I think the issue is that OP is reading it different than everyone else.
* The NCAA currently requires FBS schools to provide a minimum of 210 per year. You will not be sanctioned as an FBS school if you provide fewer than 210 scholarships.
* I think OP is reading the House "expanded scholarships" as an increase on this minimum amount.
* The University of Oregon values an Athletic Scholarship at 25K for bookkeeping purposes.
* $10,000,000/$25,000=400
* The way OP is reading it, they believe the House Settlement is going to increase the required minimum number to some number above 400 scholarships. Say, 610 as 610 would be "up to $10 million increase" (above the minimum of 210)
So if the House Settlement says "P4 schools must carry at least 610 scholarships" then the non-rev sports will be completely protected. And schools like Oregon will have to expand.
----------
Everyone else here is reading it like this:
"If you have a golf team, you must provide a scholarship for 12 golfers instead of the current amount of 4.5 per school.... so a bunch of schools are going to cut their golf teams!"
The sport-specific forced-increases is completely different from raising the minimum number of scholarships provided.
The confusion in this thread isn't a lack of understanding, but rather a difference in interpretation.
I hope OP's interpretation is correct; but we're still waiting on the details...
Just to whittle it down:
OP is expecting the details to be something like:
> All P4 schools are required to carry a minimum of 500 scholarship athletes due to the House Settlement!
Everyone else in here is expecting the details to be something like:
> Due to cost increases required by the House Settlement scholarship requirements, 40 schools are cutting Wrestling.
> Everyone else here is reading it like this:
>
> "If you have a golf team, you must provide a scholarship for 12 golfers instead of the current amount of 4.5 per school.... so a bunch of schools are going to cut their golf teams!"
>
>
Most people here are reading the settlement as "Schools have to pay a bunch of extra money, and clearly there's nowhere else they'll cut than non-revenue sports." They are not digging into the specific text beyond the top number.
I think a lot of people just like to doomsday everything. I'm sure some schools will just some programs, but I really don't see a non-rev apocalypse like people predict.
I hope PocketPillow's interpretation of things is correct and the House settlement has some sort of minimum requirement of scholarships that's hefty enough that all P4 schools have a robust non-rev athletic department. Most P4 schools give out 300-400. It would be cool if they said "500 minimum" or even just 400 minimum.
The doomsday crowd would find something else to predict the end of the world with.
“Can’t afford” is just sensational though.
Someone around here did an analysis months back that opened my eyes a lot on this issue by outlining football HC salaries as a percentage of overall athletic department revenue.
In college football it’s become normal for the HC to make 3% or more of the entire athletic departments revenue. Some teams are paying even 5%. As a comparison the Chicago Bears HC would need his salary almost quadrupled before he would be paid 5% of the Bears revenue.
College athletics don’t spend responsibly. There’s a *ton* of room for optimizing if coaching salaries literally just fall in line proportionally with the NFL based on revenue generated.
Cool, and when college football stops being an arms race that generates huge brand awareness and impacts general recruitment for the student body I'm sure schools will start to decrease salaries...
Come on dude, be realistic here, the coaching salaries aren't going to get cut so women's rowing team or men's gymnastics team can stay.
Cool. Once you’ve gone to your school’s head coach and coaching staff and explained that they’re having their salaries slashed in order to better “optimize” the athletic budget, they will surely be overjoyed with your intelligent fiduciary management.
Obviously, CFB coaching salaries ballooned outrageously since it was one of the best ways for the haves of the sport to utilize their extra resources, but just because it makes sense on a spreadsheet to bring coach salaries more in line with actual revenues generated doesn’t mean it’s going to happen.
this is gonna be a market correction for everything other than athletes. That’s not a fun conversation for anybody, but especially administrators who have benefited from bloated staffs for decades.
But we don’t have to believe this admins who complain about being forced to deal with labor expenses that every other sport on earth manages just fine
It’s not even the salaries that are high, it’s the number of staff and coaches for football compared to other sports. Imagine if every sport had a coach for each position group, a coordinator for offense & defense, etc.
Most sports have a couple assistants making 5 figures while the head coach may be making 6. I think the assistants are underpaid by a couple $10ks but football assistants are overpaid by $100ks.
don't forget those buyouts for firing coaches before their contract is over. At one point East Carolina was still paying for 2 coaches buy outs while bringing in a third coach at higher salary.
To be fair it’s not just athletics- universities across the board are over saturated with “administrators” making inflated salaries for nothing.
Non-teaching deans should not exist. Multiple DEI coordinators making $90k a year should not exist. Athletics tutors should not be a full time job.
Colleges as a whole spend irresponsibly and pass on the burden to paying students. Athletics only furthers that
Then you have made up paid positions like Matthew McConaughey and the minister of propaganda (*cough*) I mean minister of “culture”
I think you have watched a bit too much conservative news. If dei is you listed problem. Look at the dorms, dining halls and gyms used to recruit students. It’s a sad situation when people decide on an education based on a sports team, dorm, gym or dining hall. But it’s the reality of higher Ed
No issue with DEI- but DEI admin inflation exists. For example University of Michigan has 142 DEI admin that receive $18M in salary and benefits a year- an average of $126k per employee
That’s 1,075 students tuition money going only to DEI staff
Why not? If that’s the biggest budget item, it just makes sense to reign in the costs. Same with athletics admin, but I’d imagine they’d cut coaches salaries before their own
Bc in doing so you're assuming the entire market will all make the same decision, which has just never happened.
It only works theoretically if all 130+ FBS schools agree to cut salaries at the same rate, otherwise it's little more than an arbitrage opportunity for coaches
>but just because it makes sense on a spreadsheet to bring coach salaries more in line with actual revenues generated doesn’t mean it’s going to happen.
Of course that's true. But the point is that it's not the fault of the players who are now getting paid when athletic directors decide to over-fund one sport at the cost of another.
It is possible to keep all the sports we currently have even with the new paradigm.
It might be possible for you Ohio State flair but it's sure as fuck not possible for GT or Syracuse or Boston College or (insert fringe P4 school) to fund the football players $21M salary cap and somehow add more non-revenue scholarships. That fantasy world only exists for about 40 schools and everyone else is going to have to make some painful choices. This entire exercise has always been about sorting the haves from the have nots, and this is the end game for all of the fringe P4 schools. You guys will end up in the 48 team P2 and all of ther reat of us will end up in the FCS 2.0 where we don't have to abide by House.
The article I see on PBS says this agreement [creates a new system that allows schools to use **up to** $21 million a year to pay student athletes in any sport starting in 2025](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/what-the-historic-2-8-billion-settlement-to-pay-ncaa-players-means-for-college-sports#:~:text=2016%20to%20now.-,It%20also%20creates%20a%20new%20system%20that%20allows%20schools%20to,had%20to%20pay%20billions%20more.).
"Up to" is the key phrase there. Just like Boston College pays 1/3 as much as Ohio State for a head coach, under the terms as described in the article, they can pay 1/3 as much for their on-field talent as well. Paying a $15/hr wage for 100 scholarship FB and MBB athletes, on a full-year full-time basis, is $3.1M. That's equivalent to what Boston College pays just for their head football coach, and less than 3.5% of GT's athletics revenue.
Professional leagues with salary caps have cap floors, but those cap floors are negotiated with a union. A union that cannot negotiate such floors for college sports because one does not exist for college players.
I believe they will be required to share 22% of athletic department revenue with athletes with a cap based on the average across p5 schools. You don’t get to set your own floor.
“As part of the evolving settlement negotiations, the cap is determined as 22% of a formula of power conference school revenue streams that are “commercially generated,” said one stakeholder. The most significant of these streams are (1) television contracts, (2) ticket sales, (3) sponsorship/licensing and (4) gameday sales, as well as other less significant buckets”
The cap will also increase as the average AD revenue increases.
“According to those briefed on the revenue-share concept, a look-in provision — potentially triggered every third year — will result in a reevaluation of the cap to reflect these soaring numbers.”
How much of that is coming from the schools themselves and how much is from boosters and raised specifically for the purpose of paying those salaries though?
I don’t think anyone is doubting that there’s enough *money*. But is there enough money that people are willing to give to fund everything?
Athletic departments are unnecessarily huge. They were able to grow so large because they had free labor and didn't need to optimize the budgets. Now that the labor isn't free, the fat will have to be trimmed at the administration/support staff level
At Michigan for example the administration/support staff (42 million) has a higher budget than coaching salaries (39 million).
That's not true. The situation with the players has been pretty much the same for a hundred years.
What changed was network TV needing live content to stay alive and paying increasingly incredible sums to get CFB games. The past 20 years have skyrocketed but that's because of the networks, not because players were not getting paid.
> At Michigan for example the administration/support staff (42 million) has a higher budget than coaching salaries (39 million).
There has to be like waaay more support staff than coaches? So this makes sense.
It usually a mixture, with the coaches having a base salary from the school and then a foundation kicking in additional money through a separate line item on their contract.
You are correct, as part of it has to do with some states having laws that cap the amount that a school can pay a college coach. It would not surprise me that the main reason the coaches are willing to take such a small base salary is because of the medical insurance and the state retirement (outside of getting the millions from a foundation along with the other side deals they get like hosting their own talk show and appearance fees).
The market rate for a college coach is exactly what the market will support. Coaching salaries are not going down. I'd even argue that a college coach has quite a bit more on his plate from a job description standpoint than an NFL coach does. The college coach is recruiting high school players, now recruiting his own players to stay, recruiting the portal, shaking rich donors hands, fundraising, fighting for facilities, and often acting as the figurehead for the entire athletic department.
Now they will, and you can come back and let me know when compensating players leads to lessened coaching salaries. They'll find 50 things to cut before the salary of the head coach.
