I had no idea so much was going on regarding proposals about schools sharing revenue with the players, changes to NIL rules, and a proposed cap on revenue sharing.
This article is a good summary IMO. There is a proposed enforcement arm to police NIL funding that breaks the rules. The enforcement will be run by Deloitte and could involve taking cases to court and also using arbitration.
I guess I was asleep as all this was going on, wow.
The p4 are already griping about a revenue shortfall for non-football sports, even though the p4 designed this new system.
The amount of changes to college sports over the last several years has been dizzying.
Yes, but...
"Many believe that the power conferences will use their influence to alter governance and championships as a way to combat any basketball spending disparity."
“What does our future state of being look like that might allow a non-FBS school to outspend [a power conference school] in basketball?” asked one Division I conference commissioner. “I don’t think that future is going to exist. They have the control and they’re going to stop that from happening.”
I already posted this article in another one of the threads, but I thought it was worth posting again, it sort of says some of the same things as the other article in this thread.
Riddle me this one Batman. Feel free to use this regarding meeting expectations.
https://twitter.com/flyercbbfan/status/1909726931139916188?s=12
I doubt that any player commits to us because of this ranking. The league we play in is what they look at, if NIL money is equal.
Re: the WSJ article, I could not find a direct link to the study anywhere on the Googles. If someone can find it please post. The WSJ article didnt explain how Revenue and Enterprise Value are calculated. Accounting is fungible and is equal parts math and art. Many ADs are running very differently in terms of cash. Some resources and overhead at some schools gets handled from the academic side, whereas at other places it falls directly under athletics control. Additionally, its worth noting that only a handful of the schools in the Top-50 of that list are non-football schools.
Narrow the parameters even further to non-football, non-power basketball league, private basketball schools and its easy to see why Dayton has few if any honest comparables in D-I to make apples/apples comparisons. Even XU and Creighton are not great compares because of their vastly better league, exposure, and TV money. They **should** be doing better than us. Dayton basketball has always been an albatross in the sport with a weird one-off dynamic/footprint of fan base, resources, tradition, and facilities that posture like a power conference school but do so under the straitjacket of small-market town, mid-level league, poor TV money, scheduling difficulties, no fat checks from the governor, and the requirement that basketball pay every bill in the entire athletic department.
One clarification Chris, from a CPA, accounting is not fungible, and equal parts math and art. Accounting is very structured, with very strict rules. Now the media people who put this stuff out are mostly art and very little science, and bend accounting rules to fit their narrative.
Enterprise value is the sum of a company's market capitalization (market value) plus any debts, minus cash or cash equivalents on hand. So tell me how they came up with EV for UD, when they are not a public company, and these media phonies have no idea about a private college's cash equivalents, or their EBITDA. Private companies EV can be estimated if one has access to the EBITDA number (earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortization), which the author did not.
So now that I have got you totally in the weeds, let me bring you back out by saying this article is total media horse manure.
Jack, you can move money around in ways that show or hide certain assets based on how they are categorized, how they are paid for, expensed over time, depreciated over time, etc. And if you gave 100 CPAs your tax information to file your taxes, you'd get 100 different taxable liabilities that they'd say you would owe Uncle Sam. Creativity is a central part of accounting. In fact Id say its one of the legs of the stool. I'm not suggesting you can break the math by doing something illegal or add and subtract incorrectly, but the structure of accounting leans heavily on using all the gaps, loopholes, and fine print to legally craft creative ways to leverage assets and liabilities to your best advantage. Some do it better than others. In the case of these schools, they arent using the same accountant with the same creative approach so its not really comparing apples to apples. Its an interesting thought experiment but until I can read the actual study I dont know what to really make of it.
While there are national factors that limit UDs competitive options, within the A10 itself we definitely have comparative advantage. Thats where we need to see more consistent results. That alone would lead to more national attention and the trappings that come from it.
UD and VCU should be doing to the A-10 what Gonzaga and St Mary's are doing to the WCC. Domination and NCAA bids.
UD and VCU should be doing to the A-10 what Gonzaga and St Mary's are doing to the WCC. Domination and NCAA bids.
Lol, VCU is doing their part, but we aren't doing our part.
