Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
What good does a scholarship limit have in an environment of NIL and universities directly paying players? The university and donors could simply to choose to pay walk-ons reaching the same result. We’ve actually already seen this. Walk-ons at some P4s are making more than scholly players in the G5s.
The reach of NIL on walk-ons will be far less than NIL + unlimited scholarships especially in non-revenue sports.
The scholarships also gives them access to other things that walk-ons may not get. I'm not 100% sure how it works at WYO but I do know scholarship players have access to more resources than walk-ons at some universities. Food, monthly stipend, tutoring, etc.
WYO1016 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2023 8:10 am
I'm starting to think that Burman has been laying the pipe to ragtimejoe1's wife
Insults are the last resort of fools with a crumbling position.
The only thing at all, that keeps the little schools going, is the fact the players actually have to play the games and there are only so many minutes available to be played. Playing time means something, no matter how little
This is a step in the right direction in my opinion. I haven't really kept up with all these lawsuits, so I'm not sure why this change just applies to Power 5 schools. I would assume Group of 5 conferences will follow suit?
This is a step in the right direction in my opinion. I haven't really kept up with all these lawsuits, so I'm not sure why this change just applies to Power 5 schools. I would assume Group of 5 conferences will follow suit?
P4 conferences have signed onto the settlement agreement. No G5 conferences have yet. The reason - the NCAA and the P4 structured the proposed settlement agreement in a way where the G5 and FCS teams would have to shoulder an unfair amount of the antitrust damage burden accrued from 2016-present (costing these schools outsized millions of dollars per year over the next decade).
IMO, the MWC and Wyoming should decline to sign the settlement as structured. Let those players bringing claims against MWC schools prove their damages which are likely to be multiples less than the amounts the MWC teams are being asked to carry under the proposed settlement. If the NCAA wants to kick out the G5 for refusing to go forward with this grossly unfair settlement, all the better because then we can break away from the P4 and get back to collegiate athletics.
This is a step in the right direction in my opinion. I haven't really kept up with all these lawsuits, so I'm not sure why this change just applies to Power 5 schools. I would assume Group of 5 conferences will follow suit?
P4 conferences have signed onto the settlement agreement. No G5 conferences have yet. The reason - the NCAA and the P4 structured the proposed settlement agreement in a way where the G5 and FCS teams would have to shoulder an unfair amount of the antitrust damage burden accrued from 2016-present (costing these schools outsized millions of dollars per year over the next decade).
IMO, the MWC and Wyoming should decline to sign the settlement as structured. Let those players bringing claims against MWC schools prove their damages which are likely to be multiples less than the amounts the MWC teams are being asked to carry under the proposed settlement. If the NCAA wants to kick out the G5 for refusing to go forward with this grossly unfair settlement, all the better because then we can break away from the P4 and get back to collegiate athletics.
So if I’m understanding your post, the P5 get revenue sharing of $20 million each school and the G5s FCS shoulder the burden?
This is a step in the right direction in my opinion. I haven't really kept up with all these lawsuits, so I'm not sure why this change just applies to Power 5 schools. I would assume Group of 5 conferences will follow suit?
P4 conferences have signed onto the settlement agreement. No G5 conferences have yet. The reason - the NCAA and the P4 structured the proposed settlement agreement in a way where the G5 and FCS teams would have to shoulder an unfair amount of the antitrust damage burden accrued from 2016-present (costing these schools outsized millions of dollars per year over the next decade).
IMO, the MWC and Wyoming should decline to sign the settlement as structured. Let those players bringing claims against MWC schools prove their damages which are likely to be multiples less than the amounts the MWC teams are being asked to carry under the proposed settlement. If the NCAA wants to kick out the G5 for refusing to go forward with this grossly unfair settlement, all the better because then we can break away from the P4 and get back to collegiate athletics.
Makes much more sense now. Thank you for explaining.
I agree with you. Every day we get closer and closer to it making more sense for smaller college athletic programs to split from the NCAA and do their own thing. I have very little interest in Wyoming having a state owned semi-professional football team operated through the university. Do Wyoming taxpayers want their monies funding that?
Having just read this in the WSJ, it appears a school can directly pay players a collective amount of 20 million dollars a year. That's for all sports combined. I don't see how small schools like us can even come close to that number. I will no longer watch collegiate sports as we've officially decided that students are now professional athletes. I hope Wyoming decides not engage in directly paying players. Better to drop the programs altogether than become some half assed semi pro team trying to compete with far deeper pockets than ours.
P4 conferences have signed onto the settlement agreement. No G5 conferences have yet. The reason - the NCAA and the P4 structured the proposed settlement agreement in a way where the G5 and FCS teams would have to shoulder an unfair amount of the antitrust damage burden accrued from 2016-present (costing these schools outsized millions of dollars per year over the next decade).
IMO, the MWC and Wyoming should decline to sign the settlement as structured. Let those players bringing claims against MWC schools prove their damages which are likely to be multiples less than the amounts the MWC teams are being asked to carry under the proposed settlement. If the NCAA wants to kick out the G5 for refusing to go forward with this grossly unfair settlement, all the better because then we can break away from the P4 and get back to collegiate athletics.
