won’t be dollar-for-dollar, attendance will die as ticket prices rise in attempt to fill the gap, and then broadcasts will slowly disappear when interest fades.

I think just the opposite will happen. Big programs have big donors, comfortable writing hundred million dollar checks. Smaller programs, those with significant debt, and fewer donors will collapse. In turn, this will drive up the remaining teams’ media value.

Media value will pay players. Conferences will toss scholarship limits and replace with roster limits. I do think you will see a massive move to D2 or D3 as some schools refuse to pay based on economics.

I’m not sure this is in the best interests of schools, or students, but it is what it is.

 

[awbuzz]

NIL has truly turned into a s*** storm, mainly because it has become more than it was intended.

 

[bke1984]

I think just the opposite will happen. Big programs have big donors, comfortable writing hundred million dollar checks. Smaller programs, those with significant debt, and fewer donors will collapse. In turn, this will drive up the remaining teams’ media value.

Media value will pay players. Conferences will toss scholarship limits and replace with roster limits. I do think you will see a massive move to D2 or D3 as some schools refuse to pay based on economics.

I’m not sure this is in the best interests of schools, or students, but it is what it is.

Media value is driven by viewership. If a fan’s team ceases to exist in college football do you think that same fan will watch the remaining teams? And if you’re left with 16 teams that always won then at least half of those will have losing records from the point on. Will they still watch?

Part of what made college football incredible is that virtually everyone was included at some level. They had some local team (in many cases VERY local) that they cheered for - not a pro team in a big city. I think people will not identify with it as much.

 

[g0lftime]

Do players still have to be enrolled as students? Or, just playing for the school?

It might ultimately come to total school ownership as club competition with non student players. Seems to be moving that way.
At some point I would rather see schools split from the current NIL system and reform their own association with less emphasis on the enormous amounts of money being thrown around to buy players. The presidents of the universities need to decide whether they want to be an academic institution or a minor league for the pros. I have no problem with the players getting compensation as part of their GOA but with a contract. The way court decisions are going recently, it may be impossible to suppress outside influence of the monster that NIL has become.

 

[yeti92]

Media value is driven by viewership. If a fan’s team ceases to exist in college football do you think that same fan will watch the remaining teams? And if you’re left with 16 teams that always won then at least half of those will have losing records from the point on. Will they still watch?

Part of what made college football incredible is that virtually everyone was included at some level. They had some local team (in many cases VERY local) that they cheered for - not a pro team in a big city. I think people will not identify with it as much.

This seems the most likely to me. I already don't care about the NFL (or professional sports in general), and I know over the last few years I've already gone from watching college football all day Saturday to basically just watching Tech with the occasional other game of interest. If Tech bows out, I really don't have any interest in spending hours watching other teams I have no affiliation with and would likely drop watching football altogether.

I would expect that is true for a lot of fans, so while you may shift some fans over to the remaining teams, your total viewership is going to drop massively. As you mentioned, the teams that are used to winning but now find themselves on the bottom will likely start to lose fans as well. Maybe just a little, maybe a lot.

I'd be curious to know if anyone has done research on what percentage of viewership for FSU-LSU or some equivalent game, is from those team's fanbases vs other teams fanbases who have tuned in to watch. I'd imagine a significant portion is the latter - fans of other ACC or SEC teams, fans of other teams in contention for the CFP, etc. You kill those fans' teams, and most will likely not be tuning in to watch FSU-LSU anymore either.

 

[Vespidae]

This seems the most likely to me. I already don't care about the NFL (or professional sports in general), and I know over the last few years I've already gone from watching college football all day Saturday to basically just watching Tech with the occasional other game of interest. If Tech bows out, I really don't have any interest in spending hours watching other teams I have no affiliation with and would likely drop watching football altogether.

I would expect that is true for a lot of fans, so while you may shift some fans over to the remaining teams, your total viewership is going to drop massively. As you mentioned, the teams that are used to winning but now find themselves on the bottom will likely start to lose fans as well. Maybe just a little, maybe a lot.

I'd be curious to know if anyone has done research on what percentage of viewership for FSU-LSU or some equivalent game, is from those team's fanbases vs other teams fanbases who have tuned in to watch. I'd imagine a significant portion is the latter - fans of other ACC or SEC teams, fans of other teams in contention for the CFP, etc. You kill those fans' teams, and most will likely not be tuning in to watch FSU-LSU anymore either.