You are confusing taxes with standard accounting. Taxes are a different game all together. Standard accounting has to do with audits and financial statements. Taxes are about paying the least you can to the governments.
Taxes have nothing to do with this discussion.
Reported on X per 247
8 teams will spend $10M+ on CBB next season.
Reported on X per 247
8 teams will spend $10M+ on CBB next season.
Separating the haves from the have-nots, a lot of schools just can't afford that type of investment.
This is going to turn off a lot of fans IMO, it's all about the $. Massive roster turnover every year is also a turn-off. This all could have big negative consequences in terms of fan interest. Without the fans, you have nothing.
The cap is $22M FOR ALL SPORTS. Most of the football conference havesaid they envision spending 50-70% of their revenue share on football. For a school like UD, I would think this would be more of an opportunity than a set back. We don't have to fund a football program for 105 kids, we can spend most of our money on men's basketball, (which is where it comes from anyway).
The cap is $22M FOR ALL SPORTS. Most of the football conference havesaid they envision spending 50-70% of their revenue share on football. For a school like UD, I would think this would be more of an opportunity than a set back. We don't have to fund a football program for 105 kids, we can spend most of our money on men's basketball, (which is where it comes from anyway).
Agree...this will be an advantageous situation for UD, but the p4 are already complaining about schools like UD having an advantage, so wait and see if the p4 change the rules somehow to hurt non-p4 schools.
The p4 rule the world, they may try to change the rules to help themselves somehow.
These “rules” have largely come out of court cases so the conferences can’t just change them. I saw right before the final four a panel discussion with the four conference presidents from the power four and every single one of them talked about how this stuff needs to be standardized. Assuming they’re not lying the only way you standardize it is by making the players employees, setting up a bargaining unit for the “employees“ and then setting up a management side association for all the member schools. That scenario carries with it a whole host of other problems. Anyone’s guess is as good as mine how this ultimately turns out.
When you see a group (whether it be college power conferences, auto industry, software developers, etc) that explain that some thing needs to be done to 'level the playing field, establish standards, etc' the powers that be are not talking about doing so for everyone, just those who have the most to gain, the better to control their station where they are.
The Marymount Sisters of the Poor in Podunk WY need not apply.
What the P4 conferences want to control/prevent is the poaching of athletes from each other (i.e. Play A goes from SEC to B10, While KY loses Player B to Vandy, and so on.)
The universe of college sports will have to see and feel the impact of all this wild wild west 'system' (money, transfers, big v small conferences) before anything will change to contain or reign in all this crap.
I give it about 3-5 years before sanity takes over. (Fingers crossed)
In the meantime watch an all SEC or B10 final 4 (or a mixture from either conference and an outside blue blood not part of the cabal).
The universe of college sports will have to see and feel the impact of all this wild wild west 'system' (money, transfers, big v small conferences) before anything will change to contain or reign in all this crap.
I give it about 3-5 years before sanity takes over. (Fingers crossed)
In the meantime watch an all SEC or B10 final 4 (or a mixture from either conference and an outside blue blood not part of the cabal).
I am not sure about that, MLB has been really screwed up since the mid 1990's?/early 2000's?, and it shows no signs of getting better. The widespread advent of cable/satellite/streaming tv and each team negotiating their own tv contract seemed to be what created the current enormous wealth gaps.
There may be just be fewer upsets in the regular season and ncaat where the non-p4 beat the p4. The have-nots may just have to accept being minor league prep teams for their best players who then get called up to the majors/p4 after 1-3 years of toiling in the minors.
The p4 hold all the cards, they generate the vast majority of ticket sales/revenue/interest, even if the non-p4 banded together and demanded reform, the p4 could just start their own new division and exclude the non-p4.
I suppose some of the smaller p4's may start objecting to being outspent by the bigger p4's, we will see.
The p4 hold all the cards, they generate the vast majority of ticket sales/revenue/interest, even if the non-p4 banded together and demanded reform, the p4 could just start their own new division and exclude the non-p4.