The coach is both the face and leader of by far the most profitable sport in an athletic department. He is responsible for hiring other coaches, recruiting, training players, strategy, booster outreach, and a thousand other things. 3% for a guy that does what a head coach does is low if anything
There is no individual person that has more control over increasing revenue in an athletic dept than a CFB HC
Take away kirby smart or dabo from their schools and replace them with an average CFB coach and watch as revenue tanks while fans get pissed. A good coach is worth way more than 3%
Look at Alabama. They did take an approach of trying to attract more out of state students, so he isn’t the entire causation, but Saban made it a million times easier for them. The numbers on the growth they experienced since his hiring are absolutely bonkers. Not just for the school, but the economy of Tuscaloosa as well.
The coach is both the face and leader of by far the most profitable sport in an athletic department. He is responsible for hiring other coaches, recruiting, training players, strategy, booster outreach, and a thousand other things. 3% for a guy that does what a head coach does is low if anything
There is no individual person that has more control over increasing revenue in an athletic dept than a CFB HC
Take away kirby smart or dabo from their schools and replace them with an average CFB coach and watch as revenue tanks while fans get pissed. A good coach is worth way more than 3%
Around the same time, Minnesota cut a pretty historically successful men's tennis program, men's track and field and nearly some other programs that got saved. I think Iowa ended up saving women's swimming and diving.
And the reason women's swimming and diving was saved was not because the university wanted it saved--instead it was a Title IX lawsuit.
https://apnews.com/article/sports-college-gary-barta-iowa-swimming-4a456d374dbba7e8729484c8edcacbe3
Of course, but it's not like it's unprecedented. I don't know why anyone expects the football funding to diminish anywhere before other sports are slimmed or removed.
I don’t expect it. All I did was lay out that it’s entirely possible.
Everyone in this sub will agree college football coaching salaries are outrageous yet will say it’s impossible to rein them in for other sports.
It’s improbable, not impossible.
Why are schools going to pay players more than minimum wage? Because they will have to to entice those players to sign with their school instead of another place right? They’ll offer up to as much money as they think the player is worth in terms of what they’ll bring (wins, revenue, etc..). That’s like the fundamental underpinnings of a free market capitalism system which college football is becoming.
But… that’s already how coaches salaries were being treated. Coaches weren’t being given 50% more because the college thought “oh we made extra money, let’s just give it to the head coach”.
The only way I’d see coaching salary pullback is if programs started dropping football and there was less competition for coaches
Look to the NFL. I believe the highest paid HC in the NFL is Sean Payton at $19 per year. How many players make more than that? A lot. Colleges were hamstrung in that they overpaid for coaches because they weren't allowed to pay players. That is all about to change.
Another way to look at it ... Andy Reid just got a new contract for $18M per year. Mahomes makes $45M per year. There is no salary cap for NFL coaches.
A star nfl player is worth WAY more to a program than a star CFB player. Like way way more
The best college player is only playing 4 years max. Nfl teams keep star football players happy because they want them there a long time. The chiefs dont want Mahomes to leave them. If mahomes was limited to only playing there 4 years (3 if hes really good) then all their focus would be on Andy Reid
College coaches I would argue are so much more important. Good coaches can bring in way more in revenue than they cost. You win people show up you lose they don't.
Also remember the NFL is a business the owners need to make profit another big mouth to feed you can never compare NFL to college
Good coaches bring in revenue because it’s against the rule to pay the players. If the only way to get Patrick Mahomes on your team was to find the correct coach, they’d be worth a lot more in the NFL. But you can pay Patrick Mahomes to play for your team, and so instead of paying a huge salary to a coach who can recruit him, you just give the money directly to Mahomes.
This is how it works in every major professional league. The top paid players make way more than the top paid coaches. Way way more. It will happen in the NCAA too as soon as the schools aren’t banned from doing so.
Lol you used one of the worst examples. Patrick Mahomes was not a big recruits I think he only got three offers. I think Texas recruited him at a different position. What made Mahomes was his coaches and the pass happy scheme he plays. How many teams including Texas have been loaded with talent but can't win. Coaches make so much more of a difference in college
The BIG difference here is players in the NFL can stick on a team for a decade+, and they’re far more proven as valuable at that point.
A college player only sticks around for 5 years max, and the top dollar players would probably only be 3 years. Recruits often need development and frankly most don’t go pro or bust. Having a coach that can keep the pipeline of talent and development in the long term is way better of an investment than players that are only gonna be there a few years. The value of Mahomes in the NFL for 15 years is so much more valuable than like a Caleb Williams at USC for 2 - the coach that gives you the chance at the next Caleb Williams is the more worthwhile investment.
Paying the players is a whole separate issue.
OP's question was about increased scholarships for other sports and your comment said that the schools can afford more scholarships if they just pay the coaches less. That could only work if all of the schools are in agreement on it. You've now created a cartel.
But even that ignores that all coaches have current contracts that need to be paid out. And most of that money comes from boosters who are donating specifically to support the football team instead of men's golf or whatever. They can just stop giving money if it's not buying what they want it to.
Not true at all. There does not need to be any collusion on wage suppression.
There are market events all the time that require businesses to fundamentally change to operate as they had before. Regulation is the number one example of how this happens. That isn’t a cartel.
How do you force the change from the schools to be "we'll pay coaches less and potentially impact the sport that drives revenue" instead of "we're gonna cut the sports that cost us money"?
By those involved with the school pressuring them to do so. We're all customers here. Some of us are boosters or alumni, and many of these schools are public institutions.
Why would the school have any incentive to do that? A year in the CFP spikes applications a crazy amount. A successful women's lacrosse team doesn't add students to the university (which is their bottom line at this point anyway).
Yes it is. You can look at Ohio State's 2023 report [here](https://news.osu.edu/ohio-state-reports-record-athletics-revenue-in-fy-2023/), on page 97 you'll see OSU reports paying $21.8M in coaching salaries for the football team.
Look at the revenue side.
>Contributions $57,804,784
>Definition: Amounts received from individuals, corporations, associations, foundations, clubs or other organizations designated for the operations of the athletics program.
> Media Rights $49,796,025
>Ticket Sales $73,386,886
>Royalties, Licensing, Advertisement and Sponsorships $42,832,059
>Program, Novelty, Parking and Concession Sales $11,668,662
>NCAA Distributions $5,664,682
>Conference Distributions (NonMedia and NonFootball Bowl) $4,693,324
>Conference Distributions of Football Bowl Generated Revenue $7,734,857
And then finally the amount that comes directly from the school:
>Direct Institutional Support $115,571
A whole 0.04% of the athletics budget comes directly from the school.
I'm not sure what point you think you're making. "The school" in this context obviously refers to [University] Athletic Department. Which is obviously part of the broader university system.
External parties (eg the athletic foundation aka boosters) are paying the coaches salaries. Sure, it's funneled through the athletic department first, but it's still not "the school" paying the coaches.
What's the total valuation of those contracts and how much of that is based on bonuses based on media/apparel companies.
When it comes to what the university proper is on the line for it's not as much as you think.
Can you please re-word this? I have no idea what you're trying to say here.
OSU's coaching contracts are public record. We know how much they're paying their coaches. I doesn't matter in the slightest of OSU's coaches are making a combined $100 million from "media/apparel companies". OSU is cutting checks north of $20 million to them.
It actually does matter, because why coach some place that pays you less
When you look at what your coaching staff is being paid it may be 21 mil from the university (that is a fact I am not arguing and this number may reflect the total cost of the employee). However if the valuation of the contract is 100 million as you stated then OSU is still not paying the majority of the contract. That's my only point.
If you look further into it you will find that the majority of the total salary paid to coaches and staff are paid by other entities. That's all I'm saying
>It actually does matter, because why coach some place that pays you less
Again, please explain what point you're trying to make. Money paid to OSU coaches from places outside of OSU has nothing to do with the topic of coaching budgets within the university, and so is not relevant.
I pulled a random number out of my ass exaggerated for effect. That $100 million isn't anything real.
>If you look further into it you will find that the majority of the total salary paid to coaches and staff are paid by other entities. That's all I'm saying
Please provide any source at all for this claim. Googling "Ryan Day endorsement deals" yields no relevant results.
You also may want to take a look at Saban 's contract while he was at Bama, https://www.sportskeeda.com/college-football/nick-saban-alabama-contract-how-much-crimson-tide-hc-make-salary-bonuses-and-more
Again the only point I'm making is that contracts are complicated
Also gotcha covered with MSU's contract outlined here: https://www.freep.com/story/sports/college/michigan-state/spartans/2021/11/29/michigan-state-football-mel-tucker-contract-extension-details-no-new-buyout/8800227002/
You’re clearly confusing the idea that coaches getting paid for media appearances means a third party is cutting these coaches a check that never passes through the university. That’s not correct
Again, those payments are being made by his employer, Ohio State.
Whatever they’re specifically for doesn’t change that his university employer his paying him. I already proved this when I linked you to the report showing how much OSU themselves says they’re paying him
> College athletics don’t spend responsibly.
Which is more irresponsible: paying the head football coach 3% of AD revenues when their sport is responsible for 60% of the total revenues? or paying the men’s swimming coach 0.1% of annual revenues when they only bring 0.05% of the revenues?
The difference is real life.
https://swimswam.com/want-to-earn-the-big-bucks-be-a-d1-head-swim-coach/
If ASU is a Top 25 swim program they probably pay their coach $181,000 yearly. Which would be 0.1% of ASU’s athletic revenues.
Meanwhile Akron’s football coach is making 3% of their revenues. The difference here is swimming may have three or four examples of what you outlined. College football has literally over 130.
Unfortunately, there have been dozens of schools that have cut their swim programs and other Olympic sports and not a single one has cut anything football related to “save” those sports. It seems pretty clear that colleges choose football money over other sports every single time at the FBS level
Obviously they’re going to cut the coaching salaries, Jesus Christ. It’s not going to happen overnight but every single professional sports league pays their coaches a very tiny fraction of what college football coaches make. And it’s not because the college football coaches are savvy negotiators, it’s just against the rules to pay the players. Once the Supreme Court strikes down this revenue sharing agreement (which is incredibly and obviously foreseeable) all it will take is a couple schools to start reallocating their coaching salaries to player salaries and the jig will be up. Coaches do not fucking matter, once you can pay the players directly. If you sign the best QB in the country and two best WRs along with other top end contributors, you can go undefeated even if Ed Orgeron is your coach.