That data already exists. Because of the way the CFP has been run, most fans (not you, specifically, but generally) now have two teams they pull for. Why? Because by the end of September, if your primary team has 2+ losses, they are out of the hunt. So rather than rake leaves and sit out the rest of the seasons, fans pull for Team B.

 

[roadkill]

Not a lot of reason to think they’d not have to be students AFAICT.

The schools/teams are VERY aware of the PR advantages the student part gives them.

The vast majority of the players will be making small amounts with no further pro prospects so I can’t see a huge push coming from that side.

Legally the student restriction also seems pretty safe, and it’s been the skepticism of the judicial system driving other changes.

To expand on this, collusion to restrict income (NCAA rules) has been the issue that ran afoul of the law. While it's conceivable that new lawsuits could claim that forcing players to spend time in class unduly restricts their income opportunities, I think the enrolled student/progress toward a degree requirements will stand for now. I could also imagine a lawsuit claiming that roster size limits unduly restrict income opportunities, but a counterargument would be that unlimited rosters dilute individual player value. So as long as the NCAA is involved in college football, I believe players will need to be students in good standing.

Now if the NCAA agrees to hand off football governance to another entity as they have proposed, anything could happen. Regardless, any governing organization would know that rules promoting some semblance of parity (or at least the appearance of it), across a given tier of teams, are necessary for the sport to thrive.

 

[yeti92]

That data already exists. Because of the way the CFP has been run, most fans (not you, specifically, but generally) now have two teams they pull for. Why? Because by the end of September, if your primary team has 2+ losses, they are out of the hunt. So rather than rake leaves and sit out the rest of the seasons, fans pull for Team B.

Link to said data?

I have other teams I pull for like Auburn, Tennessee, and Florida, but their importance to me is waaaaaay less than Tech, and if Tech stopped playing I would not keep watching just to see those teams.

 

[RonJohn]

To expand on this, collusion to restrict income (NCAA rules) has been the issue that ran afoul of the law. While it's conceivable that new lawsuits could claim that forcing players to spend time in class unduly restricts their income opportunities, I think the enrolled student/progress toward a degree requirements will stand for now. I could also imagine a lawsuit claiming that roster size limits unduly restrict income opportunities, but a counterargument would be that unlimited rosters dilute individual player value. So as long as the NCAA is involved in college football, I believe players will need to be students in good standing.

Now if the NCAA agrees to hand off football governance to another entity as they have proposed, anything could happen. Regardless, any governing organization would know that rules promoting some semblance of parity (or at least the appearance of it), across a given tier of teams, are necessary for the sport to thrive.

Even this settlement agreement has collusion to restrict the payments to the players. Isn't it something like $20 million per year per school?

The athletes are going to be declared employees at some point. What will need to happen is to have a player's union negotiate a contract with whatever the governing body is. That way it will be a collective bargaining agreement between players and the athletic governing body. I am not saying that is what I want for college athletics. However, there is no other way that I can think of that any limits can be placed on athletic departments with regard to employment and compensation. Getting together and placing arbitrary limits on number of employees, details of the employment contracts, and maximum salaries and salary pools is antitrust collusion if you don't have such a collective bargaining agreement between the labor and the employees.

 

[stinger78]

Link to said data?

I have other teams I pull for like Auburn, Tennessee, and Florida, but their importance to me is waaaaaay less than Tech, and if Tech stopped playing I would not keep watching just to see those teams.

This is me, and I believe a lot of others. College football to me is first, GA Tech, second all the others, third, a few teams that I truly dislike. If GT is not there, I have no reason to watch.

 

[bigrabbit]

Last I checked, and, to be fair, it was probably more than five years ago, WPI graduates were in the top ten in average salary, several places ahead of Tech.

I wouldn’t trade diplomas, would you?
Didn’t think so.

 

[yeti92]

I wouldn’t trade diplomas, would you?
Didn’t think so.

I wouldn't, but I would expect WPI graduates to say the same.

 

[roadkill]

Even this settlement agreement has collusion to restrict the payments to the players. Isn't it something like $20 million per year per school?