I suppose some of the smaller p4's may start objecting to being outspent by the bigger p4's, we will see.
https://apnews.com/article/ncaa-house-settlement-3fbd33cc14eec0d39c34d6df67d54ddb
judge might say no-go to roster limits and this might end up at trial - not a settlement. But the most “startling”thing I read is there are 5 conferences who have lawyers plus the NCAA lawyers working on this. Give me a break…I couldn’t find what conferences, but I think if I guessed the original P5 conferences and/or the current P4 + BE it would be correct. No wonder this settlement deal favors these conferences. And the judge is worried current players on rosters are losing their scholarships and place on teams because there are now LIMITS. Somebody at a home office in multiple mid-major conferences needs to get a lawyer to submit a brief that educates a judge who doesn’t understand what is happening at the vast number of colleges/universities because of this crappy settlement agreement. Players aren’t losing scholarships because of limits. The vast majority of NCAA member schools can’t afford this agreement so they are cutting scholarships and whole programs - not increasing them - and that’s why student athletes are being left out in the cold. The judge wants these to be grandfathered in and via attrition, phased out. Who the heck is going to pay for that on top of doling out 25% (?) of revenues up to $20.5 million to pay to play?
The P4s can afford it - and that appears to be the only lens this agreement is being crafted through. That’s on all these other small conferences if they don’t wake up and educate this judge on what is really going on here.
UT moving on from Imaleavin.
Good for them. Sitting out, demanding more money after a signed deal? Yea right kid, hit the F'in road.
https://nil-ncaa.com/volleyball/
this was put together for volleyball - but if you go a little over half way across - you see a schools total revenue sharing estimate. It’s of course a moving target still and subject to change.
I forget what UDs annual athletic budget is. $30M? If 22% of that would be $6.6M. If 95% of that went to football and mens basketball -- in UDs case just mens basketball, that would leave $330,000 in NIL money for all remaining sports at UD.
If UD gets the $20.5M figure (Im not sure if they are alloted this b/c they dont have FBS football???) then that changes some things. But the bottom line is UD has no choice but to throw most of the NIL money at Mens Hoops because its the only profitable sport and the singular sport that pays for all other sports to even exist.
UD has soccer and volleybal which are nationally competitive. Not many other A10 programs have any Olympic sports that are and are also Tier-1 (meaning not rowing or rifle). How many A10 programs are going to be funding themselves to compete with these behemoths? I can see a number of schools cutting back on olympic sports funding and downgrading them to essentially club sports. UD might have to do that as well in some cases. But can we salvage a couple of other bell-cow olympic sports and actually use this moment as a chance to elevate them by simply keeping them alive and funded? Just the attrition of other programs at other schools alone would elevate them.
There will be collateral damage however to hundreds of thousands of student athletes currently enjoying D-I sports. The money is going to get commandeered by big-time football and basketball.
I forget what UDs annual athletic budget is. $30M? If 22% of that would be $6.6M. If 95% of that went to football and mens basketball -- in UDs case just mens basketball, that would leave $330,000 in NIL money for all remaining sports at UD.
If UD gets the $20.5M figure (Im not sure if they are alloted this b/c they dont have FBS football???) then that changes some things. But the bottom line is UD has no choice but to throw most of the NIL money at Mens Hoops because its the only profitable sport and the singular sport that pays for all other sports to even exist.
UD has soccer and volleybal which are nationally competitive. Not many other A10 programs have any Olympic sports that are and are also Tier-1 (meaning not rowing or rifle). How many A10 programs are going to be funding themselves to compete with these behemoths? I can see a number of schools cutting back on olympic sports funding and downgrading them to essentially club sports. UD might have to do that as well in some cases. But can we salvage a couple of other bell-cow olympic sports and actually use this moment as a chance to elevate them by simply keeping them alive and funded? Just the attrition of other programs at other schools alone would elevate them.
There will be collateral damage however to hundreds of thousands of student athletes currently enjoying D-I sports. The money is going to get commandeered by big-time football and basketball.
yup. We all hate it, but yup. And if push comes to shove…the big schools will save football before they save basketball IMO.