The current college football coaching salaries are totally preposterous. The moment players can be freely compensated, you will see a couple teams adapt with low coaching salaries and high player salaries, and everyone will follow suit within 10 years.
You are correct in that College athletics don't spend responsibly , in alot of cases, and there are other moves they could make to trim down costs. Cutting programs is quick way of lowing costs, rather than looking at the overall budget and trimming the fat.
You mean to tell me an amateur team has a lower payroll budget than a pro team, which results in the head coach being a higher percentage of overall payroll?
Shocking!
Amateur lol.
Yes, the only legitimate minor league football organization on earth who has been sued and lost multiple times for anti-competitive tactics for not compensating their labor pays their head coaches exorbitant amounts.
Nfl players don't make "optimized" salaries. This comparison makes no sense. Coaches are paid their market value. You gonna start paying the starting qb 20% of the team's revenue?
Uh they quite literally do. Thats the entire point of salary caps and a collective bargaining agreement that sets certain guidelines on compensation.
The exact spot where you are drafted also dictates your maximum first contract salary.
Your point is we can resolve the distribution of wealth by reallocating coach salaries, but if we are paying everyone on the team their "appropriate" salary then there will only be reallocation within the football program, the other sports are still getting nothing.
College athletics haven't had to spend responsibly. Not having to pay players or turn a profit turns into spending all that ballooning cash that they're getting, it's why coach salaries and facilities and so on have gotten those gigantic increases. They were able to afford those non-revenue sports before this huge increase in money, it's kind of naive to think they can't afford it now.
Now if they have to make massive cuts from one day to the next it might be a bit different, but as long as this takes a few years to happen it is absolutely within their power to afford all that. (Though this subreddit being so football focused there's an assumption that they won't cut football spending ever)
Spend smarter? Many schools are reckless in their spending in football. The reason they've always said they can't afford to pay athletes is because they don't know how to budget. Tell some of these schools to spend time in the AAC and learn that you don't need to overpay for everything.
By requiring schools to spend more money on programs that do not make money, you are incentvizing the school to cut those programs rather than lose even more money on them.
Small schools should not be running minor league sports as a speculative business venture.
Club sports and direct some of the savings back to the general student population in various ways
I hate this, but you are not wrong. Marshall cannot afford to have a D1 football program, and our students cannot afford the $2200 annual fee they pay for that privilege. It sucks, but this probably the future for a lot of schools. I hate that our brand and national name recognition will have to die for it, but Marshall is a dying school in a dying city wracked with poverty and this is probably what will have to give.
It’s probably only 25-35 teams that can really compete in this atmosphere.
Unless they’re going to have salary caps and draft players
Even then it’s probably no more than the top 50.
Reddit sucks, you made one of the most compelling points on this thread and are getting ripped for it. Appy and Tulsa and Old Dominion simply cannot be expected to play in the same arena as Ohio State and Georgia and they are bankrupting their students trying to.
they're all chasing that bag. college sports is simply a way to create revenue and fundraising.
not to mention the whole system is set up in a way that guarantees the same 8 schools will generally be the only ones with a legitimate chance to win.
How much do scholarships really cost schools?
Most of the value of a scholarship is stuff like tuition which doesn't actually cost the university anything, it's just lost potential revenue. Housing and meals at most universities would be similar where it doesn't cost them anything additional.
There is a difference between $10 million in value and $10 million in cost though. I know OP calls it cost but I'm just wondering if it is the actual cost because what I can tell an individual scholarship shouldn't cost a school that much in actual money.
Now multiply that individual by 100 to 200 student athletes taking classes by 6 figure professors, in buildings that costs 100s of millions supported by staff that cost 10s of millions.
I'm still new in following this so correct any mistakes I make, but as I understand it the main problem is where this money is coming from. 40% is covered by the NCAA from March Madness Revenue, and 60% from conferences. The problem is that the Power 5 are covering less than half of that 60%. That is laughably disproportionate especially when CFP money is factored in.
So I suspect the real problem is how many G5/mid-major sports are going to get cut because smaller conferences and schools can't foot the bill for the increased costs. There are already loads of quality athletic programs that are toeing the line financially and could go under if they have a few bad seasons without financial insurance from the NCAA
That's where the money to pay back damages is coming from.
It's unrelated to the future terms that are currently unenforceable because they weren't negotiated with the players they affect.
Ok cool, Congress just said your school needs to have more scholarships for all sports (aka more $$$$.) The bean counters at the school are now looking for a way to save money. You know how we can save money? Cut all those sports that bring in no money (or lose money.) Now you just cut something that provides no money to the school and you save by not having to give scholarships out
Congress hasn't said anything.
It's a settlement with former players for back damages.
The forward-looking parts of it are entirely unenforceable as it stands now.
My impression of the forward looking parts is that schools are *able* to provide more scholarship but don't have to. Good luck to the mid-majors competing in Women's Soccer, baseball, etc.
I love when people feel compelled to respond to things despite having absolutely no clue what they’re talking about
Why are you talking about Congress?
This guy is talking about Congress which has literally nothing to do with this lawsuit settlement. He saw the word House in the headline and formed an entire opinion based on a completely wrong understanding
The bill can’t force a school to maintain a sports program they can’t afford. At most schools, sports other than football, and men’s and women’s basketball lose money on their own, so what would increasing the cost of said programs prompt the school to do?
a.) Expanding scholarships for schools that don't have money means sports get cut. You don't have to expand scholarships if the program doesn't exist.
b.) Expanding doesn't mean full scholarships, it can mean partial too. So, for example, let's say right now there is 1 volleyball scholarship that is a full ride. Based on the new rules, they're now going to make it a partial but allow one more. By definition, they're expanding it but also giving less to the players (which is perfectly legal.)
I'm still waiting to see how this is worded. I sent the question into Dellenger (not that I expect him to answer). I want to know if it's sports specific or something like "Must provide 400 scholarships in addition to football and basketball."
If it's the latter it would be a move to protect the smaller sports. Not all of them, of course. Oregon gives 485 scholarships. So something like that would be a move that could prevent too many/any cuts.
However, if it is "if you have a baseball team then you need to offer 20 baseball scholarships" then yeah... some schools are cutting baseball.
Really depends on how it is worded in the settlement.
I think OP assumed it was worded like the latter. That universities must provide X number of scholarships. Right now the minimum an FBS school must provide is 210. If they offer fewer than that then the NCAA will not sanction them as an FBS school.
If the House Settlement increases the requirement, it protects some non-rev sports.
Many sports are already “equivalency” sports such as baseball- which prior to this settlement allows a team the equivalency of 11.7 scholarships to disperse amongst the roster as the program sees fit. This is not new
Two reasons…
1. For a lot of non-P5 schools, their going to be encouraged to try to revenue share with football/basketball players in order to stay competitive. Those non-P5 schools probably don’t have the revenue flexibility to do revenue share without cutting drastically elsewhere. And if the battle is between revenue share with football or have a women’s tennis team, football is going to win, unfortunately.
2. A lot of non-P5 schools don’t fund the scholarship max in non-revenue sports to begin with. I work for a school that, even though baseball allows you to fund up to 11.7 scholarships, only funds 8. Now that the NCAA has taken off the limits, the teams that fund the full amount of scholarships will just be P5. So pretty good chance, non-revenue championships become even more P5-centric than they already are.
Maybe a hot take but Athletes receiving a certain amount of NIL shouldn’t be eligible for scholarships. Leave them for people that actually need it
Edit: I also have no idea how athletic scholarships work so maybe this wouldn’t work just my two cents
Really, there should be a cap of like 100k for each P5 football player, that is paid by the school, no matter where the school is or the star level of the player. Then the player could either take 100K plus a partial scholarship and pay their own way through school(books/fees/housing), minus tuition, meals, insurance and athletic gear that is provided for them. The other option, they get a full ride athletic scholarship plus 50K(max) paid by the school. Either option, they are free to receive outside NIL but only for things like using their image to star in commercials or maybe have their own blog/vlog that people pay for or make donations e.g. Patreon.
The future parts of the settlement for past damages to past athletes would mean more direct spending from schools (and taxpayers).
That's a problem for the vast majority of athletic departments that aren't having revenue sports lift them up to breaking even or better.
Increasing the scholarship limits doesn't create that extra money out of thin air.
It's possible those who were funding NILs, formerly funding athletic departments, now donate specifically for player pay instead of facilities and coaching salaries as they were previously limited to.
However, none of that speculation really matters until terms for future pay are collectively bargained with the athletes subject to those terms and/or an act of Congress codifies such terms.
Because its a fucking lie to argue you can pay pay revenue sports players, maintain your budget for each Olympic sport, and not cut any Olympic sports entirely. You can’t do all three things at once without a dedicated commitment from schools to **NOT** spend more money on football/basketball which has literally never happened in the last 40+ years of rising TV contracts. Even as TV dollars rise, Olympic sports continue to get cut. That was without revenue sharing which will only ramp up the pressure to take more money out of the Olympic sports budget.
The entire Olympic sport budget at the majority of schools is a fraction of the cost of football, and cutting those Sports is terrible for alumni relations. It is a pure excuse on the part of athletic directors to try and skim the budget for that nonsense.
They can “require” whatever they want but it doesn’t suddenly make the money to pay for it appear. Many non- revenue generating men’s sports will have to be cut to pay for women’s athletics.
Why cut sports that are cheap to operate when you can cut back on coaching salary bloat? Most schools *have* the money to run those programs, they just need to trim existing fat
This is going to lead to lower paid coaches in every sport (which is a good thing). But ultimately hiring coaches in secondary sports is not the major expense. It’s the football coaching staffs that are going to get absolutely fucking obliterated as soon as the cap on paying players gets struck down.
