NCAA Thoughts on player compensation, roster limits, House settlement, etc.

[Squidward]

Hello everyone.

I thought I would start a thread for discussion of all the recent activity related to NCAA rules affecting player compensation, roster limits, etc. In particular, I'd like to discuss potential impacts to non-revenue sports like Gymnastics, and women's sports in general.

Some background:

An overview of what the House settlement is all about:

What is the House settlement involving college sports and why does it matter?

The settlement of a $2.8 billion federal class-action antitrust lawsuit filed by athletes against the NCAA and the largest conferences (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and SEC) was approved by the defendants and plaintiffs in May 2024 and not long afterward by U.S.

apnews.com

Latest news on House settlement (proposed changes to roster limits):

NCAA's House settlement revised in hopes of placating judge; her decision could shake up college sports forever

The NCAA and power conferences are revising rules around roster limits in hopes of appeasing the judge in the critical college sports case.

sports.yahoo.com

There is some related discussion in this thread:

NCAA NCAA athletes who don't compete

Jan 6, 2025

I'm curious about NCAA teams where there are certain athletes that consistently don't make the roster for meets. Do they still retain their scholarships?

• Gym_momma
• college recruiting scholarships
• Replies: 38
• Forum: College Gymnastics (NCAA / NCGA)

• 

My thoughts:

I'm not particularly knowledgeable on the subject, so take this for what it's worth, but I'll share a few thoughts just to start some discussion.

My impression is that in general these changes are negative and will overall be harmful to college athletics, especially to non-revenue sports. The previous "amateur" nature of college sports made sense to me, where players were not allowed to be directly "paid" other than scholarships covering basic expenses. I suspect that the changes will primarily benefit football and basketball players at the expense of athletes and programs in other sports.

Paying athletes directly seems to be fraught with potential problems. It could create different "classes" of students, conflict between athletes and/or coaches based on levels of pay, inequity between "rich" and "poor" schools in their ability to recruit and fund sports programs, and could lead to something like the ever-escalating-to-the-point-of-being-ridiculous sorts of pay and greed that we see in professional sports. Money that is paid directly to athletes is no longer available to fund other sports programs.

In my view, college is first and foremost about education. Playing sports at that level is a privilege for which any student athlete should be grateful, without the need of direct payment. I don't want college sports to become like professional, I appreciate the fact that college sports are different. I think non-revenue sports are important and beneficial.

I know there are others here with deeper understanding of these topics, so please share your thoughts and tell me where I'm wrong. Thanks!

 

[skschlag]

I am deeply concerned about the non-revenue sports, as are you. The changes I saw just over the 4 years my son was in college were huge. Not only concerned about the non-revenue sports, but also concerned about smaller programs. I hope I am wrong!

Kentucky is looking to make their Athletic department an LLC from all of this. https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/44842208/university-kentucky-athletics-department-llc

 

[gym_dad32608]

The general idea of athletes getting compensated I am all for, with an asterisk. The asterisk is for that I believe this only applies to the P5 conferences. There is no doubt over the last 10 years sports in these conferences has become big business. Billion dollar TV contracts, multi-million dollar coaches salaries and buyouts, scheduling games and competitions all based on TV demands. All this done with no benefit to the athletes actually competing other than a "scholarship". The problem, like many things involving the NCAA, is the implementation. The NCAA had the chance to get ahead of this and come up with a controlled and rational plan to allow athletes in these conferences to see some of the rewards of their endeavors. Instead the NCAA put their head in the sand and said they are "amateurs" and "student-athletes" so the courts would never rule against us. Lo and behold the courts see things differently, and so we got the wild west of anything goes. The settlement is a positive step in that regard to put some barriers around athlete compensation but I am skeptical that it will amount to much in regards to controlling NIL and compensation.

In regards to non-revenue sports, yes, I think if you follow trendlines, the chasm between the well funded athletic departments in the SEC and Big10 will become more pronounced. Even the ACC and Big12 will have a hard time keeping up. The teams in the SEC and Big10 will have much more ability to absorb the added costs/revenue share without affecting support to non-revenue sports. These will be the teams that can offer full scholarships for all 20 spots (in gymnastics), have the nicest facilities, provide the most support around being a student athlete and yes, the best revenue share and NIL opportunities. Its only expected that the best gymnasts will gravitate towards these programs.