I understand that the kids who play in non-revenue producing sports work just as hard and are just as dedicated as the kids who play football or basketball, but if this is a revenue share, or whatever they want to call it, doesn't sanity dictate that the revenue is shared with the people who are responsible for its production? I use the WNBA as an example. There is a constant complaint about the salaries of the WNBA players relative to the salaries in the NBA, but nobody ever brings up the fact that the WNBA has run at least a $10M loss every year it has existed and they are estimated to have a $40M-$50M loss for last year. If I worked for a company that lost that much money every year, I would consider myself lucky to have a salary period. Conversely, the NBA had revenue of over $11B last year. Essentially, the WNBA is a tax shelter for the NBA.
At the risk or upsetting fans of volleyball, soccer, etc... I think the men's basketball program's share of the revenue should be like 90% of the total available, that is approximately the percentage of the total athletic revenue produced by MBB.
I understand that the kids who play in non-revenue producing sports work just as hard and are just as dedicated as the kids who play football or basketball, but if this is a revenue share, or whatever they want to call it, doesn't sanity dictate that the revenue is shared with the people who are responsible for its production? I use the WNBA as an example. There is a constant complaint about the salaries of the WNBA players relative to the salaries in the NBA, but nobody ever brings up the fact that the WNBA has run at least a $10M loss every year it has existed and they are estimated to have a $40M-$50M loss for last year. If I worked for a company that lost that much money every year, I would consider myself lucky to have a salary period. Conversely, the NBA had revenue of over $11B last year. Essentially, the WNBA is a tax shelter for the NBA.
At the risk or upsetting fans of volleyball, soccer, etc... I think the men's basketball program's share of the revenue should be like 90% of the total available, that is approximately the percentage of the total athletic revenue produced by MBB.
you are not upsetting me. Happens everyday in business. Things get cut because they aren’t profitable. Nobody likes it. It’s just reality. Nobody asked for the current mess…the courts dictated it and Congress has done nothing to find a solution or pass a law. So universities are left with coming up with something just to survive. When I was in high school - Title IX was enacted. Boys sports like wrestling got cut because schools had to be compliant. Nobody liked it. Sports will get cut or like Chris said, basically run as a club program. That’s a reality. And what worries me is I’m confident volleyball will make the cut. But how many other A10 schools will keep volleyball? I guess travel budgets for volleyball might get cut - number of matches each season cut. And it probably won’t be hard to do because the conference will have less schools playing volleyball.
i also worry this court decision isn’t done. August is coming sooner than you realize. Next season just might be a free-for-all for all sports with no guardrails.
I understand that the kids who play in non-revenue producing sports work just as hard and are just as dedicated as the kids who play football or basketball, but if this is a revenue share, or whatever they want to call it, doesn't sanity dictate that the revenue is shared with the people who are responsible for its production? I use the WNBA as an example. There is a constant complaint about the salaries of the WNBA players relative to the salaries in the NBA, but nobody ever brings up the fact that the WNBA has run at least a $10M loss every year it has existed and they are estimated to have a $40M-$50M loss for last year. If I worked for a company that lost that much money every year, I would consider myself lucky to have a salary period. Conversely, the NBA had revenue of over $11B last year. Essentially, the WNBA is a tax shelter for the NBA.
At the risk or upsetting fans of volleyball, soccer, etc... I think the men's basketball program's share of the revenue should be like 90% of the total available, that is approximately the percentage of the total athletic revenue produced by MBB.
I had no idea that the WNBA was a big $ loser, sorry, but the WNBA argument about wanting equal pay doesn't hold water in light of the fact that the league loses $.
Here is how I understand the math and proposed settlement - to be determined and it will probably change.
1. Schools don’t have to share anything with student athletes if the so decide. But obviously that has major negative recruiting issues. They can determine what percentage between 0% and 22%.
2. If they decide to share - I think there are 2 “caps”. 22% of revenues - not profits. And you can’t go over 20.5 million. So 20.5 million might only be 14% of a big school’s revenues - that school cannot dole out 22%. The rich get richer. They are swimming in cash right now.
3. So if UD runs on around $30 million, the most they can dole out is 22% - around $6.6 million. That leaves about $23 million to now run the Department of Athletics. That may not be enough. So they may not have a $6.6 million budget to pay athletes.
4. I don’t know where an NIL Collective fits in all of this. Dayton 6th will probably have to stay in business. If they can raise $3,000,000 every year and Athletics matches it - that’s 10% of the annual budget available to pay athletes with a combination of UD and Dayton 6th - and that may be something UD can do - but will still have to make cuts.