Maybe. You won't get the best coaches then.
If you have to choose between a top tier football coach to keep your program winning and brining in recruits and most importatly $$$$$ or keeping a few olympic sports, you know what the schools will do.
In every sporting league in the world that pays its players, getting the best players is much more valuable than the best coaches. The first few schools that take their coaching salaries and instead allocate them into getting the best rosters in the sport are going to run train on any school that doesn’t get with the program.
College football coaches make a preposterous and unsustainable amount of revenue in a world where the players must be paid. We’re talking complete obliteration of coaching salaries as soon as paying the players is allowed.
You will get more coaches jumping ship to the pros then like Harbaugh. Thus you suffer a downgrade in coaching.
Why would a guy take peanuts to coach in college where they have to deal with all the bs when they can go to the pros and get much better and not have to suck up to high schoolers and deal with the portal and shady leadership.
That’s correct. That’s how it should work when one league makes 5x the revenue of the other league. The only reason it’s not the case today is because one of the leagues illegally colludes to avoid paying players. But when an NFL team makes $600M in revenue and your average P5 team makes closer to $30-50M, you better believe the pro jobs should be better.
I don't think teams, fans, schools are going to be interested in dumping their good coaches for whoever they can get for cheap, nor do the fans want to see their teams performing worse because of fewer and less skilled coaches. Perhaps you are of the belief thar coaches don't matter all that much. I know I'd not have been a successful athlete without my coach.
If athletes want to be paid for their abilities then there should be contracts. This portal shit transferring to 3-4 schools has got to stop. If they want to pretend to be professional athletes they should be treated like ones too
The reason there are no contracts is because the NCAA has banned them. Contracts would be really good for players, and you’re right that it would solve a lot of problems. The issue is that it would most likely lead to catastrophic (80%+) declines in admin and coaching salaries, if every single other professional sports league in the world is any indication. So the administrators aren’t highly motivated to do this.
Again - contracts are good for players. Where they’re allowed, they will be signed. That’s why coaches, who are neither forced or restricted from contracts, sign them.
The settlement can't just make imaginary money appear out of thin air. It may result in an increase in the rosters for wealthy P2 schools but the net number of "P" schools is going to decrease and all of the new G or FCS schools will be slashing costs.
The total number of High School graduates is projected to decrease by several hundred thousand per year over the next 20 years. You can't just make a cadre of elite athletes worthy of D1 scholarships just manifest out of thin air. This particular clause of the settlement is just lip service that is probably unenforceable.
This exact reason is why it could kill them off, if you recquire the schools to spend more on them to keep them alive then guess what schools are gonna do, not keep them alive
Where’s the money for non-revenue generating sports going to come from?
Can’t wait for all these people cheering for this to see their tuitions go way up
I think OP works for the government. What he said sounds great at first, but if you think about it for 0.01 seconds, he’s completely and utterly wrong. Classic government.
Because for smaller colleges, if they can't afford the expansions they can just stop sponsoring the sport, and if enough of them do that then it reduces the total scholarships available.
How about we start with your own flair's press release?
https://www.buckeyesports.com/ohio-state-board-of-trustees-approves-ryan-days-contract/?print=print
And for further proof we can look at Mel Tucker's structure https://www.freep.com/story/sports/college/michigan-state/spartans/2021/11/29/michigan-state-football-mel-tucker-contract-extension-details-no-new-buyout/8800227002/
Final source, fun fact I used to intern under a Sr Assoc AD at Maryland who explained how complicated some of this stuff was once we moved to the B1G.
Again my only point is that everyone thinks that the school itself pays everything from a preset budget, but that's not the case, it's more complicated
I think certain schools will use this to cut non-revenue sports that they have been wanting to cut, but could not do so because of the push back of public opinion. It just going to depend on the school though.
In some schools cases, you don’t need to give a schollie to non revenue generating sports. Just give them an NIL deal that covers the cost of school and call them a walkon. That way they avoid any school scholarship counts. This NIL situation has gotten absolutely out of hand.
Because, if it doesn't generate money, it's wasting money.
Honestly, this will be a $20.00 increase to football tickets and a $5.00 increase to basketball tickets to cover the 10 mil.
$10millon in cost for non-revenue sports will turn a lot of universities entire athletics departments unprofitable. Some of the schools this would apply to will surprise you.
Oklahoma, for example, a very successful program by most measures booked $177.3M in revenue last year against $176M in cost. Penn State would see 90% of their athletics profitability disappear, preventing them from investing anything back into the school or to future projects unless fully bankrolled by the boosters. Tennessee already operates at a loss, losing $2.5M last year…. Oregon becomes unprofitable. Hawaii? $10M is nearly 20% of their total revenue. Toast.
Schools will mitigate the cost by eliminating the sport entirely. This would serve to help them twice over, they no longer have to pay the scholarship costs AND they shed the cost burden of the non revenue sport that was eliminated.
So my question is how much of the scholarship will now be considered compensation and taxed annually? Seems like this could be incredibly detrimental to a large number of students who have no NIL/Professional expectations.
The answer is literally a short google search away, the IRS answers these questions for you for free. Just because InTuit doesn't want you to know that doesn't mean it's not easily found. All of scholarship that is used to pay for actual school stuff at an actual school is entirely tax free. Anything spent on non school stuff is taxable income. If they make so much from scholarships that, after all the schooling is paid for, it STILL puts them above the standard deduction then they will have to pay some amount of income tax.
Because lots of people hate player compensation and will find any reason they can in order to advocate for why it's bad.
Ask them about Ohio State's $25 million dollar coaching budget and apparently that's untouchable, but paying the kids that keep those coaches employed and all of a sudden its the death of college sports.
Ugh, I'm over this simplification of the issue. Right now, or at least until 2 years ago, there were only a few things that an AD could spend money on that would improve his football team. Improving the football team results in more revenue for the AD and thus all other sports.
The biggest contributor to improving football performance was the HC, and the salaries reflect that. As players start getting paid, that will absolutely normalize.
I just hope people like this commenter don't come back shocked when even after players get paid the coaches are still paid exorbitantly more.
Why would I be shocked that coaches still get paid more than any individual athlete, or even all of them together? The relative worth of a coach vs a player has absolutely nothing to do with anything I said.
Football coaching salaries don't even have to be what changes. It was just a convenient example, one among many. OSU pays its WBB coach twice what that program brings in in revenue. It pays $750,000 for its golf team coaching staffs. It just spent $22 million on a lacrosse-only stadium.
The actual point I made is that athletic departments over-fund myriad expense lines in their P&Ls. They could absolutely choose to comply with all player compensation requirements while also maintaining the same number of sports and scholarships across all sports that they currently offer. When they choose not to, we must recognize it is a choice willingly made by leadership, and not the fault of the athletes who help generate billions in revenue finally getting paid for their work.
Agreed- I think the court cases would have gone differently if college athletic programs didn’t chart a course decades ago that has led to coaches making 7 and 8 figures, multiple athletic administrators making 7 figures, and University Athletic Programs with 200 employees functioning as a professional sports organization for everyone except the players.
If Nick Saban made $190,000 a year, it would be much more palatable for the judges.
If you can't afford $10 million more in scholarship what happens to your non-revenue sports?
Give him a sec to work it out
I think the issue is that OP is reading it different than everyone else. * The NCAA currently requires FBS schools to provide a minimum of 210 per year. You will not be sanctioned as an FBS school if you provide fewer than 210 scholarships. * I think OP is reading the House "expanded scholarships" as an increase on this minimum amount. * The University of Oregon values an Athletic Scholarship at 25K for bookkeeping purposes. * $10,000,000/$25,000=400 * The way OP is reading it, they believe the House Settlement is going to increase the required minimum number to some number above 400 scholarships. Say, 610 as 610 would be "up to $10 million increase" (above the minimum of 210) So if the House Settlement says "P4 schools must carry at least 610 scholarships" then the non-rev sports will be completely protected. And schools like Oregon will have to expand. ---------- Everyone else here is reading it like this: "If you have a golf team, you must provide a scholarship for 12 golfers instead of the current amount of 4.5 per school.... so a bunch of schools are going to cut their golf teams!" The sport-specific forced-increases is completely different from raising the minimum number of scholarships provided. The confusion in this thread isn't a lack of understanding, but rather a difference in interpretation. I hope OP's interpretation is correct; but we're still waiting on the details...
Just to whittle it down: OP is expecting the details to be something like: > All P4 schools are required to carry a minimum of 500 scholarship athletes due to the House Settlement! Everyone else in here is expecting the details to be something like: > Due to cost increases required by the House Settlement scholarship requirements, 40 schools are cutting Wrestling.
> Everyone else here is reading it like this: > > "If you have a golf team, you must provide a scholarship for 12 golfers instead of the current amount of 4.5 per school.... so a bunch of schools are going to cut their golf teams!" > > Most people here are reading the settlement as "Schools have to pay a bunch of extra money, and clearly there's nowhere else they'll cut than non-revenue sports." They are not digging into the specific text beyond the top number.
I think a lot of people just like to doomsday everything. I'm sure some schools will just some programs, but I really don't see a non-rev apocalypse like people predict. I hope PocketPillow's interpretation of things is correct and the House settlement has some sort of minimum requirement of scholarships that's hefty enough that all P4 schools have a robust non-rev athletic department. Most P4 schools give out 300-400. It would be cool if they said "500 minimum" or even just 400 minimum. The doomsday crowd would find something else to predict the end of the world with.
Completely unrelated to this topic… how’d you get that space and line after “And schools like Oregon will have to expand?”
In the markdown editor: This is the first line --- This is the second line This is the first line --- This is the second line
He's almost got it, let it cook!
