"A federal judge has approved terms of a sprawling $2.8 billion antitrust settlement that will upend the way college sports have been run for more than a century. In short, schools can now directly pay players through licensing deals..."
AP article:
https://apnews.com/article/ncaa-house-settlement-aa3169056e8194aeebf34495641bce0b
Sounds like NIL, but being funneled directly through the schools. There is still a limit, $20.8 million in the first year, so the cheating will continue unabated. (How this can be reconciled with Ohio State's $100 million OL is unexplained.) ILR students take note: the lawyers will be getting $475 to $725 mil. Say an even billion when all the money finds its final destination.
On a darker note, if that is possible:
"But some schools are increasing costs to fans through "talent fees," concession price hikes and "athletic fees" added to tuition costs."
I am hopeful this settlement will have little effect on the sports in which Cornell is nationally relevant, such as hockey, lacrosse, and wrestling.
There's a bit of a catch-22 here: schools are either (1) power 4 football schools, meaning they have a ton of revenue to throw around, but to stay competitive in football (and basketball), they'll need to spend almost the entirety of the $20.8m on those sports or (2) non-power 4 schools, meaning their athletic departments currently break even or lose money, so they have no substantial revenue to share. While in theory a school could siphon their football revenues to hockey, I doubt we will see much of this at all.
The bigger effect on hockey from settlement will probably be roster limits (currently 26) and the ability to give out scholarships up to that limit, which many college hockey programs likely cannot afford.
Yeah this crushes my dreams of another basketball sweet 16 but seems to be pretty beneficial for hockey.
Quote from: TroyfanOn a darker note, if that is possible:
"But some schools are increasing costs to fans through "talent fees," concession price hikes and "athletic fees" added to tuition costs."
I think that is a lighter note. May the NC$$ self-immolate by nakedly chasing $$$, turning to pass that onto fans, and having the fans take a hike.
College sports plays in different key than the pros. The soulless fucks in Bristol don't know it. The Vampire Squid MBAers don't know it. The college presidents have apparently forgotten it, or more likely this batch never knew, since they are almost never actual academics, but mere donor fluffers. But they are all about to find out.
Re: "The bigger effect on hockey from settlement will probably be roster limits (currently 26)
By my hand count we are showing 31 for 2025. Does this limit not impact non scholarship schools?
To check that theory I looked at Clarkson and by gosh there are 26 players listed. I looked at a few other scholarship schools but they do not have official 2025 rosters listed although USCHO conjectures rosters of a bit over 26. Maybe the Ivy limit is 31 and someone had to go.
since Cornell didnt sign on to spend the money the roster limit is different for them.
Someone needs to do a Ted Talk on what is happening in college sports. For me at least, it is close to impossible to fully understand or follow without dedicating a non-reasonable amount of time and energy.
Quote from: CU2007Someone needs to do a Ted Talk on what is happening in college sports. For me at least, it is close to impossible to fully understand or follow without dedicating a non-reasonable amount of time and energy.
Many of the athletes don't understand, either.
https://apnews.com/article/ncaa-settlement-7aab7a3f3ee0a045b1cf1ce69e029b45
Football and basketball are the drivers of the whole thing, obviously. Everything else and all of women's sports is up for grabs.
I don't expect colleges like Michigan to cut back on men's hockey. But what about Alaska-Anchorage, Alabama-Birmingham? Or even BC, which has big football and basketball aspirations? What about Quinnipiac? Can they be big in hockey and basketball? What about lacrosse at Duke or Maryland or, more uncertainly, Penn St.?
All the edges I see look like they're cutting in Cornell's favor with regard to men's hockey and maybe lacrosse. Football and basketball should maintain their current level of lack of success. Cornell is committed to women's sports and will find a way.
Quote from: TroyfanQuote from: CU2007Someone needs to do a Ted Talk on what is happening in college sports. For me at least, it is close to impossible to fully understand or follow without dedicating a non-reasonable amount of time and energy.