5. Additionally, I assume moving the Dayton 6th revenue stream into Athletic is not the way to go - because it would be considered revenue to the program. I haven’t thought it through enough nor do I know the specifics, but it seems like Dayton 6th paying athletes - they can payout 100% of the $3,000,000. Folding that into athletics and they I think it becomes subject to the 22% cap - so only $660,000 could be paid out.
6. And once the final agreement gets determined - then schools start figuring out how to structure stuff to work around everything. So if a school allowed an MIL Collective to “fundraise” by tacking on a donation to every ticket sold - that would be funds that could be distributed 100% - and not subject to the 22% cap. So can these big school collectives give out an additional $10 million to athletes ON TOP OF the $20.5 million cap? Probably. The courts have already ruled you can’t put restrictions on these athletes’ ability to earn off their NIL.
Conclusion…it’s still a mess and it will be for an along time.
This is my best guess - so if you know otherwise - please chime in.
The collectives are all still going to be around, that is how the big boys will pay more than 22%, on a brighter side, it also may be how non-revenue producing sport athletes still make some money. I assume if I were a big donor who was a supporter of the VB program I could tell Dayton 6th, I want my money to go toward VB NIL, maybe I'm wrong. I know I have read that at bigger schools, big donors are basically saying I will pay $X for Y player, so I assume that directing your donation is permissible.
I did a quick Google and it seems like donations to the athletic department will NOT count as revenue for purposes of revenue share. So if that is true, in an interesting twist it seems like they are telling us "don't give your money to the school, instead give it to the shady guys who are working out these backroom deals with players and agents." No offense to Dayton 6th, but you know what I am saying. I keep telling myself that the big schools are going to spend most of their money on football and there will be relative parity in basketball but we will have to see how that turns out.
From Neil to ticket holders. Guess no one can say ticket holders can't set expectations since their actual dollars are now going directly to athletes. No different than pro sports now.
Dear Flyer Fans,
I write to you with another update regarding the legal and regulatory matters around student-athlete compensation and the impact on our basketball programs moving forward. The long-running class action lawsuit is nearing final settlement approval. On April 23, the Court indicated that it can grant final approval of the settlement agreement, with the exception of the immediate implementation of the roster limits. The Court gave the parties fourteen days to make modifications of the settlement agreement to address the roster size concerns.
Regardless of the final details of the settlement, the shift toward direct compensation from institutions to student-athletes is no longer a matter of speculation. It has arrived. This brings radical transformation to the economic model of college sports, a model that is reshaping the game.
Under the terms of the settlement, the total value of new payments and benefits from colleges to athletes is expected to exceed $20 billion over the next 10 years. It is estimated that Division I college athletes will now be eligible to receive benefits collectively approximating 51% of future athletic revenues—comparable to professional sports.
The settlement allows institutions to make payments to student-athletes up to a capped amount (currently about $21 million per school, per year across sports). The cap will be re-evaluated every few years and has a 4% automatic annual escalator. The cap is based on a formula of the average Power 5 school’s revenue, so major college football revenue accounts for a majority of that cap. The settlement aims to limit fraudulent payments from boosters and fans that circumvent the cap, but skepticism around interpretation and enforcement of that principle remains.
With or without the settlement, direct revenue sharing is here. We will continue our strong partnership with Dayton 6th as a marketing agency but UD will hold the primary contractual relationship with the players. Dayton 6th may engage in NIL agreements with student-athletes but only for a valid business purpose to promote goods and services provided to the general public with payments at fair market value rates.
There’s no shortage of media coverage right now. Below are two good articles for reference if you’d like to learn more about the settlement:
College basketball's portal recruiting hits unthinkable levels of financial chaos
NCAA settlement to address roster limit concerns
I acknowledge the natural questions around what our total team compensation might look like and how that will align with our competitive goals. At this stage, it’s still too early to determine an exact figure, but we are under no illusions about the scale of investment required, which is well into the millions.