 

[GymDadWA]

Football needs to be it's own organization and governing body the Big10 and SEC are ready to do this on their own anyways as they don't see value in any of the other conferences (see what they feel the CFP should be). If football wants to be a professional league with paid athletes and free agents let them fight it out amongst themselves.

If you pull football out even basketball can fit into an NCAA amateur model where the benefit of being a student athlete is the scholarship and exposure. Allowing students to get a NIL contract(s) I feel is fine. If the athlete is able to market themselves like Livvy Dunne then that is their unique talent and they should benefit from it. I wouldn't pay athletes directly other than a stipend for cost of living.

In the end college athletics should be more available to athletes of various levels and backgrounds, a college shouldn't be afraid of taking a chance on unknown athletes especially if it is a life changing opportunity for them (can't afford college on their own, wouldn't get in without the sport, etc.). By putting such a high cost requirement on offering a sport you will see more and more schools stopping athletics altogether.

 

[Dahlialover]

I think that the quasi-professional collegiate sports of men’s football and men’s basketball need to be completely separated from all the other “non revenue” collegiate sports programs. They need to be administered under different organizations with different rules. As long as revenue and non-revenue sports are linked, everything will be set up to serve the interests of the revenue sports.

 

[gym_dad32608]

The problem is, how are you going to fund the non-revenue sports?

 

[ORgymmom]

The problem is, how are you going to fund the non-revenue sports?

The Ivy League definitely doesn’t make money off of football or baseball and is funding more varsity sports than most D1 universities. Same for places like MIT, or for that matter, most D3 programs.

 

[gym_dad32608]

And when was the last time you saw Brown football play on prime-time national television on Saturday night? Yes, the Ivies are unique as well as the lower divisions. They don't have the sport palaces, the armies of support staff, etc. This is all about the major conferences. The genie is out of the bottle on that, and there is no way you are going to tell Alabama, or Ohio State or Michigan or USC or UCLA to cut everything and run on a shoestring budget. Nor would the TV execs allow it.

 

[Dahlialover]

The problem is, how are you going to fund the non-revenue sports?

Revenue is revenue; colleges can choose to use the revenue generated by their professional football business to fund amateur collegiate athletics or not. That’s a decision each university will have to make. Decoupling other sports from football would make the other sports cheaper because they would be able to compete regionally to reduce travel time and expenses (instead of having to compete in whatever conference is best for football tv broadcast revenue). I’m sure there are other expenses that could be minimized if they were not working in a system designed for football.

 

[gym_dad32608]

Revenue is revenue; colleges can choose to use the revenue generated by their professional football business to fund amateur collegiate athletics or not. That’s a decision each university will have to make. Decoupling other sports from football would make the other sports cheaper because they would be able to compete regionally to reduce travel time and expenses (instead of having to compete in whatever conference is best for football tv broadcast revenue). I’m sure there are other expenses that could be minimized if they were not working in a system designed for football.

And if you leave that decision up to a college that has now decoupled its "professional" program and is no longer obligated to support the non-revenue sports, do you think its possible they wont? I am sure some will, but many wont, and those programs would be cut and less opportunities.

I like the idea, but I still want some flat rate to go to non-revenue sports.

 

[GymDadWA]

Here's an idea: The professional collegiate sports programs can pay rent for facility usage the same as any other business that would like to use the colleges facilities. That money could then be used to fund the non-revenue sports or help with any of the college's budgetary needs.

But like @Dahlialover talked about, it would be great if the other sports could form leagues that made sense geographically as well as philosophically and financially, and let football be its own profitable venture.

 

[skschlag]

But like @Dahlialover talked about, it would be great if the other sports could form leagues that made sense geographically as well as philosophically and financially, and let football be its own profitable venture.

This sounds good until it comes to Men's gymnastics. THe travel can be tough with only 15 teams. This is why Cal/Stanford compete against each other so much.

 

[gym_dad32608]

Here's some background information "Differences in budget mean differences in reality in NCAA gymnastics". Bottom line, decoupling big-time sports from the non-revenue sports would be net-negative for these sports.