Many of the athletes don't understand, either.
https://apnews.com/article/ncaa-settlement-7aab7a3f3ee0a045b1cf1ce69e029b45
Football and basketball are the drivers of the whole thing, obviously. Everything else and all of women's sports is up for grabs.
I don't expect colleges like Michigan to cut back on men's hockey. But what about Alaska-Anchorage, Alabama-Birmingham? Or even BC, which has big football and basketball aspirations? What about Quinnipiac? Can they be big in hockey and basketball? What about lacrosse at Duke or Maryland or, more uncertainly, Penn St.?
All the edges I see look like they're cutting in Cornell's favor with regard to men's hockey and maybe lacrosse. Football and basketball should maintain their current level of lack of success. Cornell is committed to women's sports and will find a way.
From our perspective, nothing is going to change as a direct result of all of this. Cornell and the Ivies are not opting into the settlement.
But athletics is a zero sum game, so the question is whether the new rules help or hurt our opponents.
1. Who is opting into the settlement? The power 4 schools, so all of the big 10, ASU, and BC, automatically opt in. Then a smattering of other schools like Denver. I'm not aware of any ECAC schools opting in?
2. How does opting in affect their ability to compete against us for recruits/transfers? This is the big question. I mean, if a school can offer money to a recruit, that gives them an advantage over us.
3. The other effect of opting in is that schools can offer more scholarships but are also bound by roster limits. In hockey, they can now give 26 scholarships (up from 18) but cannot have more than 26 players on a roster (though current players in excess of 26 are grandfathered in). If more scholarships get offered, that hurts us, because again that's a competitive advantage other schools have against us. But the roster limits benefit us, because we will be able to carry more players than the schools limited to 26. (This year we have a huge 31-player roster.)
(2) and (3) are uncertain because they're very expensive. The vast majority of schools can't afford to revenue share or to give out many more scholarships (which would likely be spread across many sports and have to include an equal number of additional women's scholarships per Title IX). For those big 10 schools with tons of athletic revenue, how much will they devote to hockey?
I don't quite understand the quoted post's "All the edges I see look like they're cutting in Cornell's favor with regard to men's hockey and maybe lacrosse." Is the idea that these new rules create so much chaos at other schools, or perhaps fewer resources going towards hockey, that it on net hurts other hockey programs relative to Cornell?
North Dakota now going to opt in, most likely - as I'd said before. Decision had nothing to do with revenue capability.
https://www.grandforksherald.com/sports/college/as-deadline-to-decide-receives-extension-und-athletics-leaning-toward-opting-in-to-house-settlement
paywalled ^
Quote from: TroyfanQuote from: CU2007Someone needs to do a Ted Talk on what is happening in college sports. For me at least, it is close to impossible to fully understand or follow without dedicating a non-reasonable amount of time and energy.
Many of the athletes don't understand, either.
https://apnews.com/article/ncaa-settlement-7aab7a3f3ee0a045b1cf1ce69e029b45
Football and basketball are the drivers of the whole thing, obviously. Everything else and all of women's sports is up for grabs.
I don't expect colleges like Michigan to cut back on men's hockey. But what about Alaska-Anchorage, Alabama-Birmingham? Or even BC, which has big football and basketball aspirations? What about Quinnipiac? Can they be big in hockey and basketball? What about lacrosse at Duke or Maryland or, more uncertainly, Penn St.?
All the edges I see look like they're cutting in Cornell's favor with regard to men's hockey and maybe lacrosse. Football and basketball should maintain their current level of lack of success. Cornell is committed to women's sports and will find a way.
"current level of lack of success" :`-( don't do that to them LOL
Quote from: BearLoverI don't quite understand the quoted post's "All the edges I see look like they're cutting in Cornell's favor with regard to men's hockey and maybe lacrosse." Is the idea that these new rules create so much chaos at other schools, or perhaps fewer resources going towards hockey, that it on net hurts other hockey programs relative to Cornell?