So if I’m understanding your post, the P5 get revenue sharing of $20 million each school and the G5s FCS shoulder the burden?
The damage claims in the lawsuits generally seek antitrust damages for the years of 2016-present asserting that the NCAA’s and conferences’ conduct restricted the players market rights to profit off their performance and name and likeness. The players would almost undoubtedly win the case on the merits but the question is how much in monetary damages were the players harmed.
From a realistic standpoint, players at top P4 schools probably lost out on many millions. But players from the likes of Wyoming and Eastern Michigan probably lost out on relatively small amounts. However, the NCAA and P4 structured the proposed settlement whereby the P4 schools would only pay roughly 1.5 times more each than G5 schools for past damages (when in reality it’s probably more of a factor of 50 to 1).
Note - damages can only go back to 2016 because of statute of limitations.
So if I’m understanding your post, the P5 get revenue sharing of $20 million each school and the G5s FCS shoulder the burden?
The damage claims in the lawsuits generally seek antitrust damages for the years of 2016-present asserting that the NCAA’s and conferences’ conduct restricted the players market rights to profit off their performance and name and likeness. The players would almost undoubtedly win the case on the merits but the question is how much in monetary damages were the players harmed.
From a realistic standpoint, players at top P4 schools probably lost out on many millions. But players from the likes of Wyoming and Eastern Michigan probably lost out on relatively small amounts. However, the NCAA and P4 structured the proposed settlement whereby the P4 schools would only pay roughly 1.5 times more each than G5 schools for past damages (when in reality it’s probably more of a factor of 50 to 1).
Note - damages can only go back to 2016 because of statute of limitations.
You are right but it also sets a revenue sharing model going forward of 20 mill/year/school.
The stagec is set. The p4 break away and take 99% of the available tv/playoff revenue. What formerly went to g5 now will go to p4 players.
WYO1016 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2023 8:10 am
I'm starting to think that Burman has been laying the pipe to ragtimejoe1's wife
Insults are the last resort of fools with a crumbling position.
It is a terrible deal for the non-P4 conferences. They get hit with 60% of the damages even though realistically the vast majority of the damages are owed to players for the P4 conferences
I am less than informed on how TV money gets currently split but I assume the vast majority of the TV/media revenues have also gone to the P4 conference teams. Hopefully someone can shed some light on how the current revenue streams are allocated.
doreno5 wrote: ↑Fri May 24, 2024 1:59 pm
It is a terrible deal for the non-P4 conferences. They get hit with 60% of the damages even though realistically the vast majority of the damages are owed to players for the P4 conferences
I am less than informed on how TV money gets currently split but I assume the vast majority of the TV/media revenues have also gone to the P4 conference teams. Hopefully someone can shed some light on how the current revenue streams are allocated.
Conferences make their own deals for tv. The big one is playoff which gets distributed among all fbs Conferences and independents. In the last round of negotiations, I think it was a bump in total revenue to g5 (1.2 mill or so per school--if I remember correctly) but the percentage of the cut went down.
For the lawsuit, we paid more as a percentage but waaay less total dollars than p4.
For the future revenue share, we can't afford 20 mill, so who knows where that goes.
WYO1016 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2023 8:10 am
I'm starting to think that Burman has been laying the pipe to ragtimejoe1's wife
Insults are the last resort of fools with a crumbling position.
For the lawsuit, we paid more as a percentage but waaay less total dollars than p4.
Huh? I’m not following what you’re saying.
The proposed settlement is for $2.7 billion in damages from 2016-present but the P5 to only cover 40% of that amount. It equates to more liability per school in the P5 but a grossly unfair settlement when the G5/FCS/other D1 schools are being asked to cover 60%. The allocation should be more like 85/15 or 90/10 from a realistic scenario.
Apparently the NCAA came up with this formula because that is the rough share of basketball credits earned by the conferences over the past decade. It’s a completely ridiculous formula because the majority of damages are related to football but football isn’t even considered in the allocation formula.
The $20 million is the discussed cap for future payments to players by individual schools. It isn’t structured as an obligation for each to pay $20 million but merely sets a cap.
Note - I use P5 because the settlement includes the PAC as it existed from 2016-present.
For the lawsuit, we paid more as a percentage but waaay less total dollars than p4.
Huh? I’m not following what you’re saying.
The proposed settlement is for $2.7 billion in damages from 2016-present but the P5 to only cover 40% of that amount. It equates to more liability per school in the P5 but a grossly unfair settlement when the G5/FCS/other D1 schools are being asked to cover 60%. The allocation should be more like 85/15 or 90/10 from a realistic scenario.
Apparently the NCAA came up with this formula because that is the rough share of basketball credits earned by the conferences over the past decade. It’s a completely ridiculous formula because the majority of damages are related to football but football isn’t even considered in the allocation formula.
The $20 million is the discussed cap for future payments to players by individual schools. It isn’t structured as an obligation for each to pay $20 million but merely sets a cap.