Our strategy to build our compensation pool and reallocate costs will be grounded in four primary areas:
Ticket and event related revenue
Commercial and external partnerships
Modify the funding and cost structure of sports other than basketball
Philanthropy for all sports
Ticketing Strategy
In our first seating program adjustment in seven years, the 2025-26 seating donation structure will appear on your May invoices. For most seats in the lower arena, the 2025-26 modification will be less than the 2017 change tied to our arena project and fall approximately in the 7-12% range in the first two years, with an escalator in year 3. Seats in the 300 level will increase $25 each, and starting this season, seats in the 400 level, where an Arena Seating Program contribution was not previously required, will now be part of the program at $25 per seat or just over a dollar per game.
The incremental funds are targeted solely on this new basketball environment. This is not funding administrative costs or non-basketball operations. These revenues are being reinvested directly into the core of the players' share.
Embracing What Lies Ahead
You are the heartbeat of our program, and we never take that for granted. This season didn’t end the way we expected, but we press ahead with the reality of where the sport is headed.
We know the current structure in college sports is not ideal. We hope the settlement is a step in the right direction. We also know the transfer portal and the nature of transactional player movement can be frustrating. We wish it looked different. But it doesn’t.
We are choosing to face this moment head-on and find opportunity in the disruption. We have the strength of our history, strength of our fans and our community. We’ve done it before, and we’ll do it again.
Now, more than ever, we ask you to stay on this journey with us into the new era of college sports.
Sincerely,
Neil Sullivan
Vice President and Director of
Dayton 6th may engage in NIL agreements with student-athletes but only for a valid business purpose to promote goods and services provided to the general public with payments at fair market value rates.
Funny...I guess they, meaning the NCAA, leagues, schools and courts, are admitting it was all just pay to play the last couple of years.
I just hope this is enforceable. The supreme court was pretty clear that they view the NIL to be somewhat unrelated to the school and NCAA. I agree 100% that it should not just be pay to play but in the world the rest of us live in, if someone wants to give me $100K I don't have to prove that I "earned" it. I am not sure how this could be any different. It sucks...but freedom.
If you want to do something like this I am pretty sure the only way to do it would be to make all the players employees, let them unionize and then put it in a collective bargaining agreement, that would be a mess and take forever. It is bad enough when it is 32 teams in the pros, imagine doing it for 300+ teams with 15 guys on each team.
I mean as a consumer I guess you always have the right to demand that someone do something or you will not consume their product, just as anyone does. I just don't think you have the leverage you think you have. I know the PSLs and the season tickets aren't cheap but the people who have the ear of the AD and actually have some sway, are giving amounts that make the ticket prices comparable to a cup of coffee.
I am guessing nobody is realistically going to cancel their 100 level season tix. You will never get them back and then when we go to the Final Four you would never forgive yourself for missing out on that season. That's just the way we think as fans. I mean, I am still paying my student loans for my UD education and yet I am donating money to the school, (and will continue to do so), how stupid and/or crazy is that? I don't realistically see things hitting a critical mass where enough fan support goes away that the system implodes. Even if it did, I am guessing the players aren't going to say, "OK we'll go back to playing for free." The fan support is certainly always going to be there for the big schools and unfortunately, I think currently that is the only consideration being made.
I don't disagree that most of us in in the lowers won't give up seats, but there is less spending by those who will hold them. I miss more games now than I have in the past and the new way only puts even more disinterest into play. I know I'm not the only one as I have had this same conversation with many lifetime fans.
The apathy is in play, merch, concessions, travel, UD events, and additional donations are reduced. If the upper arena turns into some of the BG years (dare I say JOB years) there is hundreds of thousands of Gameday revenue missing due to no shows. UD runs a tight financial ship regardless of revenue. Money in and money out if they want to compete across the board. You are correct that I don't amount to taking a leak in the ocean as an individual, but large portions of fans do. Let's say UD does 200k in gameday revenue. Reduce that by any percentage over the entire season and someone will take notice.
Eventually the whales will get tired of it too. When the iron is hot the whales are rewarded with opportunities for experiences. Charters, events, etc. I don't care how much money I have to burn with UD, I'm not flying to Olean to watch a middle of the pack UD team just because I want the gladhanding that comes with being a whale. Do the whales reconsider donating to the Arena renovation had this lull and pay to play scenario played out then with UD not playing well? What is their ROI, or are they just being nice? Some want to be seen. Some do it for traditional support. There are many reasons.