As far as I understood it, yes - other schools will dedicate resources to football and other sports, so their hockey (and lax) may fall to the wayside.
Quote from: stereaxQuote from: BearLoverI don't quite understand the quoted post's "All the edges I see look like they're cutting in Cornell's favor with regard to men's hockey and maybe lacrosse." Is the idea that these new rules create so much chaos at other schools, or perhaps fewer resources going towards hockey, that it on net hurts other hockey programs relative to Cornell?
As far as I understood it, yes - other schools will dedicate resources to football and other sports, so their hockey (and lax) may fall to the wayside.
From my perspective it's so hard to say. Let's say Michigan puts $13m of the $20.5m into football, $3m into men's basketball, $5.5m into everything else. That could still result in a substantial amount going towards hockey which results in those players getting paid more than they are now, which on net helps their program. Schools like Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, BC won't let their hockey programs fall by the wayside.
I'm not too worried about programs like Denver, WMU, Quinnipiac because those schools just have so little revenue to throw around.
North Dakota is a wild card, their athletic revenue is overall very small but they're hockey crazed so they'll surely pump whatever they can into their hockey program.
Even if many of these schools end up putting just $500K yearly into paying hockey players, that could sway some recruits/transfers.
I'm also curious about BU and Northeastern, they're relatively serious academic schools with no football team. It seems like it would be very hard for them to find anything substantial to devote to hockey. (Are these schools opting in?)
Why does a school put money into a sport? One theoretical reason is for the good of the social and intellectual development of the student. I'll pause for the laughter to subside. Andy White has been dead 106.5 years.
Schools anticipate a ROI on every dollar. In some (most?) cases they are investing in a storefront to make back revenue directly generated by gate, merch, rights & assorted effluvia of The Fan Experience. For the bigger actors in either winning or prestige: branding. In the Ivies that's to keep the snob alumni conveyor belt moving, to prime sales of indulgences, er, the donor network. For state universities and large private research institutions it's to build blind public loyalty for taxpayer handouts and, generally, socializing cost while privatizing profit.
Sports are the marketing arm of more profit centers than religion now. Indeed it is just a portion of the entertainment industry which supplanted it to monetize wish fulfillment and create and exploit granfaloons. (Your anomie-money joke here.)
Schools for which the expected value of the above has dropped below zero due to the new model will stop funding and force private donors to make good on the expenses. Cornell will probably protect all funding because profit-blindness and support for women is part of their branding strategy. The only way they will stop is if a contrary part of that strategy comes into conflict with it. And Allah don't skate.
Quote from: BearLoverQuote from: TroyfanQuote from: CU2007Someone needs to do a Ted Talk on what is happening in college sports. For me at least, it is close to impossible to fully understand or follow without dedicating a non-reasonable amount of time and energy.
Many of the athletes don't understand, either.
https://apnews.com/article/ncaa-settlement-7aab7a3f3ee0a045b1cf1ce69e029b45
Football and basketball are the drivers of the whole thing, obviously. Everything else and all of women's sports is up for grabs.
I don't expect colleges like Michigan to cut back on men's hockey. But what about Alaska-Anchorage, Alabama-Birmingham? Or even BC, which has big football and basketball aspirations? What about Quinnipiac? Can they be big in hockey and basketball? What about lacrosse at Duke or Maryland or, more uncertainly, Penn St.?
All the edges I see look like they're cutting in Cornell's favor with regard to men's hockey and maybe lacrosse. Football and basketball should maintain their current level of lack of success. Cornell is committed to women's sports and will find a way.
From our perspective, nothing is going to change as a direct result of all of this. Cornell and the Ivies are not opting into the settlement.
But athletics is a zero sum game, so the question is whether the new rules help or hurt our opponents.
1. Who is opting into the settlement? The power 4 schools, so all of the big 10, ASU, and BC, automatically opt in. Then a smattering of other schools like Denver. I'm not aware of any ECAC schools opting in?
