NCAA Proposing New College Sub-division

[AtlAppMan]

What this describes IMO is clearly a new professional league. They need to call it out and there would never be a fair way for the non-professional NCAA divisions to compete against these teams.

It would be NFL lite against college amateur league. Would make no sense to play those games under this model.

Those teams should leave the NCAA to leave no doubt there is no connection to normal college athletics and this new professional league.

And therein lies the problem.

1. How could the NCAA require paid employees of the University also be students?
2. How could they cap the number of years that an athlete could play? Why couldn't an athlete also become a Professor and continue playing football? Why are they any different from, say, dining hall staff? They don't cap how long someone can work at the dining hall, how can they do that to paid employees playing football?
3. How can they comply with Title IX requirements if the universities are directly involved in payment? Wouldn't they have to pay female athletes just as much as male athletes? That also means pulling revenue from football to fund all other programs and their salaries.
4. Then who is to say those paid employees can be capped, required to go to class, etc?

If they are paid employees, they need not be students. Any requirement dictating that could easily be challenged in court.

This proposal doesn't make them paid employees of the university. It simply allows the university to pay for NIL rather than going thru a collective. It doesn't violate Title IX because half of the athletes receiving the minimum of $30,000 have to be female athletes. As proposed, this doesn't affect their status as students. While the proposal gives the participating schools some autonomy, they are still a part of the NCAA and would have to abide by all other NCAA rules.

I disagree with you on regarding whether they are paid employees or not. I think it is mincing words to say they are not. The spirit of this entire response from NCAA is to create this new category of athletics into what is effectively a professional league. One can argue all day long that it is not but it looks and feels like a body that pays the players to play the sport. In any reasonable definition that is a professional/commercial entity. That is totally contrary to what has traditionally been defined as student athletes.

My point earlier is that if they do this, there is NO WAY that group of teams should be allowed to compete with traditional scholarship based teams. It will NEVER be anywhere near fair. I would not put the SEC up against NFL teams now and pretend that it is a fair game. One may be curious as to an outcome but it is not something that could ever be construed as a fair game and should never be in the future.

[ericsaid]

What this describes IMO is clearly a new professional league. They need to call it out and there would never be a fair way for the non-professional NCAA divisions to compete against these teams.

It would be NFL lite against college amateur league. Would make no sense to play those games under this model.

Those teams should leave the NCAA to leave no doubt there is no connection to normal college athletics and this new professional league.

And therein lies the problem.

1. How could the NCAA require paid employees of the University also be students?
2. How could they cap the number of years that an athlete could play? Why couldn't an athlete also become a Professor and continue playing football? Why are they any different from, say, dining hall staff? They don't cap how long someone can work at the dining hall, how can they do that to paid employees playing football?
3. How can they comply with Title IX requirements if the universities are directly involved in payment? Wouldn't they have to pay female athletes just as much as male athletes? That also means pulling revenue from football to fund all other programs and their salaries.
4. Then who is to say those paid employees can be capped, required to go to class, etc?

If they are paid employees, they need not be students. Any requirement dictating that could easily be challenged in court.

This proposal doesn't make them paid employees of the university. It simply allows the university to pay for NIL rather than going thru a collective. It doesn't violate Title IX because half of the athletes receiving the minimum of $30,000 have to be female athletes. As proposed, this doesn't affect their status as students. While the proposal gives the participating schools some autonomy, they are still a part of the NCAA and would have to abide by all other NCAA rules.

Just playing devil's advocate here, this isn't directed to you.

1. If the University is paying the players, they are either going to be considered independent contractors or direct employees, most likely. As an independent contractor, they will be subject to year to year contracts by which the University can and will make stipulations, many of which are likely to be able to be challenged in court should something come up.

2. The minimum payment wouldn't concern me as much as the maximum. Other than the value provided by the student-athlete to the university, are female basketball players really going to sit by, taking their $30,000 (a sizeable amount for a women's basketball player) while men are bringing in $500,000? Unlikely. Furthermore, this may induce someone to challenge whether or not someone is an employee of the university and then what right the university, or NCAA, has to dictate the maximum length of employment

3. They would have to abide by NCAA rules? Why? They don't already. Tampering exists on a scale that is an existential threat to probably 80% of FBS membership from year to year. There is a rule against that but it isn't followed.