Eventually the non-generational ST holders will make a decision. Yes 98 plus percent of the lowers will remain sold, but those 400 sell outs will eventually go away...and with that comes the secondary income. If what you say is true, and the little guys don't matter in the scheme of things, then there wouldn't be a need to charge license fees for the entire facility. They do need the money or the 75k plus in additional revenue from the 400s wouldn't be asked for. UD needs every cent they can get....which means that every less beer, shirt, hat, Pretzel, and pizza sold at the games matter too.
I should make clear that I don't disagree with you overall point that this is all horrible for the game but it isn't as simple as that. I am just pointing out that generally we as Americans are willing to put up with a lot of BS to be entertained. I also want to make it clear that I am not some big donor, I am not. But I don't think this stuff is going to reverse itself. It may well prove to be unsustainable and if it does, I think it will find its level but I just don't know what that is. I don't think college basketball is going to cease to exist, but I do think schools are going to look for revenue streams anywhere they can find them.
Let me ask this, if UD drew a line in the sand and said, "we aren't going to pay our players" what would happen? I am guessing it would be a quicker demise because the product on the floor would hit the bottom pretty quickly. I don't like that this is where we are, but it is and if we want to continue to be relevant in DI men's basketball we will have to figure out how to compete, regardless of how distasteful any of us find it.
Well for me…I have donated direct to volleyball over the years. When Dayton 6th first came out I checked out their website. It was a couple years ago. Had zero women as part of their organization. That didn’t settle well with me. I’m sure the men are highly qualified, but It was like 2022 or so for crying out loud. There should have been a woman involved. I’m sure the Dayton community has many women highly qualified and who love sports.
The website also said it was for only men’s and women’s bball at that time. I was technically ok with that. They can set the program up to support who they want to support. But I was immediately thinking we needed to start an organization to build NIL funds for UDVB. Then a little later - when school started they did have VB players merch in the players’ store online. And I have no problem handing Coach Horsmon a check when I see him - only for VB. But, I would have made a donation to Dayton 6th too, but now you know why I have not.
I’m going to add a Title IX comment here. I was thinking about it. Probably should have pulled up the court order and read it, but I did not. Roster Limits are not the same as Scholarships in past years. Not the same number. Not the same meaning. But there will still be schools covering the costs of tuition, room & board, books, etc for some or all of their players.
I’m not sure revenue sharing paychecks affects Title IX. It’s about an educational opportunity, the core purpose of a University. As long as a school can balance that part of the money, for example for the 2025-26 school year we funded/granted 73.5 men’s full athletic grants and 73.5 women’s full athletic grants I would think they should be Title XI compliant.
My thinking is there has always been other sources of money available to athletes. My niece had a full-ride tied to Title XI. She also was awarded a Presidential Scholarship. That was on top of her full-ride. Her coach told her she could use it to pay for a summer school class. I THINK in the past there have been Graduate Students on athletics teams who may not have had full-rides, but got academic grad scholarships. Not 100% sure on that one. But I’m pretty confident there have been some very smart walk-ons who had academic funding. That was not tied to Title IX. Very little inside information here, but I think these examples are close.
Probably get challenged in court like all of this, but Title IX might not be a big issue in this new world order as long as schools continue to balance what we used to call scholarships. I do think it will play a part in program cuts if schools have to drop sports to survive. Mens-Womens Basketball can balance. Mens-Womens Soccer can balance. Volleyball - and what? You get my point.
Athletic scholarships have been separate from "athletic opportunities" - coaching, travel, roster spots. This is one of the reason that big schools like Texas have 105 athletic opportunities for football and then sponsor women's rowing and soccer to even it out. Women's rugby teams (not clubs) are growing specifically because it is an easy way to offer 30+ athletic opportunities.
What I can see the future legal argument being is "well if you invested in facilities and marketing on an equal level, women's [volleyball or any other sport] could bring in more revenue for revenue sharing.
Regardless, as someone pointed out, this is the wild west.
Complete fallacy. Use the WNBA for example. The product on the floor determines the value. Seats in arenas didn't earn money. Caitlin Clark did. No amount of outside influence moves the needle other than the entertainment value.
