Re: ... and away we go .....
Funny how the biggest critics of martin hall don't realize how hard martin hall would laugh at their applications if sent in today under the new standards
Re: ... and away we go .....
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RougaWhite&Blue
Funny how the biggest critics of martin hall don't realize how hard martin hall would laugh at their applications if sent in today under the new standards
Contemplating that would be like Martin Hall laughing at the very foundation of their existence
Re: ... and away we go .....
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CajunNation
https://sports.yahoo.com/ncaa-propos...145051537.html
NCAA proposing new college athletics subdivision rooted in direct athlete compensation<svg width="20" height="20" viewBox="0 0 20 20"></svg>
Ross Dellenger
Senior College Football Reporter
<time class="" datetime="2023-12-05T15:27:56.000Z">Tue, Dec 5, 2023, 9:27 AM CST</time>
The new subdivision would do the following:
- Schools may opt in or out to the new subdivision.
- New subdivision has strict minimum standrard rooted in athlete investment.
- Members may create their own NIL deals with their own athletes.
- Members may directly compensate athletes through a trust fund.
- Members are required to distribute to athletes "thousands of dollars in additional educationally related funds without limitation."
- No cap on the amount of funding that a program can provide an athlete.
- Entry into the subdivision requires a minimum $30,000 per year per athlete investment into the "enhanced education trust fund" for at least half of the school's countable athletes.
- Schools determine when the athletes receive the amount, which will total $120,000 for four-year athletes.
- Schools must abide by Title IX framework, 50% of the investment must be directed towards women athletes.
- NCAA will be over the subdivision and the members will compete against other members in Division 1. (Current CFP models and national championship selections methods are unaltered).
- Schools in the new subdivision have control of decision-making regarding schoolarship limits and countable coaches. Major conference programs can increase the limits or do away with them altogether.
You and I have talked about this a number of years going back before Maggard was hired and some people laughed at us on RP. I thought the number that would eventually separate was around 40 or 50, but that number will be much less than that when it settles.
Re: ... and away we go .....
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CajunT
You and I have talked about this a number of years going back before Maggard was hired and some people laughed at us on RP. I thought the number that would eventually separate was around 40 or 50, but that number will be much less than that when it settles.
And it appears teams can come and go. So there’s also a shout out to the fans of relegation. Well kinda.
Re: ... and away we go .....
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ZoomZoom
And it appears teams can come and go. So there’s also a shout out to the fans of relegation.
Woohoo
Re: ... and away we go .....
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ZoomZoom
And it appears teams can come and go. So there’s also a shout out to the fans of relegation. Well kinda.
Well, since there will be no NCAA regulations if they separate. That would depend upon which regulations you are talking about. :)
Re: ... and away we go .....
Well the Vanderbilts, Indianas, Kentuckys and others will soon want the same for MBB. That is how they will stay in the club.
Re: ... and away we go .....
They should just make the scholarships numbers cumulative and let schools decide which sports they want to focus on. If you want to have 85 football Walkons but 95 baseball scholarships so be it.
Re: ... and away we go .....
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ZoomZoom
Well the Vanderbilts, Indianas, Kentuckys and others will soon want the same for MBB. That is how they will stay in the club.
It won't keep those schools with the best football programs, that's what this separation is about.
Re: ... and away we go .....
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CajunT
You and I have talked about this a number of years going back before Maggard was hired and some people laughed at us on RP. I thought the number that would eventually separate was around 40 or 50, but that number will be much less than that when it settles.
TV probably wants it narrowed down to about 32, a nice neat bracket. Just like the NFL.
Re: ... and away we go .....
First, it should be said the NCAA should have allowed modest stipends to athletes years ago. Increasing $$ from freshman thru senior year. But not a socialistic stance that every athlete in every sport mens or womens gets the same $$. Non PC Alert: The proposal of 50% to women athletes is just asinine especially now with NCAA allowing men to declare their womanhood playing college athletics. Insanity. I've got two daughters that played track & field and swimming long ago so am all about girls having opportunities to play sports, too. But not at any cost to be all things to all people. The NCAA can collapse under the weight of its stupidity and social agenda for all I care.
