FCS schools have to pay $$$ to help Power 4

[tsull]

Interesting article, FCS schools have to pay six figures a year for a decade to prop up the big time schools and lawsuits. Now the argument could be made that the FCS schools for years have leached off the big schools, especially with NCAA basketball money. I think one files this under "be careful what you wish for" in the D2 schools jumping up to FCS.

https://www.idahostatejournal.com/to...700b3261e.html

[Eagle74]

So, how many FCS schools (especially those with limited budgets) will now be seriously be looking at moving back to D2 ASAP?

Over the past several years, it appears as though simple short sighted GREED seems to be the main determining factor in the potentially destroy college football as we know it.

[MooseLodge]

So, how many FCS schools (especially those with limited budgets) will now be seriously be looking at moving back to D2 ASAP?

Over the past several years, it appears as though simple short sighted GREED seems to be the main determining factor in the potentially destroy college football as we know it.

Most FCS budgets are in the $12-15 million range. $300K a year would be a 2 to 2.5 percent hit against the budget. That won't cause most to consider a move to D2.

It is unfair, however, that FCS was levied a fairly significant part of the restitution. Thank you P4!

[tsull]

What I don't get is why they call it NIL? It's just over-the-table booster money. Most of these athletes have zero NIL capability. Maybe 1 or 2 a team. If your starting lineman at Ohio State -- who is probably getting $500K to $1M a year from boosters -- went into a company and said I want to do a commerical for you for $500K, he'd first be asked who he is, and then laughed out of the building. One or two stars on teams have NIL capability, the rest do not. One USC football player, Caleb Williams, was on national TV commercials and all of my friends said, "Who is that?" My friends in L.A. said there are exactly ZERO billboards in L.A. of USC or UCLA athletes doing advertisements. So the whole NIL thing is a fraud, yet it's OK?

[Bballfan]

What I don't get is why they call it NIL? It's just over-the-table booster money. Most of these athletes have zero NIL capability. Maybe 1 or 2 a team. If your starting lineman at Ohio State -- who is probably getting $500K to $1M a year from boosters -- went into a company and said I want to do a commerical for you for $500K, he'd first be asked who he is, and then laughed out of the building. One or two stars on teams have NIL capability, the rest do not. One USC football player, Caleb Williams, was on national TV commercials and all of my friends said, "Who is that?" My friends in L.A. said there are exactly ZERO billboards in L.A. of USC or UCLA athletes doing advertisements. So the whole NIL thing is a fraud, yet it's OK?

The whole intent of NIL went out the window a long time ago. NIL was for athletes to make money off their "name, imagine, and likeness". That would be influencers, athletes doing commercials, that kind of thing. It was never intended to be "pay to play" which it has now devolved into. I have no problem with athletes making money for what they do off the field. But when you are simply paying money to an 18 year old to play a sport, that's not amateur athletics. Then you are no different from a professional, without a contract or collective bargaining agreement.

[tsull]

The whole intent of NIL went out the window a long time ago. NIL was for athletes to make money off their "name, imagine, and likeness". That would be influencers, athletes doing commercials, that kind of thing. It was never intended to be "pay to play" which it has now devolved into. I have no problem with athletes making money for what they do off the field. But when you are simply paying money to an 18 year old to play a sport, that's not amateur athletics. Then you are no different from a professional, without a contract or collective bargaining agreement.

What I don't get is the amateur/professional model of college sports. Amateur: no contracts, no trades, no commissioners, no drug testing. Professional: athletes getting tons of money, some more than NFL and NBA.

I seriously don't get the no contract deal. How can they have no contracts? The worst thing is "NIL" is run by boosters and not the schools, that's always a bad way to go. The NCAA is zero for a 100 on lawsuits so they're afraid to touch it.

[Bballfan]

All the NCAA cares about is its March basketball tournament. If they lose some of that money then college athletics as we know it will not exist. Again that is the engine the drives non-revenue championships, small school athletics, and much, much more.

[MooseLodge]

What I don't get is why they call it NIL? It's just over-the-table booster money. Most of these athletes have zero NIL capability. Maybe 1 or 2 a team. If your starting lineman at Ohio State -- who is probably getting $500K to $1M a year from boosters -- went into a company and said I want to do a commerical for you for $500K, he'd first be asked who he is, and then laughed out of the building. One or two stars on teams have NIL capability, the rest do not. One USC football player, Caleb Williams, was on national TV commercials and all of my friends said, "Who is that?" My friends in L.A. said there are exactly ZERO billboards in L.A. of USC or UCLA athletes doing advertisements. So the whole NIL thing is a fraud, yet it's OK?