“Can’t afford” is just sensational though. Someone around here did an analysis months back that opened my eyes a lot on this issue by outlining football HC salaries as a percentage of overall athletic department revenue. In college football it’s become normal for the HC to make 3% or more of the entire athletic departments revenue. Some teams are paying even 5%. As a comparison the Chicago Bears HC would need his salary almost quadrupled before he would be paid 5% of the Bears revenue. College athletics don’t spend responsibly. There’s a *ton* of room for optimizing if coaching salaries literally just fall in line proportionally with the NFL based on revenue generated.
Cool, and when college football stops being an arms race that generates huge brand awareness and impacts general recruitment for the student body I'm sure schools will start to decrease salaries... Come on dude, be realistic here, the coaching salaries aren't going to get cut so women's rowing team or men's gymnastics team can stay.
Cool. Once you’ve gone to your school’s head coach and coaching staff and explained that they’re having their salaries slashed in order to better “optimize” the athletic budget, they will surely be overjoyed with your intelligent fiduciary management. Obviously, CFB coaching salaries ballooned outrageously since it was one of the best ways for the haves of the sport to utilize their extra resources, but just because it makes sense on a spreadsheet to bring coach salaries more in line with actual revenues generated doesn’t mean it’s going to happen.
this is gonna be a market correction for everything other than athletes. That’s not a fun conversation for anybody, but especially administrators who have benefited from bloated staffs for decades. But we don’t have to believe this admins who complain about being forced to deal with labor expenses that every other sport on earth manages just fine
It’s not even the salaries that are high, it’s the number of staff and coaches for football compared to other sports. Imagine if every sport had a coach for each position group, a coordinator for offense & defense, etc. Most sports have a couple assistants making 5 figures while the head coach may be making 6. I think the assistants are underpaid by a couple $10ks but football assistants are overpaid by $100ks.
don't forget those buyouts for firing coaches before their contract is over. At one point East Carolina was still paying for 2 coaches buy outs while bringing in a third coach at higher salary.
To be fair it’s not just athletics- universities across the board are over saturated with “administrators” making inflated salaries for nothing. Non-teaching deans should not exist. Multiple DEI coordinators making $90k a year should not exist. Athletics tutors should not be a full time job. Colleges as a whole spend irresponsibly and pass on the burden to paying students. Athletics only furthers that Then you have made up paid positions like Matthew McConaughey and the minister of propaganda (*cough*) I mean minister of “culture”
You lost me at athletic tutors. Working with athletes from all sports, of course it should be a fulltime job.
Tutors and Mentors at my school are a part time position.
Sounds like a Mississippi joke in the making.
I think you have watched a bit too much conservative news. If dei is you listed problem. Look at the dorms, dining halls and gyms used to recruit students. It’s a sad situation when people decide on an education based on a sports team, dorm, gym or dining hall. But it’s the reality of higher Ed
No issue with DEI- but DEI admin inflation exists. For example University of Michigan has 142 DEI admin that receive $18M in salary and benefits a year- an average of $126k per employee That’s 1,075 students tuition money going only to DEI staff
So just get rid of sports.
wtf are they gonna do? Go sell cars? F’ng Dabo. When they start paying players I’ll find something else to do 😂😂😂😂
Why not? If that’s the biggest budget item, it just makes sense to reign in the costs. Same with athletics admin, but I’d imagine they’d cut coaches salaries before their own
Bc in doing so you're assuming the entire market will all make the same decision, which has just never happened. It only works theoretically if all 130+ FBS schools agree to cut salaries at the same rate, otherwise it's little more than an arbitrage opportunity for coaches
>but just because it makes sense on a spreadsheet to bring coach salaries more in line with actual revenues generated doesn’t mean it’s going to happen. Of course that's true. But the point is that it's not the fault of the players who are now getting paid when athletic directors decide to over-fund one sport at the cost of another. It is possible to keep all the sports we currently have even with the new paradigm.
It might be possible for you Ohio State flair but it's sure as fuck not possible for GT or Syracuse or Boston College or (insert fringe P4 school) to fund the football players $21M salary cap and somehow add more non-revenue scholarships. That fantasy world only exists for about 40 schools and everyone else is going to have to make some painful choices. This entire exercise has always been about sorting the haves from the have nots, and this is the end game for all of the fringe P4 schools. You guys will end up in the 48 team P2 and all of ther reat of us will end up in the FCS 2.0 where we don't have to abide by House.
The article I see on PBS says this agreement [creates a new system that allows schools to use **up to** $21 million a year to pay student athletes in any sport starting in 2025](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/what-the-historic-2-8-billion-settlement-to-pay-ncaa-players-means-for-college-sports#:~:text=2016%20to%20now.-,It%20also%20creates%20a%20new%20system%20that%20allows%20schools%20to,had%20to%20pay%20billions%20more.). "Up to" is the key phrase there. Just like Boston College pays 1/3 as much as Ohio State for a head coach, under the terms as described in the article, they can pay 1/3 as much for their on-field talent as well. Paying a $15/hr wage for 100 scholarship FB and MBB athletes, on a full-year full-time basis, is $3.1M. That's equivalent to what Boston College pays just for their head football coach, and less than 3.5% of GT's athletics revenue. Professional leagues with salary caps have cap floors, but those cap floors are negotiated with a union. A union that cannot negotiate such floors for college sports because one does not exist for college players.
I believe they will be required to share 22% of athletic department revenue with athletes with a cap based on the average across p5 schools. You don’t get to set your own floor. “As part of the evolving settlement negotiations, the cap is determined as 22% of a formula of power conference school revenue streams that are “commercially generated,” said one stakeholder. The most significant of these streams are (1) television contracts, (2) ticket sales, (3) sponsorship/licensing and (4) gameday sales, as well as other less significant buckets” The cap will also increase as the average AD revenue increases. “According to those briefed on the revenue-share concept, a look-in provision — potentially triggered every third year — will result in a reevaluation of the cap to reflect these soaring numbers.”
>A union that cannot negotiate such floors for college sports because one does not exist for college players. yet
How much of that is coming from the schools themselves and how much is from boosters and raised specifically for the purpose of paying those salaries though? I don’t think anyone is doubting that there’s enough *money*. But is there enough money that people are willing to give to fund everything?
Athletic departments are unnecessarily huge. They were able to grow so large because they had free labor and didn't need to optimize the budgets. Now that the labor isn't free, the fat will have to be trimmed at the administration/support staff level At Michigan for example the administration/support staff (42 million) has a higher budget than coaching salaries (39 million).
That's not true. The situation with the players has been pretty much the same for a hundred years. What changed was network TV needing live content to stay alive and paying increasingly incredible sums to get CFB games. The past 20 years have skyrocketed but that's because of the networks, not because players were not getting paid.
I think OSU's combined admin/coaching payroll is like $91 million or something lol.
> At Michigan for example the administration/support staff (42 million) has a higher budget than coaching salaries (39 million). There has to be like waaay more support staff than coaches? So this makes sense.
A lot of schools don’t pay coaches through the athletic department revenue though.
It usually a mixture, with the coaches having a base salary from the school and then a foundation kicking in additional money through a separate line item on their contract.
The base salary is paltry though
You are correct, as part of it has to do with some states having laws that cap the amount that a school can pay a college coach. It would not surprise me that the main reason the coaches are willing to take such a small base salary is because of the medical insurance and the state retirement (outside of getting the millions from a foundation along with the other side deals they get like hosting their own talk show and appearance fees).
The market rate for a college coach is exactly what the market will support. Coaching salaries are not going down. I'd even argue that a college coach has quite a bit more on his plate from a job description standpoint than an NFL coach does. The college coach is recruiting high school players, now recruiting his own players to stay, recruiting the portal, shaking rich donors hands, fundraising, fighting for facilities, and often acting as the figurehead for the entire athletic department.
The market wasn’t rational because the schools didn’t have to compensate for the players labor.
Now they will, and you can come back and let me know when compensating players leads to lessened coaching salaries. They'll find 50 things to cut before the salary of the head coach.
The coach is both the face and leader of by far the most profitable sport in an athletic department. He is responsible for hiring other coaches, recruiting, training players, strategy, booster outreach, and a thousand other things. 3% for a guy that does what a head coach does is low if anything There is no individual person that has more control over increasing revenue in an athletic dept than a CFB HC Take away kirby smart or dabo from their schools and replace them with an average CFB coach and watch as revenue tanks while fans get pissed. A good coach is worth way more than 3%
I don't think the people that talk about bloating coaching salaries realize that. Coaches are worth way more than the players in college athletics.
Look at Alabama. They did take an approach of trying to attract more out of state students, so he isn’t the entire causation, but Saban made it a million times easier for them. The numbers on the growth they experienced since his hiring are absolutely bonkers. Not just for the school, but the economy of Tuscaloosa as well.
The coach is both the face and leader of by far the most profitable sport in an athletic department. He is responsible for hiring other coaches, recruiting, training players, strategy, booster outreach, and a thousand other things. 3% for a guy that does what a head coach does is low if anything There is no individual person that has more control over increasing revenue in an athletic dept than a CFB HC Take away kirby smart or dabo from their schools and replace them with an average CFB coach and watch as revenue tanks while fans get pissed. A good coach is worth way more than 3%
I will be interested to see who is going to be the first big name to cut a sport while paying 3% or more of their yearly revenue to one person.
Iowa cut Men's gymnastics, Men's tennis, and both Men's and Women's swimming and diving in 2020.
Around the same time, Minnesota cut a pretty historically successful men's tennis program, men's track and field and nearly some other programs that got saved. I think Iowa ended up saving women's swimming and diving.
And the reason women's swimming and diving was saved was not because the university wanted it saved--instead it was a Title IX lawsuit. https://apnews.com/article/sports-college-gary-barta-iowa-swimming-4a456d374dbba7e8729484c8edcacbe3
We’re obviously talking about the effects of this settlement, not about 4 years ago.
Of course, but it's not like it's unprecedented. I don't know why anyone expects the football funding to diminish anywhere before other sports are slimmed or removed.