Not sure of the details, but I think the settlement applies to current and former players back to 2016, as well as new players going forward. To collect on the settlement, S-As will probably need to sign an agreement not to sue for additional benefits. A player could conceivably opt out if they felt they could do better on their own. I don't think the settlement itself would be considered collusion since the NCAA is basically giving the suing parties what they asked for. I could be wrong, I'm not a lawyer.

I do agree that athletes are likely to be considered employees soon, since once they start taking payments they would meet the IRS definition.

 

[Ramble1885]

I don’t think you would have mid season transfers cuz I would expect contracts would be signed if they become employees and/or not students at all anymore.

ooh good point.

 

[Tommy_Taylor_1972]

Not sure of the details, but I think the settlement applies to current and former players back to 2016, as well as new players going forward. To collect on the settlement, S-As will probably need to sign an agreement not to sue for additional benefits. A player could conceivably opt out if they felt they could do better on their own. I don't think the settlement itself would be considered collusion since the NCAA is basically giving the suing parties what they asked for. I could be wrong, I'm not a lawyer.

I do agree that athletes are likely to be considered employees soon, since once they start taking payments they would meet the IRS definition.

Could they be IRS form 1099 contract employees?

 

[RonJohn]

Not sure of the details, but I think the settlement applies to current and former players back to 2016, as well as new players going forward. To collect on the settlement, S-As will probably need to sign an agreement not to sue for additional benefits. A player could conceivably opt out if they felt they could do better on their own. I don't think the settlement itself would be considered collusion since the NCAA is basically giving the suing parties what they asked for. I could be wrong, I'm not a lawyer.

I do agree that athletes are likely to be considered employees soon, since once they start taking payments they would meet the IRS definition.

From ESPN:

The settlement terms state the NCAA will provide more than $2.7 billion to former athletes over the next decade for back damages related to the association's name, image and likeness restrictions, according to sources. The conferences also agreed to create a forward-looking system that will allow schools to pay roughly $20 million per year in permissive revenue sharing to athletes.

The $20 million per year is not related to past athletes, it is to pay current/future athletes. However, that is not negotiated with the current athletes as a whole. Even if you get current athletes to sign a contract to receive part of the $20 million from their school, it is still collusion among the schools and conferences to arbitrarily limit payments to players. Players that the schools themselves will be paying as employees. (or athletic departments of the schools) It isn't a collective bargaining agreement, it is a forced situation to the current and future players. I don't know much about employment law, but I think that if you want to have multiple employers agree to maximum compensation, then you need a collective bargaining agreement with the employees to do that.

 

[DeepSnap]

Could they be IRS form 1099 contract employees?

When will the IRS, states, counties and cities start collecting income taxes on these folks? And with California in the mix of ACC schools now, they have some bizarro tax laws for athletes coming in to California to play for pay.

N-I-L & now athletic schollies, room & board, tutoring, swag, transportation to & from game sites, et al, should all be taxed.

Going to be some very interesting unintended consequences from this nonsense.

Makes being a walk-on with HOPE or ROTC or National Merit or whatever all the more attractive.

This may be what finally kills it for this old TechEx.

 

[AlabamaBuzz]

For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

I do feel sorrowful about the state of college football. I do feel like the days of GT football might be numbered at this point.

 

[Vespidae]

When will the IRS, states, counties and cities start collecting income taxes on these folks? And with California in the mix of ACC schools now, they have some bizarro tax laws for athletes coming in to California to play for pay.

N-I-L & now athletic schollies, room & board, tutoring, swag, transportation to & from game sites, et al, should all be taxed.

Going to be some very interesting unintended consequences from this nonsense.

Makes being a walk-on with HOPE or ROTC or National Merit or whatever all the more attractive.

This may be what finally kills it for this old TechEx.

It gets even more interesting. If athletes are considered employees, then state ethics guidelines and laws take effect. Not every state has the same rules on ethics, so a new battleground will emerge. It's particularly interesting for GA as the law mentions "Learning Management Systems" specifically. So it looks like not only can GA universities pay, but ... the GA legislature will have to issue rules.

Governor's Code of Ethics

State employees are expected to demonstrate the highest level of professional integrity as they conduct their daily business on behalf of the citizens of Georgia.

doas.ga.gov