2. How does opting in affect their ability to compete against us for recruits/transfers? This is the big question. I mean, if a school can offer money to a recruit, that gives them an advantage over us.
3. The other effect of opting in is that schools can offer more scholarships but are also bound by roster limits. In hockey, they can now give 26 scholarships (up from 18) but cannot have more than 26 players on a roster (though current players in excess of 26 are grandfathered in). If more scholarships get offered, that hurts us, because again that's a competitive advantage other schools have against us. But the roster limits benefit us, because we will be able to carry more players than the schools limited to 26. (This year we have a huge 31-player roster.)
(2) and (3) are uncertain because they're very expensive. The vast majority oTf schools can't afford to revenue share or to give out many more scholarships (which would likely be spread across many sports and have to include an equal number of additional women's scholarships per Title IX). For those big 10 schools with tons of athletic revenue, how much will they devote to hockey?
I don't quite understand the quoted post's "All the edges I see look like they're cutting in Cornell's favor with regard to men's hockey and maybe lacrosse." Is the idea that these new rules create so much chaos at other schools, or perhaps fewer resources going towards hockey, that it on net hurts other hockey programs relative to Cornell?
Yes. stereax got it right and you do, too.
To take you Michigan example: Jason Milroe (Alabama) was making $10 million. $20.8 million is not nearly enough to run even a Wisconsin football program let alone a Michigan or Ohio State. Unless I'm way off base, this settlement is going to force some really difficult decisions upon these schools.
Which makes me think I probably am way off base.
Quote from: BearLoverI'm also curious about BU and Northeastern, they're relatively serious academic schools with no football team. It seems like it would be very hard for them to find anything substantial to devote to hockey. (Are these schools opting in?)
Northeastern opted in. I don't think BU has decided yet
Quote from: TroyfanTo take you Michigan example: Jason Milroe (Alabama) was making $10 million. $20.8 million is not nearly enough to run even a Wisconsin football program let alone a Michigan or Ohio State. Unless I'm way off base, this settlement is going to force some really difficult decisions upon these schools.
Which makes me think I probably am way off base.
the only part you got wrong, is that those schools (and/or their boosters) will continue to pay players under the table. It will be even more invisible than before, because $20.8 million will be "above board." But no one expects all the revenue to actually get reported to this cockamamie clearinghouse.
Quote from: adamwQuote from: TroyfanTo take you Michigan example: Jason Milroe (Alabama) was making $10 million. $20.8 million is not nearly enough to run even a Wisconsin football program let alone a Michigan or Ohio State. Unless I'm way off base, this settlement is going to force some really difficult decisions upon these schools.
Which makes me think I probably am way off base.
the only part you got wrong, is that those schools (and/or their boosters) will continue to pay players under the table. It will be even more invisible than before, because $20.8 million will be "above board." But no one expects all the revenue to actually get reported to this cockamamie clearinghouse.
I could be wrong, but I thought the clearinghouse was supposed to vet NIL payments, not the revenue sharing. All $600+ NIL payments must now be reported to the clearinghouse, which must approve them as being for a "valid business purpose." That should force things more above board than before, even if donors will still be looking for ways to skirt this requirement.
Quote from: BearLoverQuote from: adamwQuote from: TroyfanTo take you Michigan example: Jason Milroe (Alabama) was making $10 million. $20.8 million is not nearly enough to run even a Wisconsin football program let alone a Michigan or Ohio State. Unless I'm way off base, this settlement is going to force some really difficult decisions upon these schools.
Which makes me think I probably am way off base.
the only part you got wrong, is that those schools (and/or their boosters) will continue to pay players under the table. It will be even more invisible than before, because $20.8 million will be "above board." But no one expects all the revenue to actually get reported to this cockamamie clearinghouse.