Re: ... and away we go .....
From the most knowledgeable person I know about the business of collegiate athletics, Arkstfan, .....
Quote:
Baker's plan is DOA.
He's grasping trying to find a hook to get Congress to grant an anti-trust exemption and that ain't it.
The Power 5 now 4 crapped the nest.
You can wax poetic about the amateur nature of college athletics all you want but it's a hard sell when coaches make $10 million and assistants have hit $2 million. Who believes this is an amateur pursuit when hundreds of millions of dollars are plowed into facilities?
Schools are blowing through $150 million and more and it took losing lawsuit after lawsuit to just get players full cost of attendance and the right to profit from their name, image, and likeness. What did the beast do? The beast set up NIL "collectives" giant "tip jars" for fans. NOT THE $150 million enterprise, but the fans to pay the players. The schools turned the kids pro with the collectives because payment is not related to NIL but projected or established on field or on court value. They organize the scheme but don't use "their" money to fund it.
I used this example on our board.
St Jude's Children's Research Hospital is a leading childhood cancer research facility. They spend about $2 billion a year, roughly 10X what Texas A&M athletics spends. St. Jude has two people making more than $1 million, none make $2 million. If St Jude the charitable hospital and research facility was irresponsible paying salaries as Texas A&M's charitable foundation for athletics, it would be a massive national scandal.
Ain't no one in Congress or the courts coming to save college football until they do something HUGE to make it worth saving from a verdict that players are employees and the colleges have illegally conspired to suppress earnings of players.
Re: ... and away we go .....
Having second thoughts on this.
Looking at chatter on other boards and reading more on what the author of the proposal thinks, the number of schools being kicked around as being able to "opt-in" to this deal is closer to 100.
If that many schools are going to do this, I would want to be in that group.
Re: ... and away we go .....
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rainman66
This is definitely not good for us in softball and baseball. Better make the WCWS and CWS soon.
This. This is devastating and will kill us fully and completely in every sport. We can’t compete in any sport with schools who are willing to drop a minimum of 30k per athlete.
Re: ... and away we go .....
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CajunT
Well, since there will be no NCAA regulations if they separate. That would depend upon which regulations you are talking about. :)
Relegation…like euro soccer standings.
Re: ... and away we go .....
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CajunNation
Having second thoughts on this.
Looking at chatter on other boards and reading more on what the author of the proposal thinks, the number of schools being kicked around as being able to "opt-in" to this deal is closer to 100.
If that many schools are going to do this, I would want to be in that group.
There is roughly 300 scholarship athletes at FBS programs. Nearly $10M per year in this proposal.
Re: ... and away we go .....
Quote:
Originally Posted by
cajun4life
There is roughly 300 scholarship athletes at FBS programs. Nearly $10M per year in this proposal.
The minimum is 30k/person for HALF of the people you have. Anywhere from 6-8 mill is what people are throwing around. Again, the guy that wrote this proposal thinks around 100 schools would opt in to this.
That would be the P5 plus Big East schools and a good portion of the MWC/AAC plus whoever else steps up like Liberty.
The proposal says they are creating another subdivision, but what they really are doing is moving the goal posts to be 1-A, FBS or whatever they want to call it.
I would hope we could stay with the service academies and most of the top G5 schools. I wouldn't want to be excluded from those schools.
Re: ... and away we go .....
Will we still be committed to being 1-A in every way?
Re: ... and away we go .....
. . . there will always be a need for the halves to get 3 or 4 easy wins . . .
Re: ... and away we go .....
The only way to do that is to access a student fee of $25/credit hour, capped at 12 hours.
If our student body was serious the. That’s the only way to go. But they of course would vote it down. Then on the off chance it would pass, T-Joe would cut the general fund transfer and auxiliary fees.
So the short answer would be, no we are not serious.