My take is that if University's are paying athletes for their services, whether through revenue sharing or other means, they will run into Title IX lawsuits (too many to count) and lawsuits regarding pension funds, the ability to fire, benefits, education, and most importantly the length of eligibility.

The eligibility rule is something I'm surprised hasn't been challenged already. Why five years to play four? Why not six to play five? Why not ten to play nine? If someone is a student, or now an employee, why does it matter?

My personal wish is that there is a split. Let the Top 28 or so programs take their crap and not let the door hit them on the way out. App isn't competing with those schools for recruits in most sports anyway. A player may get poached every now and then but it doesn't matter. It'll make it all the sweeter when an FBS - AA (new version of 1-AA) beats one of the top level programs. Bring back sensibility to scheduling, competing, recruiting, etc. and provide championship access to more.

What's wrong with all of this is that the NCAA comprises much more than football yet football seems to be the primary, if not only, consideration. App State alone has shown in the two major sports, in just the past two years, that money doesn't buy wins. Texas A&M and Auburn can attest to that.

[ericsaid]

What this describes IMO is clearly a new professional league. They need to call it out and there would never be a fair way for the non-professional NCAA divisions to compete against these teams.

It would be NFL lite against college amateur league. Would make no sense to play those games under this model.

Those teams should leave the NCAA to leave no doubt there is no connection to normal college athletics and this new professional league.

And therein lies the problem.

1. How could the NCAA require paid employees of the University also be students?
2. How could they cap the number of years that an athlete could play? Why couldn't an athlete also become a Professor and continue playing football? Why are they any different from, say, dining hall staff? They don't cap how long someone can work at the dining hall, how can they do that to paid employees playing football?
3. How can they comply with Title IX requirements if the universities are directly involved in payment? Wouldn't they have to pay female athletes just as much as male athletes? That also means pulling revenue from football to fund all other programs and their salaries.
4. Then who is to say those paid employees can be capped, required to go to class, etc?

If they are paid employees, they need not be students. Any requirement dictating that could easily be challenged in court.

This proposal doesn't make them paid employees of the university. It simply allows the university to pay for NIL rather than going thru a collective. It doesn't violate Title IX because half of the athletes receiving the minimum of $30,000 have to be female athletes. As proposed, this doesn't affect their status as students. While the proposal gives the participating schools some autonomy, they are still a part of the NCAA and would have to abide by all other NCAA rules.

I disagree with you on regarding whether they are paid employees or not. I think it is mincing words to say they are not. The spirit of this entire response from NCAA is to create this new category of athletics into what is effectively a professional league. One can argue all day long that it is not but it looks and feels like a body that pays the players to play the sport. In any reasonable definition that is a professional/commercial entity. That is totally contrary to what has traditionally been defined as student athletes.

My point earlier is that if they do this, there is NO WAY that group of teams should be allowed to compete with traditional scholarship based teams. It will NEVER be anywhere near fair. I would not put the SEC up against NFL teams now and pretend that it is a fair game. One may be curious as to an outcome but it is not something that could ever be construed as a fair game and should never be in the future.

I say let the boys play. App beat Texas A&M and their tens of millions in collective cash. App beat Auburn in basketball with their millions in collective monies. At the end of the day, recruiting will still be a crapshoot and a separation would allow G8 teams to develop and mature their players. You'd end up with 21 and 22 year olds playing 18 and 19 year olds. Doesn't matter if those guys are 5 star recruits or not.

The interesting part is going to be when someone decides to challenge how a paid employee can be ineligible to be employed based on how many years they've been in school. It's arbitrary already. Whenever you add salary to the mix, it's just not going to hold up.

[AppYosef!]

With most of the more successful teams in the old I-AA moving into FBS this was just a matter of time. The big boys don’t want the little guys playing on their field…especially when they are beating the big boys more often. When the Delaware Blue Hens announced their plans to move up that was the final straw. It will separate the G5 teams away from the P4 again.

[ASUTodd]

With most of the more successful teams in the old I-AA moving into FBS this was just a matter of time. The big boys don’t want the little guys playing on their field…especially when they are beating the big boys more often. When the Delaware Blue Hens announced their plans to move up that was the final straw. It will separate the G5 teams away from the P4 again.

This was proven when FSU got left out of the CFP. If FSU can get the shaft, imagine what they will do to the rest of us.....

[t4pizza]

What a joke.... If this isnt racketeering i dont know what is...............