I don’t expect it. All I did was lay out that it’s entirely possible. Everyone in this sub will agree college football coaching salaries are outrageous yet will say it’s impossible to rein them in for other sports. It’s improbable, not impossible.
Why are schools going to pay players more than minimum wage? Because they will have to to entice those players to sign with their school instead of another place right? They’ll offer up to as much money as they think the player is worth in terms of what they’ll bring (wins, revenue, etc..). That’s like the fundamental underpinnings of a free market capitalism system which college football is becoming. But… that’s already how coaches salaries were being treated. Coaches weren’t being given 50% more because the college thought “oh we made extra money, let’s just give it to the head coach”. The only way I’d see coaching salary pullback is if programs started dropping football and there was less competition for coaches
Look to the NFL. I believe the highest paid HC in the NFL is Sean Payton at $19 per year. How many players make more than that? A lot. Colleges were hamstrung in that they overpaid for coaches because they weren't allowed to pay players. That is all about to change. Another way to look at it ... Andy Reid just got a new contract for $18M per year. Mahomes makes $45M per year. There is no salary cap for NFL coaches.
A star nfl player is worth WAY more to a program than a star CFB player. Like way way more The best college player is only playing 4 years max. Nfl teams keep star football players happy because they want them there a long time. The chiefs dont want Mahomes to leave them. If mahomes was limited to only playing there 4 years (3 if hes really good) then all their focus would be on Andy Reid
See: agrarian economics circa 1700-1865
I think college coaches do more than NFL coaches so the pay difference makes sense...
College coaches I would argue are so much more important. Good coaches can bring in way more in revenue than they cost. You win people show up you lose they don't. Also remember the NFL is a business the owners need to make profit another big mouth to feed you can never compare NFL to college
Good coaches bring in revenue because it’s against the rule to pay the players. If the only way to get Patrick Mahomes on your team was to find the correct coach, they’d be worth a lot more in the NFL. But you can pay Patrick Mahomes to play for your team, and so instead of paying a huge salary to a coach who can recruit him, you just give the money directly to Mahomes. This is how it works in every major professional league. The top paid players make way more than the top paid coaches. Way way more. It will happen in the NCAA too as soon as the schools aren’t banned from doing so.
Lol you used one of the worst examples. Patrick Mahomes was not a big recruits I think he only got three offers. I think Texas recruited him at a different position. What made Mahomes was his coaches and the pass happy scheme he plays. How many teams including Texas have been loaded with talent but can't win. Coaches make so much more of a difference in college
The BIG difference here is players in the NFL can stick on a team for a decade+, and they’re far more proven as valuable at that point. A college player only sticks around for 5 years max, and the top dollar players would probably only be 3 years. Recruits often need development and frankly most don’t go pro or bust. Having a coach that can keep the pipeline of talent and development in the long term is way better of an investment than players that are only gonna be there a few years. The value of Mahomes in the NFL for 15 years is so much more valuable than like a Caleb Williams at USC for 2 - the coach that gives you the chance at the next Caleb Williams is the more worthwhile investment.
So what you're saying is the colleges need to form a backroom deal to suppress the wages of coaches?
No. They just haven’t been forced to run as a business and this settlement might finally do that.
Paying the players is a whole separate issue. OP's question was about increased scholarships for other sports and your comment said that the schools can afford more scholarships if they just pay the coaches less. That could only work if all of the schools are in agreement on it. You've now created a cartel. But even that ignores that all coaches have current contracts that need to be paid out. And most of that money comes from boosters who are donating specifically to support the football team instead of men's golf or whatever. They can just stop giving money if it's not buying what they want it to.
Not true at all. There does not need to be any collusion on wage suppression. There are market events all the time that require businesses to fundamentally change to operate as they had before. Regulation is the number one example of how this happens. That isn’t a cartel.
How do you force the change from the schools to be "we'll pay coaches less and potentially impact the sport that drives revenue" instead of "we're gonna cut the sports that cost us money"?
By those involved with the school pressuring them to do so. We're all customers here. Some of us are boosters or alumni, and many of these schools are public institutions.
Why would the school have any incentive to do that? A year in the CFP spikes applications a crazy amount. A successful women's lacrosse team doesn't add students to the university (which is their bottom line at this point anyway).
My mother could lead Bama to an 8 win season. With the ability to openly buy talent she could get to 10 A couple of good bounces and she’s a champion
Yep. Coaching salaries are so inflated at the top of the sport Just like executive compensation everywhere in the USA
Maybe backroom deals to suppress wages of the players. I'd be for that.
You do realize that the majority of that salary isn't paid directly by the school correct?
Yes it is. You can look at Ohio State's 2023 report [here](https://news.osu.edu/ohio-state-reports-record-athletics-revenue-in-fy-2023/), on page 97 you'll see OSU reports paying $21.8M in coaching salaries for the football team.
Look at the revenue side. >Contributions $57,804,784 >Definition: Amounts received from individuals, corporations, associations, foundations, clubs or other organizations designated for the operations of the athletics program. > Media Rights $49,796,025 >Ticket Sales $73,386,886 >Royalties, Licensing, Advertisement and Sponsorships $42,832,059 >Program, Novelty, Parking and Concession Sales $11,668,662 >NCAA Distributions $5,664,682 >Conference Distributions (NonMedia and NonFootball Bowl) $4,693,324 >Conference Distributions of Football Bowl Generated Revenue $7,734,857 And then finally the amount that comes directly from the school: >Direct Institutional Support $115,571 A whole 0.04% of the athletics budget comes directly from the school.
I'm not sure what point you think you're making. "The school" in this context obviously refers to [University] Athletic Department. Which is obviously part of the broader university system.
External parties (eg the athletic foundation aka boosters) are paying the coaches salaries. Sure, it's funneled through the athletic department first, but it's still not "the school" paying the coaches.
What's the total valuation of those contracts and how much of that is based on bonuses based on media/apparel companies. When it comes to what the university proper is on the line for it's not as much as you think.
Can you please re-word this? I have no idea what you're trying to say here. OSU's coaching contracts are public record. We know how much they're paying their coaches. I doesn't matter in the slightest of OSU's coaches are making a combined $100 million from "media/apparel companies". OSU is cutting checks north of $20 million to them.
It actually does matter, because why coach some place that pays you less When you look at what your coaching staff is being paid it may be 21 mil from the university (that is a fact I am not arguing and this number may reflect the total cost of the employee). However if the valuation of the contract is 100 million as you stated then OSU is still not paying the majority of the contract. That's my only point. If you look further into it you will find that the majority of the total salary paid to coaches and staff are paid by other entities. That's all I'm saying
>It actually does matter, because why coach some place that pays you less Again, please explain what point you're trying to make. Money paid to OSU coaches from places outside of OSU has nothing to do with the topic of coaching budgets within the university, and so is not relevant. I pulled a random number out of my ass exaggerated for effect. That $100 million isn't anything real. >If you look further into it you will find that the majority of the total salary paid to coaches and staff are paid by other entities. That's all I'm saying Please provide any source at all for this claim. Googling "Ryan Day endorsement deals" yields no relevant results.
You also may want to take a look at Saban 's contract while he was at Bama, https://www.sportskeeda.com/college-football/nick-saban-alabama-contract-how-much-crimson-tide-hc-make-salary-bonuses-and-more Again the only point I'm making is that contracts are complicated
All that link says is how much Alabama is paying
Also gotcha covered with MSU's contract outlined here: https://www.freep.com/story/sports/college/michigan-state/spartans/2021/11/29/michigan-state-football-mel-tucker-contract-extension-details-no-new-buyout/8800227002/
You’re clearly confusing the idea that coaches getting paid for media appearances means a third party is cutting these coaches a check that never passes through the university. That’s not correct
Just take a look here: https://www.buckeyesports.com/ohio-state-board-of-trustees-approves-ryan-days-contract/?print=print
Again, those payments are being made by his employer, Ohio State. Whatever they’re specifically for doesn’t change that his university employer his paying him. I already proved this when I linked you to the report showing how much OSU themselves says they’re paying him
> College athletics don’t spend responsibly. Which is more irresponsible: paying the head football coach 3% of AD revenues when their sport is responsible for 60% of the total revenues? or paying the men’s swimming coach 0.1% of annual revenues when they only bring 0.05% of the revenues?
The difference is real life. https://swimswam.com/want-to-earn-the-big-bucks-be-a-d1-head-swim-coach/ If ASU is a Top 25 swim program they probably pay their coach $181,000 yearly. Which would be 0.1% of ASU’s athletic revenues. Meanwhile Akron’s football coach is making 3% of their revenues. The difference here is swimming may have three or four examples of what you outlined. College football has literally over 130.
So what? You're missing the point that akrons football coach brings in more money for the AD
Akron is paying their soccer coach over 200k. Which is the worse use of funds? I would argue it’s not akrons football coach.
I’d say Akron is in for a rude awakening and is overspending in a lot of areas. They could certainly scale back without sacrificing too much revenue.
Maybe we need to go back to the days of coaches actually being teachers at the universities instead of just coaches
Unfortunately, there have been dozens of schools that have cut their swim programs and other Olympic sports and not a single one has cut anything football related to “save” those sports. It seems pretty clear that colleges choose football money over other sports every single time at the FBS level
College coaches do way more than nfl coaches. They are basically coach and GM
The issue is that schools aren’t going to/can’t just cut the coaching salaries. I agree though, the salaries are ridiculous.
Obviously they’re going to cut the coaching salaries, Jesus Christ. It’s not going to happen overnight but every single professional sports league pays their coaches a very tiny fraction of what college football coaches make. And it’s not because the college football coaches are savvy negotiators, it’s just against the rules to pay the players. Once the Supreme Court strikes down this revenue sharing agreement (which is incredibly and obviously foreseeable) all it will take is a couple schools to start reallocating their coaching salaries to player salaries and the jig will be up. Coaches do not fucking matter, once you can pay the players directly. If you sign the best QB in the country and two best WRs along with other top end contributors, you can go undefeated even if Ed Orgeron is your coach. The current college football coaching salaries are totally preposterous. The moment players can be freely compensated, you will see a couple teams adapt with low coaching salaries and high player salaries, and everyone will follow suit within 10 years.