Note - I use P5 because the settlement includes the PAC as it existed from 2016-present.
300 schools pay 60% and 68 schools pay 40%.
I get the unfair argument but the point stands. On a per school basis, p4 is paying more.
WYO1016 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2023 8:10 am
I'm starting to think that Burman has been laying the pipe to ragtimejoe1's wife
Insults are the last resort of fools with a crumbling position.
"The proposed settlement is for $2.7 billion in damages from 2016-present but the P5 to only cover 40% of that amount"
That is exactly the point. The money is to repay past damages to players who were not able to receive NIL income. Currently P4 schools are paying significantly more for NIL so it seems apparent that the lions share of the damages are owed to players from those schools and they should pay more .
doreno5 wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2024 8:52 am
"The proposed settlement is for $2.7 billion in damages from 2016-present but the P5 to only cover 40% of that amount"
That is exactly the point. The money is to repay past damages to players who were not able to receive NIL income. Currently P4 schools are paying significantly more for NIL so it seems apparent that the lions share of the damages are owed to players from those schools and they should pay more .
Are you suggesting that only players who played at a p5 school be eligible to recieve past damages or that those athletes recieve more than those that played at g5? I don't think the settlement differentiated.
300 schools have way more past athletes than 68 schools.
WYO1016 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2023 8:10 am
I'm starting to think that Burman has been laying the pipe to ragtimejoe1's wife
Insults are the last resort of fools with a crumbling position.
doreno5 wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2024 8:52 am
"The proposed settlement is for $2.7 billion in damages from 2016-present but the P5 to only cover 40% of that amount"
That is exactly the point. The money is to repay past damages to players who were not able to receive NIL income. Currently P4 schools are paying significantly more for NIL so it seems apparent that the lions share of the damages are owed to players from those schools and they should pay more .
Are you suggesting that only players who played at a p5 school be eligible to recieve past damages or that those athletes recieve more than those that played at g5? I don't think the settlement differentiated.
300 schools have way more past athletes than 68 schools.
I am suggesting that P5 players are entitled to more damages yes. Even the class plaintiffs admit that very fact. And it is ultimately the Plaintiff class that needs to obtain a court approved damages distribution model. Undoubtedly former Wyoming players will get peanuts in the settlement as compared to former Ohio State players.
Do you honestly believe that the QB at Eastern Michigan lost the same amount in NIL opportunities from 2016-forward as the QB at Alabama due to prior restrictions?
If I am Wyoming/MWC, I decline the settlement and let the plaintiff class prove how much actual damages Wyoming players suffered. It will be in the 100s of thousands per year at most as compared to the millions per year we are being asked to shoulder.
PS - the settlement is between the plaintiff class players and the defendant NCAA and conferences. Class damages distribution is a wholly separate issue which happens just on plaintiffs end and subject to court approval.
Are you suggesting that only players who played at a p5 school be eligible to recieve past damages or that those athletes recieve more than those that played at g5? I don't think the settlement differentiated.
300 schools have way more past athletes than 68 schools.
I am suggesting that P5 players are entitled to more damages yes. Even the class plaintiffs admit that very fact. And it is ultimately the Plaintiff class that needs to obtain a court approved damages distribution model. Undoubtedly former Wyoming players will get peanuts in the settlement as compared to former Ohio State players.
Do you honestly believe that the QB at Eastern Michigan lost the same amount in NIL opportunities from 2016-forward as the QB at Alabama due to prior restrictions?
If I am Wyoming/MWC, I decline the settlement and let the plaintiff class prove how much actual damages Wyoming players suffered. It will be in the 100s of thousands per year at most as compared to the millions per year we are being asked to shoulder.
PS - the settlement is between the plaintiff class players and the defendant NCAA and conferences. Class damages distribution is a wholly separate issue which happens just on plaintiffs end and subject to court approval.
It's 14,000 athletes since 2016. What percentage are p5 vs g5 and is the payment structure different depending on the athlete's sport or conference he/she participated in?
WYO1016 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2023 8:10 am
I'm starting to think that Burman has been laying the pipe to ragtimejoe1's wife
Insults are the last resort of fools with a crumbling position.
Basically the only Wyoming player who might be entitled to real money in damages for lost NIL revenues is Josh Allen. No one else-Hill, Wilson, Muma etc, would get much in the way of damages. Compare that to someone like Joe Burrow, Zion Williamson, Trevor Lawrence, Baker Mayfield etc. from P4 conferences with lots of NIL opportunities.
Any way you cut it, Wyoming would owe pennies on the dollar compare to the P4 schools.
doreno5 wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2024 2:55 pm
Basically the only Wyoming player who might be entitled to real money in damages for lost NIL revenues is Josh Allen. No one else-Hill, Wilson, Muma etc, would get much in the way of damages. Compare that to someone like Joe Burrow, Zion Williamson, Trevor Lawrence, Baker Mayfield etc. from P4 conferences with lots of NIL opportunities.
Any way you cut it, Wyoming would owe pennies on the dollar compared to the P4 schools.