I could be wrong, but I thought the clearinghouse was supposed to vet NIL payments, not the revenue sharing. All $600+ NIL payments must now be reported to the clearinghouse, which must approve them as being for a "valid business purpose." That should force things more above board than before, even if donors will still be looking for ways to skirt this requirement.
my understanding has been that the revenue share and NIL would be one and the same, since it would all come in house. could be wrong about that however.
either way, though, yeah, good luck on getting everyone (anyone?) to report the NIL payments. there's already been a few news articles about how ADs are calling the whole thing a joke, and no better than when things started.
Most of the people posting here are Cornell. A few Clarksons and RPI's. That's a pretty smart bunch. (You're welcome.)
So, that there is such variety in the opinions expressed here on how this settlement will really work I'm sure is mirrored in the athletics offices of the effected universities. We can speculate all we want but even those whose business it is to know this stuff have different opinions.
But one thing is certain: donors will find a way to give money to athletes beyond what the settlement allows. If you've ever had a leak in your roof, you know what I mean: Water always wins.
Does anybody here understand how NIL or revenue sharing gets taxed?
Quote from: BearLoverDoes anybody here understand how NIL or revenue sharing gets taxed?
its compensation. why wouldnt it be taxed like any other ordinary income?
Quote from: abmarksQuote from: BearLoverDoes anybody here understand how NIL or revenue sharing gets taxed?
its compensation. why wouldnt it be taxed like any other ordinary income?
Depending on your biases, people tend to favor taxing various kinds of income differently. Tips. Overtime. Capital gains.
Quote from: David HardingQuote from: abmarksQuote from: BearLoverDoes anybody here understand how NIL or revenue sharing gets taxed?
its compensation. why wouldnt it be taxed like any other ordinary income?
Depending on your biases, people tend to favor taxing various kinds of income differently. Tips. Overtime. Capital gains.
Not exactly "biases." Tips & Overtime because workers who are paid this way are thought to be lower paid, and therefore should not be taxed. OTOH, some people believe (and many economists claim) that "capital" (actually investment) is economically "productive"; therefore, they favor lower tax rates for gains from the sale of such "capital."
In other words, people have logical reasons for favoring certain tax policies regarding earnings. I'm not saying they're good reasons, but they're usually not arbitrary biases.
Now, what considerations would one consider to justify specific policies regarding NIL & revenue sharing? How about making tuition deductible because a college athlete must be enrolled as a "student" to be paid NIL & revenue sharing?
Quote from: SwampyQuote from: David HardingQuote from: abmarksQuote from: BearLoverDoes anybody here understand how NIL or revenue sharing gets taxed?
its compensation. why wouldnt it be taxed like any other ordinary income?
Depending on your biases, people tend to favor taxing various kinds of income differently. Tips. Overtime. Capital gains.
Not exactly "biases." Tips & Overtime because workers who are paid this way are thought to be lower paid, and therefore should not be taxed. OTOH, some people believe (and many economists claim) that "capital" (actually investment) is economically "productive"; therefore, they favor lower tax rates for gains from the sale of such "capital."
In other words, people have logical reasons for favoring certain tax policies regarding earnings. I'm not saying they're good reasons, but they're usually not arbitrary biases.
Now, what considerations would one consider to justify specific policies regarding NIL & revenue sharing? How about making tuition deductible because a college athlete must be enrolled as a "student" to be paid NIL & revenue sharing?
Some economists think labor, at least some labor, is productive too. Yet people engage in it despite having to pay full fare on taxes. (Some economists even feel a bit of moral squeamishness that capital should be taxed more less than labor. Although PhD economists have usually received enough inoculatation to be immune to this humor.)
But I can definitely see tuition deductibility becoming a thing. e.g., Cornell doesn't exempt its athletes from tuition. If some were to get NIL,tuition could be a legitimate cost of doing business. Non-college expenses like travel, business meals,qualify. Why not tuition?
But then, couldn't that be true for non-athletes? Couldn't income from a summer job be offset by tuition paid for related course work?
Maybe Herman Cain was on to something.