Racketeering requires a criminal enterprise that is made up of individuals (or entities) that commit at least 2 predicate offense (crimes) in furtherance of the criminal enterprise. In this scenario, there are no crimes being committed so no racketeering. It is just a way to let the haves have all they want and the ability to govern the have nots as the NCAA deems fit. I don't like it, but its not racketeering.

[hapapp]

What this describes IMO is clearly a new professional league. They need to call it out and there would never be a fair way for the non-professional NCAA divisions to compete against these teams.

It would be NFL lite against college amateur league. Would make no sense to play those games under this model.

Those teams should leave the NCAA to leave no doubt there is no connection to normal college athletics and this new professional league.

And therein lies the problem.

1. How could the NCAA require paid employees of the University also be students?
2. How could they cap the number of years that an athlete could play? Why couldn't an athlete also become a Professor and continue playing football? Why are they any different from, say, dining hall staff? They don't cap how long someone can work at the dining hall, how can they do that to paid employees playing football?
3. How can they comply with Title IX requirements if the universities are directly involved in payment? Wouldn't they have to pay female athletes just as much as male athletes? That also means pulling revenue from football to fund all other programs and their salaries.
4. Then who is to say those paid employees can be capped, required to go to class, etc?

If they are paid employees, they need not be students. Any requirement dictating that could easily be challenged in court.

This proposal doesn't make them paid employees of the university. It simply allows the university to pay for NIL rather than going thru a collective. It doesn't violate Title IX because half of the athletes receiving the minimum of $30,000 have to be female athletes. As proposed, this doesn't affect their status as students. While the proposal gives the participating schools some autonomy, they are still a part of the NCAA and would have to abide by all other NCAA rules.

I disagree with you on regarding whether they are paid employees or not. I think it is mincing words to say they are not. The spirit of this entire response from NCAA is to create this new category of athletics into what is effectively a professional league. One can argue all day long that it is not but it looks and feels like a body that pays the players to play the sport. In any reasonable definition that is a professional/commercial entity. That is totally contrary to what has traditionally been defined as student athletes.

My point earlier is that if they do this, there is NO WAY that group of teams should be allowed to compete with traditional scholarship based teams. It will NEVER be anywhere near fair. I would not put the SEC up against NFL teams now and pretend that it is a fair game. One may be curious as to an outcome but it is not something that could ever be construed as a fair game and should never be in the future.

Keep in mind they aren’t paid a salary. The money is passed through a trust fund and the school decides when the athletes can access the money.

[t4pizza]

Imagine limiting opportunities for student athletes, this is the path they've chosen.

Not sure it limits opportunities, it may but without reading the entirety I am not sure. I would not be surprised if this is just the NCAA's way of giving the big dogs their bone so they will go quietly and let the NCAA govern the others as they see fit (more stringent NIL regulations, etc). I could easily see the athlete still being able to get outside NIL in addition to what the school provides, otherwise it is still unfair trade and violative of Sherman Anti Trust act. I bet the athletes at the highest level will have all the benefits, scholarship, cost of attendance, school NIL, Private NIL, etc. The NCAA knows that litigation is very expensive and if the top dogs get what they want, the rest of us probably can't finance the years long fight. Plus even if we did, since they would now have a division that gives it all to the student athlete, they could argue the school itself elects not participate in that divisions so it is not the NCAA actions that are violative of anti trust laws. I really think this is the NCAA clearing the field so nobody can challenge their rules over all BUT the largest most powerful schools.

There will be less overall athletic scholarships 10 years from now if something like this passes. The top athletes will have their nest eggs, but the bottom tier will be left without opportunities.

I think you are probably right for what will become the highest level. Seems like that level will just start concentrating on revenue sports only. BUT, there will still be opportunities at lower level schools. Sure, UF and the rest of the SEC may not offer gymnastics or swimming, but those athletes should still find homes in smaller schools that will still offer them. Wrestling is a perfect example of what I mean, over the past 30 years or so the number of Div 1 schools that sponsor wrestling teams has significantly decreased to 78 schools but wrestling is actually one of the fasted growing sports in lower division schools (4 teams being added to Div 2 this year alone). So there are still opportunities for kids who want to wrestled college, just not as many at the division 1 level. This type of shift shouldn't affect how schools like App field teams but it is easy to see how it could become a scapegoat to justify cutting scholarships (like covid on our soccer team).

[mike87]

Talk about first world problems. wow.