But the outside influences can certainly contribute to the entertainment value. For instance if some booster paid $5M to bring the #1 recruit in the nation to UD, I think that might generate some buzz. As you pointed out above in your response to me, the cumulative effect of a lot of little things should not be discounted (nor should the effect of big things).
It'll be interesting to see if they are serious about cracking down on NIL payments being used as a way to exceed the 22% limit.
I thought NIL would disappear after this court case, but it may hang around as a way to break the rules and go over the 22% limit.
Well the good news is someone found and posted contributions don’t count as revenue. But I think there are ways to flex some money coming in as more revenue for UD Athletics. Time will tell. But I believe we have a smart AD. He had a group that figured out how to maximize first the RPI then the Quad system. They will figure out the apex of the money coming in to maximize budgets, operating costs and revenue sharing and stay solvent. The final structure is probably close to what is being reported, so they are probably already on it.
I still wonder if this wouldn’t be better handled by a financially savvy GM, but Neil seems to think he’s up to the task. More power to him if so.
Im surprised UD waited so long to require seasonal contributions from the 400-level ticket holders. To me everyone in the Arena needed to have skin in the game even if it was a smaller amount based on their ticket price and location. I think this change was long overdue. Its not like the fans in the lower bowl have not been carrying their weight.
In my opinion this is the second transformative moment in UD Athletics. Consider it "New Realities 2.0" that builds off Ted Kissell's 1.0 unveiling when he took over the AD, got us in the A10, began emphasizing a broad-based competitiveness in all sports, and told us we had traded on our good name and past success for the very last time. Iinn 2025, it's a new event horizon and we don't like it any better. Like 1.0, 2.0 is gonna cost a lot of buckerooskies and require a different level of fortitude to get through it. But there was opportunity in 1.0 and there can be as well in 2.0.
I'm working on a multi-part article outlining the broad spectrum of fallout and conversation about NIL and the future of college athletics as a whole. There are so many facets to it, details, unchartered waters, regulatory unknowns, and more court battles yet to be fought and won about things like taxation, Title IX, and antitrust. I will try to get some insight from those affected at UD and elsewhere. Ive already reviewed a lot of testimony, hearings, and press conferences from others and will roll those perspectives in as well.
In the meantime, if you have specific comments, questions, or concerns you want to share that might make the article, post them here and let me know if you are a UD grad (yr), how long you've been a ticket holder, and what's foremost on your mind about UD athletics, UD athletes, specific sports, NIL, conference affiliation, TV revenue, NIL collectives, competitiveness, moral or ethical concerns/hazards, portal, tampering, etc. Ive even had a few fans tell me they see a national divorce as the best outcome to separate the P4 from everyone else. Have at it.
I’m a 1979 UD grad. Once was but no longer am a season ticket-holder (now retired and living in Virginia), but a few questions for Chris:
1) Asked this above your post: Are they considering hiring a GM? Not a figurehead like Curry or Shaq, but someone with real financial chops who can help Neil steer the athletic department through the ramifications of NIL, player pay, fundraising, etc.
2) How secure are the Olympic sports beyond basketball and soccer (men’s and women’s) and volleyball?
3) Is it time to consider naming rights (and other corporate sponsorships) for the arena?
4) Is the A-10 doing enough to be sustainable — TV rights, revenue sharing, etc. — or is it Big East or bust?
5) How will UD parse out its NCAA settlement share?
Heard this morning on tv - and I’m sorry I do not have a name of who was being interviewed - but someone said that since the congress is so slow and hasn’t really done anything - there is a grass roots push for an Elective Order from Trump. The guy laid out some valid points. He said last year 4300 football player entered the portal. Said $1.6 million handed out. I don’t know if that was for football only or all sports. Made a very organized comparison between pro sports and the free-for-all in college sports. Things like multi-year contracts athletes have to honor. Non-guaranteed income, bonus money, payments set up with a signing bonus and then on a per game basis - not an up-front check for the whole amount which apparently is happening for some.
I think we all can see an Executive Order will be another lawsuit, but there are going to be lawsuits no matter how this plays out. The lawyers always win.
And the lawyers are the only ones who win.