You are correct in that College athletics don't spend responsibly , in alot of cases, and there are other moves they could make to trim down costs. Cutting programs is quick way of lowing costs, rather than looking at the overall budget and trimming the fat.
You mean to tell me an amateur team has a lower payroll budget than a pro team, which results in the head coach being a higher percentage of overall payroll? Shocking!
Amateur lol. Yes, the only legitimate minor league football organization on earth who has been sued and lost multiple times for anti-competitive tactics for not compensating their labor pays their head coaches exorbitant amounts.
Nfl players don't make "optimized" salaries. This comparison makes no sense. Coaches are paid their market value. You gonna start paying the starting qb 20% of the team's revenue?
Uh they quite literally do. Thats the entire point of salary caps and a collective bargaining agreement that sets certain guidelines on compensation. The exact spot where you are drafted also dictates your maximum first contract salary.
Your point is we can resolve the distribution of wealth by reallocating coach salaries, but if we are paying everyone on the team their "appropriate" salary then there will only be reallocation within the football program, the other sports are still getting nothing.
College athletics haven't had to spend responsibly. Not having to pay players or turn a profit turns into spending all that ballooning cash that they're getting, it's why coach salaries and facilities and so on have gotten those gigantic increases. They were able to afford those non-revenue sports before this huge increase in money, it's kind of naive to think they can't afford it now. Now if they have to make massive cuts from one day to the next it might be a bit different, but as long as this takes a few years to happen it is absolutely within their power to afford all that. (Though this subreddit being so football focused there's an assumption that they won't cut football spending ever)
Yeah I read the OP and couldn't understand what point he was making. He made the point he didn't apparently understand.
Spend smarter? Many schools are reckless in their spending in football. The reason they've always said they can't afford to pay athletes is because they don't know how to budget. Tell some of these schools to spend time in the AAC and learn that you don't need to overpay for everything.
Many UO flairs never went to college and never learned to think critically.
By requiring schools to spend more money on programs that do not make money, you are incentvizing the school to cut those programs rather than lose even more money on them.
Typically programs that do not make money are women’s sports and because of Title IV you can’t just go cut a bunch of women’s programs.
You can if you cut the money pit men’s programs to offset.
Scholarships cost money small schools don't have.
Small schools should not be running minor league sports as a speculative business venture. Club sports and direct some of the savings back to the general student population in various ways
I hate this, but you are not wrong. Marshall cannot afford to have a D1 football program, and our students cannot afford the $2200 annual fee they pay for that privilege. It sucks, but this probably the future for a lot of schools. I hate that our brand and national name recognition will have to die for it, but Marshall is a dying school in a dying city wracked with poverty and this is probably what will have to give.
It’s probably only 25-35 teams that can really compete in this atmosphere. Unless they’re going to have salary caps and draft players Even then it’s probably no more than the top 50.
Reddit sucks, you made one of the most compelling points on this thread and are getting ripped for it. Appy and Tulsa and Old Dominion simply cannot be expected to play in the same arena as Ohio State and Georgia and they are bankrupting their students trying to.
>speculative business venture That's more cynical than I can imagine
they're all chasing that bag. college sports is simply a way to create revenue and fundraising. not to mention the whole system is set up in a way that guarantees the same 8 schools will generally be the only ones with a legitimate chance to win.
How much do scholarships really cost schools? Most of the value of a scholarship is stuff like tuition which doesn't actually cost the university anything, it's just lost potential revenue. Housing and meals at most universities would be similar where it doesn't cost them anything additional.
Giving away spots in classes and housing prevents you from selling those spots to others. Those spots have a price or cost. They’re never free
Yeah and like, its a small portion, but thats still paying for random things too, whether it be salaries, or just activities
But they don’t just waive the cost of tuition. Money changes hands from athletics to the university.
According to OP they cost at LEAST $10Mn. Right?
There is a difference between $10 million in value and $10 million in cost though. I know OP calls it cost but I'm just wondering if it is the actual cost because what I can tell an individual scholarship shouldn't cost a school that much in actual money.
Now multiply that individual by 100 to 200 student athletes taking classes by 6 figure professors, in buildings that costs 100s of millions supported by staff that cost 10s of millions.
Expanding scholarships means it will just result in more sports cut.
Let's see * Football +30m * Basketball + 5m * Baseball -2m * women's BB -5m * Swimming -4m * MSoccer -3m * WSoccer -5m * Softball -3m * MTrack -4m * WTrack -4m * Wrestling -3m * Gymnastics -5m Whose getting cut?
I'm still new in following this so correct any mistakes I make, but as I understand it the main problem is where this money is coming from. 40% is covered by the NCAA from March Madness Revenue, and 60% from conferences. The problem is that the Power 5 are covering less than half of that 60%. That is laughably disproportionate especially when CFP money is factored in. So I suspect the real problem is how many G5/mid-major sports are going to get cut because smaller conferences and schools can't foot the bill for the increased costs. There are already loads of quality athletic programs that are toeing the line financially and could go under if they have a few bad seasons without financial insurance from the NCAA
That's where the money to pay back damages is coming from. It's unrelated to the future terms that are currently unenforceable because they weren't negotiated with the players they affect.
There's nothing to enforce going forward. No school is forced to pay players. They're ALLOWED to pay players.
Is that really what you got out of that?
Is there even a P5 anymore? At this point it's either P2 or P4 and I'm honestly thinking it'll just be P2 soon.
Ok cool, Congress just said your school needs to have more scholarships for all sports (aka more $$$$.) The bean counters at the school are now looking for a way to save money. You know how we can save money? Cut all those sports that bring in no money (or lose money.) Now you just cut something that provides no money to the school and you save by not having to give scholarships out
Congress hasn't said anything. It's a settlement with former players for back damages. The forward-looking parts of it are entirely unenforceable as it stands now.
My impression of the forward looking parts is that schools are *able* to provide more scholarship but don't have to. Good luck to the mid-majors competing in Women's Soccer, baseball, etc.
This is what everyone seems to be missing.
I love when people feel compelled to respond to things despite having absolutely no clue what they’re talking about Why are you talking about Congress?
Because it's the *House* settlement.
lmaoooo
[удалено]
This guy is talking about Congress which has literally nothing to do with this lawsuit settlement. He saw the word House in the headline and formed an entire opinion based on a completely wrong understanding
The bill can’t force a school to maintain a sports program they can’t afford. At most schools, sports other than football, and men’s and women’s basketball lose money on their own, so what would increasing the cost of said programs prompt the school to do?
This fucking sucks. This hurts everyone but the people who are already getting everything.
Copy and paste for pretty much everything NIL-related
It's not a bill. It's a court settlement. And it doesn't force any school to pay their players. It ALLOWS them to do so.
If that’s the case, no one is forcing a school to stay at DI or FBS either
Economics 101
a.) Expanding scholarships for schools that don't have money means sports get cut. You don't have to expand scholarships if the program doesn't exist. b.) Expanding doesn't mean full scholarships, it can mean partial too. So, for example, let's say right now there is 1 volleyball scholarship that is a full ride. Based on the new rules, they're now going to make it a partial but allow one more. By definition, they're expanding it but also giving less to the players (which is perfectly legal.)
I'm still waiting to see how this is worded. I sent the question into Dellenger (not that I expect him to answer). I want to know if it's sports specific or something like "Must provide 400 scholarships in addition to football and basketball." If it's the latter it would be a move to protect the smaller sports. Not all of them, of course. Oregon gives 485 scholarships. So something like that would be a move that could prevent too many/any cuts. However, if it is "if you have a baseball team then you need to offer 20 baseball scholarships" then yeah... some schools are cutting baseball. Really depends on how it is worded in the settlement. I think OP assumed it was worded like the latter. That universities must provide X number of scholarships. Right now the minimum an FBS school must provide is 210. If they offer fewer than that then the NCAA will not sanction them as an FBS school. If the House Settlement increases the requirement, it protects some non-rev sports.
Many sports are already “equivalency” sports such as baseball- which prior to this settlement allows a team the equivalency of 11.7 scholarships to disperse amongst the roster as the program sees fit. This is not new
Unless it changed; 1 full ride or 4 quarter scholarships both count as 1 scholarships
Two reasons… 1. For a lot of non-P5 schools, their going to be encouraged to try to revenue share with football/basketball players in order to stay competitive. Those non-P5 schools probably don’t have the revenue flexibility to do revenue share without cutting drastically elsewhere. And if the battle is between revenue share with football or have a women’s tennis team, football is going to win, unfortunately. 2. A lot of non-P5 schools don’t fund the scholarship max in non-revenue sports to begin with. I work for a school that, even though baseball allows you to fund up to 11.7 scholarships, only funds 8. Now that the NCAA has taken off the limits, the teams that fund the full amount of scholarships will just be P5. So pretty good chance, non-revenue championships become even more P5-centric than they already are.
2 is definitely true. Broadcast for a school that gives between 1-1.5 total for baseball and (I think) 2.5 for men’s soccer.
Maybe a hot take but Athletes receiving a certain amount of NIL shouldn’t be eligible for scholarships. Leave them for people that actually need it Edit: I also have no idea how athletic scholarships work so maybe this wouldn’t work just my two cents
I agree 100 percent. Millionaire players that don’t go to class shouldn’t be able to hog the scholarships.
Real as fuck
Really, there should be a cap of like 100k for each P5 football player, that is paid by the school, no matter where the school is or the star level of the player. Then the player could either take 100K plus a partial scholarship and pay their own way through school(books/fees/housing), minus tuition, meals, insurance and athletic gear that is provided for them. The other option, they get a full ride athletic scholarship plus 50K(max) paid by the school. Either option, they are free to receive outside NIL but only for things like using their image to star in commercials or maybe have their own blog/vlog that people pay for or make donations e.g. Patreon.