[bcoach]

This is nothing more than a rial balloon. It is sent up to see if there can be a split and the NCAA can still hold on. In my opinion in the end when the big boys split they will not allow the NCAA be part of it. My best guess is taht it will also be FB only.

[Cro-Magnon App]

Imagine limiting opportunities for student athletes, this is the path they've chosen.

I don’t think we can call then student athletes anymore. It’s no longer about the education, it about the money. Always has been. Now, it is out on the open.

[canes_mj]

This is nothing more than a rial balloon. It is sent up to see if there can be a split and the NCAA can still hold on. In my opinion in the end when the big boys split they will not allow the NCAA be part of it. My best guess is taht it will also be FB only.

Good take...I hadn't thought of the NCAA holding on to its governance aspect. I was just focused on them trying to control the NIL and the players money. I hope you're right.

[canes_mj]

Title IX will make this interesting. “ A level playing field”.

Yeh it will. But seriously women athletes are big winners in this if it goes through...already get tuition paid for by playing a sport that loses money every year for athletics....now get 120K in a trust on top of that.

[Stonewall]

Title IX will make this interesting. “ A level playing field”.

Yeh it will. But seriously women athletes are big winners in this if it goes through...already get tuition paid for by playing a sport that loses money every year for athletics....now get 120K in a trust on top of that.

I don't see where the money will come from unless you are at the very top.The law of unintended consequences will rule the day.Maybe even the night...

[/\PP ST/\TE GRAD 09]

Falling more and more out of love with college football. Can see in 5 years me watching it about as often as I watch NFL games. Watch App every week, other than that an occasional prime time match up if it's a good one. Players transferring non stop, the popularity contest (Colorado) taking up air time the entire first month, inconsistency with the playoffs, players sitting out bowl games...list goes on. You've even got starting QBs who did well this year transferring now. It's lame.


I don't mind it so much in basketball because they actually value the Cinderella and mid-major schools, and transfer portal has helped even some games. More upsets, better games to watch..it's like pick up ball at the park. Various people moving teams but still get good games.

[spacemonkey]

What this describes IMO is clearly a new professional league. They need to call it out and there would never be a fair way for the non-professional NCAA divisions to compete against these teams.

It would be NFL lite against college amateur league. Would make no sense to play those games under this model.

Those teams should leave the NCAA to leave no doubt there is no connection to normal college athletics and this new professional league.

And therein lies the problem.

1. How could the NCAA require paid employees of the University also be students?
2. How could they cap the number of years that an athlete could play? Why couldn't an athlete also become a Professor and continue playing football? Why are they any different from, say, dining hall staff? They don't cap how long someone can work at the dining hall, how can they do that to paid employees playing football?
3. How can they comply with Title IX requirements if the universities are directly involved in payment? Wouldn't they have to pay female athletes just as much as male athletes? That also means pulling revenue from football to fund all other programs and their salaries.
4. Then who is to say those paid employees can be capped, required to go to class, etc?

If they are paid employees, they need not be students. Any requirement dictating that could easily be challenged in court.

This proposal doesn't make them paid employees of the university. It simply allows the university to pay for NIL rather than going thru a collective. It doesn't violate Title IX because half of the athletes receiving the minimum of $30,000 have to be female athletes. As proposed, this doesn't affect their status as students. While the proposal gives the participating schools some autonomy, they are still a part of the NCAA and would have to abide by all other NCAA rules.

This is the part that I think could hurt the rich p4...if they pay their male Football and Basketball players millions they will have to pay their females millions. I don't think the women will settle for men making millions and women making $30,000. They will want equal.

[hapapp]

What this describes IMO is clearly a new professional league. They need to call it out and there would never be a fair way for the non-professional NCAA divisions to compete against these teams.

It would be NFL lite against college amateur league. Would make no sense to play those games under this model.

Those teams should leave the NCAA to leave no doubt there is no connection to normal college athletics and this new professional league.

And therein lies the problem.

1. How could the NCAA require paid employees of the University also be students?
2. How could they cap the number of years that an athlete could play? Why couldn't an athlete also become a Professor and continue playing football? Why are they any different from, say, dining hall staff? They don't cap how long someone can work at the dining hall, how can they do that to paid employees playing football?
3. How can they comply with Title IX requirements if the universities are directly involved in payment? Wouldn't they have to pay female athletes just as much as male athletes? That also means pulling revenue from football to fund all other programs and their salaries.
4. Then who is to say those paid employees can be capped, required to go to class, etc?