There are probably fewer than a dozen college athletes in all of college sports that have any sort of "billboard" appeal, and that would most certainly be limited to a specific market. A billboard with Caleb Williams on it would be nothing in 99.9 percent of markets.

This is actually the reason there will not be a Power 2 conference; there isn't a sufficient national audience for 30 college teams.

[WT&TTECHfan]

Most FCS budgets are in the $12-15 million range. $300K a year would be a 2 to 2.5 percent hit against the budget. That won't cause most to consider a move to D2.

It is unfair, however, that FCS was levied a fairly significant part of the restitution. Thank you P4!

I don’t think most FCS schools are worried about paying the $300k a year.Its the status on the athletes becoming employees is what’s going to affect them.Thats why the NCAA and schools are begging congress to get involved.

[Eagle74]

I had an interesting conversation about College Sports and the athletes becoming 'paid employees' of the universities and colleges. Several points were brought up, especially as it pertains to the new rules they will face through the government (11246 Order) regulated EOC. Legally to stay within compliance, will the schools as employers (and possibly unions) have to abide to the EOC's mandates of equality be it race, gender, religion, sexual preference, etc? Will these government EOC mandates supersede talent and athleticism in employee selection? If so, a team's potential makeup could drastically change in basically the first year.

[MooseLodge]

I had an interesting conversation about College Sports and the athletes becoming 'paid employees' of the universities and colleges. Several points were brought up, especially as it pertains to the new rules they will face through the government (11246 Order) regulated EOC. Legally to stay within compliance, will the schools as employers (and possibly unions) have to abide to the EOC's mandates of equality be it race, gender, religion, sexual preference, etc? Will these government EOC mandates supersede talent and athleticism in employee selection? If so, a team's potential makeup could drastically change in basically the first year.

Employment law applies to every employer, regardless of the nature of the business or organization. Certainly, any employer can provide reasonable requirements - education, ability to perform certain physical tasks, computer software knowledge, etc. The sticking point will be that, while Federal employment law is the same in all fifty states, state employment law varies widely by state. So a California employer has many mandates that an employer in Texas does not. Yet they would both have to meet Federal requirements - a health plan, OSHA, etc.

After the Dartmouth ruling, I don't see the Supreme Court granting college athletics a waiver of all of these. If they did, why would not the NFL, NHL, MLB, NBA, and MLS be offered the same? It would be an unprecedented move, with a lot of unintended consequences down the road.

I predict we are quickly moving to a club sports/non-scholarship model for the vast majority of schools. Next 2-4 years. The new world order is going to be navigable, but highly complex and very expensive. A non-scholarship model sheds most of these problems, and I think many fans will still support it.

[Eagle74]

After the Dartmouth ruling, I don't see the Supreme Court granting college athletics a waiver of all of these. If they did, why would not the NFL, NHL, MLB, NBA, and MLS be offered the same?
.

Because those pro-sport organizations do not receive any federal $$$$$$ support like both public and private colleges/ universities in the way of funding, grants, including pell grants, etc, to the tune of nearly 100 Billion. So they will be able to call the shots.

[tsull]

Because those pro-sport organizations do not receive any federal $$$$$$ support like both public and private colleges/ universities in the way of funding, grants, including pell grants, etc, to the tune of nearly 100 Billion. So they will be able to call the shots.

But athletic scholarships are 100% funded by boosters/donors, not federal funds.

[Eagle74]

In D2 only a percentage is funded by boosters / donors. What I'm talking about is when the athletes start being paid by the schools as employees. Then all of the EOC / equality rules and regulations start kicking in. This may include employment being influenced by demographics %, be it nationally, local, or of the school (employer). It could potentially be like opening Pandora's box where checking boxes counts more than actual talent.

[MooseLodge]

Because those pro-sport organizations do not receive any federal $$$$$$ support like both public and private colleges/ universities in the way of funding, grants, including pell grants, etc, to the tune of nearly 100 Billion. So they will be able to call the shots.

Federal and state statutes will call the shots, regardless of who is funding what. The SC isn't going to waive compliance with federal employment law for an entity because they are getting some federal dollars. It doesn't work that way. The SC is ultimately going to decide if athletes are in fact employees. Judging for their recent rulings, I suspect they will.