[удалено]
The future parts of the settlement for past damages to past athletes would mean more direct spending from schools (and taxpayers). That's a problem for the vast majority of athletic departments that aren't having revenue sports lift them up to breaking even or better. Increasing the scholarship limits doesn't create that extra money out of thin air. It's possible those who were funding NILs, formerly funding athletic departments, now donate specifically for player pay instead of facilities and coaching salaries as they were previously limited to. However, none of that speculation really matters until terms for future pay are collectively bargained with the athletes subject to those terms and/or an act of Congress codifies such terms.
Because its a fucking lie to argue you can pay pay revenue sports players, maintain your budget for each Olympic sport, and not cut any Olympic sports entirely. You can’t do all three things at once without a dedicated commitment from schools to **NOT** spend more money on football/basketball which has literally never happened in the last 40+ years of rising TV contracts. Even as TV dollars rise, Olympic sports continue to get cut. That was without revenue sharing which will only ramp up the pressure to take more money out of the Olympic sports budget.
The entire Olympic sport budget at the majority of schools is a fraction of the cost of football, and cutting those Sports is terrible for alumni relations. It is a pure excuse on the part of athletic directors to try and skim the budget for that nonsense.
They can “require” whatever they want but it doesn’t suddenly make the money to pay for it appear. Many non- revenue generating men’s sports will have to be cut to pay for women’s athletics.
I’m sure some schools will cut non-revenue sports. You can’t take $20M out of the budget without cutting back some.
Why cut sports that are cheap to operate when you can cut back on coaching salary bloat? Most schools *have* the money to run those programs, they just need to trim existing fat
Yes, need to pay coaches less... or just fire some of those coaches whose programs you have to cut and your good to go. Problem solved right?
This is going to lead to lower paid coaches in every sport (which is a good thing). But ultimately hiring coaches in secondary sports is not the major expense. It’s the football coaching staffs that are going to get absolutely fucking obliterated as soon as the cap on paying players gets struck down.
Maybe. You won't get the best coaches then. If you have to choose between a top tier football coach to keep your program winning and brining in recruits and most importatly $$$$$ or keeping a few olympic sports, you know what the schools will do.
In every sporting league in the world that pays its players, getting the best players is much more valuable than the best coaches. The first few schools that take their coaching salaries and instead allocate them into getting the best rosters in the sport are going to run train on any school that doesn’t get with the program. College football coaches make a preposterous and unsustainable amount of revenue in a world where the players must be paid. We’re talking complete obliteration of coaching salaries as soon as paying the players is allowed.
You will get more coaches jumping ship to the pros then like Harbaugh. Thus you suffer a downgrade in coaching. Why would a guy take peanuts to coach in college where they have to deal with all the bs when they can go to the pros and get much better and not have to suck up to high schoolers and deal with the portal and shady leadership.
That’s correct. That’s how it should work when one league makes 5x the revenue of the other league. The only reason it’s not the case today is because one of the leagues illegally colludes to avoid paying players. But when an NFL team makes $600M in revenue and your average P5 team makes closer to $30-50M, you better believe the pro jobs should be better.
I don't think teams, fans, schools are going to be interested in dumping their good coaches for whoever they can get for cheap, nor do the fans want to see their teams performing worse because of fewer and less skilled coaches. Perhaps you are of the belief thar coaches don't matter all that much. I know I'd not have been a successful athlete without my coach.
There will be some of that too. A&M fired a bunch of football staff after Trev Alberts settled in iirc.
You leave Mark Mangino out of this.
You don't have to take $20 million out of the budget. You're allowed to.
If athletes want to be paid for their abilities then there should be contracts. This portal shit transferring to 3-4 schools has got to stop. If they want to pretend to be professional athletes they should be treated like ones too
The reason there are no contracts is because the NCAA has banned them. Contracts would be really good for players, and you’re right that it would solve a lot of problems. The issue is that it would most likely lead to catastrophic (80%+) declines in admin and coaching salaries, if every single other professional sports league in the world is any indication. So the administrators aren’t highly motivated to do this.
Getting the players and schools to agree to contracts is slim to nil. No school is going to require contracts if it means being less competitive.
Again - contracts are good for players. Where they’re allowed, they will be signed. That’s why coaches, who are neither forced or restricted from contracts, sign them.
The settlement can't just make imaginary money appear out of thin air. It may result in an increase in the rosters for wealthy P2 schools but the net number of "P" schools is going to decrease and all of the new G or FCS schools will be slashing costs. The total number of High School graduates is projected to decrease by several hundred thousand per year over the next 20 years. You can't just make a cadre of elite athletes worthy of D1 scholarships just manifest out of thin air. This particular clause of the settlement is just lip service that is probably unenforceable.
This exact reason is why it could kill them off, if you recquire the schools to spend more on them to keep them alive then guess what schools are gonna do, not keep them alive
You cant expand scholarships in a sport if you dont have it
Where’s the money for non-revenue generating sports going to come from? Can’t wait for all these people cheering for this to see their tuitions go way up
I think OP works for the government. What he said sounds great at first, but if you think about it for 0.01 seconds, he’s completely and utterly wrong. Classic government.
Because for smaller colleges, if they can't afford the expansions they can just stop sponsoring the sport, and if enough of them do that then it reduces the total scholarships available.
How about we start with your own flair's press release? https://www.buckeyesports.com/ohio-state-board-of-trustees-approves-ryan-days-contract/?print=print And for further proof we can look at Mel Tucker's structure https://www.freep.com/story/sports/college/michigan-state/spartans/2021/11/29/michigan-state-football-mel-tucker-contract-extension-details-no-new-buyout/8800227002/ Final source, fun fact I used to intern under a Sr Assoc AD at Maryland who explained how complicated some of this stuff was once we moved to the B1G. Again my only point is that everyone thinks that the school itself pays everything from a preset budget, but that's not the case, it's more complicated
https://y.yarn.co/40ebd071-8d1e-4e06-b6e4-2cccce702805_text.gif
So increasing scholarships by 10 million AND doing revenue sharing up 20 million is just not feasible for most programs.
I have a feeling that I know at least one departmental staff member that’ll continue to be fucked over.
I think certain schools will use this to cut non-revenue sports that they have been wanting to cut, but could not do so because of the push back of public opinion. It just going to depend on the school though.
Because if they cut the number of sports, it would cut the number of scholarships they may have to potentially offer.
In some schools cases, you don’t need to give a schollie to non revenue generating sports. Just give them an NIL deal that covers the cost of school and call them a walkon. That way they avoid any school scholarship counts. This NIL situation has gotten absolutely out of hand.
Because, if it doesn't generate money, it's wasting money. Honestly, this will be a $20.00 increase to football tickets and a $5.00 increase to basketball tickets to cover the 10 mil.
$10millon in cost for non-revenue sports will turn a lot of universities entire athletics departments unprofitable. Some of the schools this would apply to will surprise you. Oklahoma, for example, a very successful program by most measures booked $177.3M in revenue last year against $176M in cost. Penn State would see 90% of their athletics profitability disappear, preventing them from investing anything back into the school or to future projects unless fully bankrolled by the boosters. Tennessee already operates at a loss, losing $2.5M last year…. Oregon becomes unprofitable. Hawaii? $10M is nearly 20% of their total revenue. Toast. Schools will mitigate the cost by eliminating the sport entirely. This would serve to help them twice over, they no longer have to pay the scholarship costs AND they shed the cost burden of the non revenue sport that was eliminated.
So my question is how much of the scholarship will now be considered compensation and taxed annually? Seems like this could be incredibly detrimental to a large number of students who have no NIL/Professional expectations.
The answer is literally a short google search away, the IRS answers these questions for you for free. Just because InTuit doesn't want you to know that doesn't mean it's not easily found. All of scholarship that is used to pay for actual school stuff at an actual school is entirely tax free. Anything spent on non school stuff is taxable income. If they make so much from scholarships that, after all the schooling is paid for, it STILL puts them above the standard deduction then they will have to pay some amount of income tax.
Because lots of people hate player compensation and will find any reason they can in order to advocate for why it's bad. Ask them about Ohio State's $25 million dollar coaching budget and apparently that's untouchable, but paying the kids that keep those coaches employed and all of a sudden its the death of college sports.
Ugh, I'm over this simplification of the issue. Right now, or at least until 2 years ago, there were only a few things that an AD could spend money on that would improve his football team. Improving the football team results in more revenue for the AD and thus all other sports. The biggest contributor to improving football performance was the HC, and the salaries reflect that. As players start getting paid, that will absolutely normalize. I just hope people like this commenter don't come back shocked when even after players get paid the coaches are still paid exorbitantly more.
Why would I be shocked that coaches still get paid more than any individual athlete, or even all of them together? The relative worth of a coach vs a player has absolutely nothing to do with anything I said. Football coaching salaries don't even have to be what changes. It was just a convenient example, one among many. OSU pays its WBB coach twice what that program brings in in revenue. It pays $750,000 for its golf team coaching staffs. It just spent $22 million on a lacrosse-only stadium. The actual point I made is that athletic departments over-fund myriad expense lines in their P&Ls. They could absolutely choose to comply with all player compensation requirements while also maintaining the same number of sports and scholarships across all sports that they currently offer. When they choose not to, we must recognize it is a choice willingly made by leadership, and not the fault of the athletes who help generate billions in revenue finally getting paid for their work.
Agreed- I think the court cases would have gone differently if college athletic programs didn’t chart a course decades ago that has led to coaches making 7 and 8 figures, multiple athletic administrators making 7 figures, and University Athletic Programs with 200 employees functioning as a professional sports organization for everyone except the players. If Nick Saban made $190,000 a year, it would be much more palatable for the judges.