If they are paid employees, they need not be students. Any requirement dictating that could easily be challenged in court.

This proposal doesn't make them paid employees of the university. It simply allows the university to pay for NIL rather than going thru a collective. It doesn't violate Title IX because half of the athletes receiving the minimum of $30,000 have to be female athletes. As proposed, this doesn't affect their status as students. While the proposal gives the participating schools some autonomy, they are still a part of the NCAA and would have to abide by all other NCAA rules.

This is the part that I think could hurt the rich p4...if they pay their male Football and Basketball players millions they will have to pay their females millions. I don't think the women will settle for men making millions and women making $30,000. They will want equal.

I read an article that it would cost Arkansas nearly $8m to cover half their 400+ athletes. This proposal won't stop the bidding war for top flight talent so schools still will have to shell out far more than the minimum $30,000. So, that's the floor. I think there will be a few P5 schools that will struggle to meet this requirement.

[Bigdaddyg1]

So is a big school going to give that walk on sitting at the end of the bench in football or basketball $30k? This is already crazy but will get completely out of control. There is simply no point to most of this.

[AppDub]

What this describes IMO is clearly a new professional league. They need to call it out and there would never be a fair way for the non-professional NCAA divisions to compete against these teams.

It would be NFL lite against college amateur league. Would make no sense to play those games under this model.

Those teams should leave the NCAA to leave no doubt there is no connection to normal college athletics and this new professional league.

And therein lies the problem.

1. How could the NCAA require paid employees of the University also be students?
2. How could they cap the number of years that an athlete could play? Why couldn't an athlete also become a Professor and continue playing football? Why are they any different from, say, dining hall staff? They don't cap how long someone can work at the dining hall, how can they do that to paid employees playing football?
3. How can they comply with Title IX requirements if the universities are directly involved in payment? Wouldn't they have to pay female athletes just as much as male athletes? That also means pulling revenue from football to fund all other programs and their salaries.
4. Then who is to say those paid employees can be capped, required to go to class, etc?

If they are paid employees, they need not be students. Any requirement dictating that could easily be challenged in court.

This proposal doesn't make them paid employees of the university. It simply allows the university to pay for NIL rather than going thru a collective. It doesn't violate Title IX because half of the athletes receiving the minimum of $30,000 have to be female athletes. As proposed, this doesn't affect their status as students. While the proposal gives the participating schools some autonomy, they are still a part of the NCAA and would have to abide by all other NCAA rules.

I disagree with you on regarding whether they are paid employees or not. I think it is mincing words to say they are not. The spirit of this entire response from NCAA is to create this new category of athletics into what is effectively a professional league. One can argue all day long that it is not but it looks and feels like a body that pays the players to play the sport. In any reasonable definition that is a professional/commercial entity. That is totally contrary to what has traditionally been defined as student athletes.

My point earlier is that if they do this, there is NO WAY that group of teams should be allowed to compete with traditional scholarship based teams. It will NEVER be anywhere near fair. I would not put the SEC up against NFL teams now and pretend that it is a fair game. One may be curious as to an outcome but it is not something that could ever be construed as a fair game and should never be in the future.

I say let the boys play. App beat Texas A&M and their tens of millions in collective cash. App beat Auburn in basketball with their millions in collective monies. At the end of the day, recruiting will still be a crapshoot and a separation would allow G8 teams to develop and mature their players. You'd end up with 21 and 22 year olds playing 18 and 19 year olds. Doesn't matter if those guys are 5 star recruits or not.

The interesting part is going to be when someone decides to challenge how a paid employee can be ineligible to be employed based on how many years they've been in school. It's arbitrary already. Whenever you add salary to the mix, it's just not going to hold up.

All makes good sense. My only question is would the upper league still play the G8's so we could see the 21 and 22 year olds play the 18 and 19 year Olds? Not sure scheduling "lower"tier schools would continue.

[NeersBy90]

"Schools in the new subdivision would also gain control of decision-making around scholarship limits and countable coaches, the NCAA's way of handing major conference programs the freedom to increase the limits or do away with them altogether."

This is what scares me... If the Bamas and Ohio States of the world can do away with scholarship and countable coach limits, what's going to keep them from hoarding players/coaches with life changing money just to keep them away from everyone else under the guise of wait your turn?