House settlement approved. Now what?

[Bosler]

So, the House settlement has been approved. What will UW do in this new environment?

It doesn't much change the NIL world, though it tries. It sets up some sort of system where non-trivial NIL deals have to be approved by folks who get to decide if those deal are at FMV. It's hard to imagine that will survive legal challenges.

Anyway, UW doesn't seem to have a major NIL collective, so that should be irrelevant. (I may be wrong about that, so anyone can correct me.)

It will allow schools to do pay athletes with up to $20mm/yr of "revenue sharing." I wonder what the University will do. And I wonder what the legislature -- that stronghold of calm and rational thought -- will let the University do.

 

[LawPoke]

UW will do nothing. They will sit on their hands and get overwhelmed.

 

[Wyokie]

UW will do nothing. They will sit on their hands and get overwhelmed.

Like death and taxes.

 

[307bball]

UW will do nothing. They will sit on their hands and get overwhelmed.

You never know...they might do something...then get overwhelmed.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

The biggest question, imo, is will fbs split along the lines of revenue sharing, or will those that can full revenue share just have huge advantage? Split or just inequity?

 

[Bosler]

Well, doing nothing -- not paying athletes with revenue sharing, and not having fans who fund an NIL collective -- is doing something. If the school/legislature can't or doesn't want to pay athletes, and the same for fans, then we will just muddle around about as we have been doing in football and men's and women's basketball.

That's fine of course. In this forum we can just go back to the old standards -- our football coaches don't know football, our basketball coaches don't know basketball, some Wyoming kids are bad and disloyal for going out of state to play their sports, etc. -- but we should stop expecting to compete with those who do pay players or whose fans generate NIL.

I guess this is just me trying to shake off the notion that college sports are anything at all like 30 years ago.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

Well, doing nothing -- not paying athletes with revenue sharing, and not having fans who fund an NIL collective -- is doing something. If the school/legislature can't or doesn't want to pay athletes, and the same for fans, then we will just muddle around about as we have been doing in football and men's and women's basketball.

That's fine of course. In this forum we can just go back to the old standards -- our football coaches don't know football, our basketball coaches don't know basketball, some Wyoming kids are bad and disloyal for going out of state to play their sports, etc. -- but we should stop expecting to compete with those who do pay players or whose fans generate NIL.

I guess this is just me trying to shake off the notion that college sports are anything at all like 30 years ago.

I'd guess most g5 level teams don't generate a profit without revenue from taxpayers/students. It will be very hard to justify paying athletes until the contributions from taxpayers and students is 0.

I saw wsu said they will be sharing 3.5 million for football with one huge asterisk, that 3.5 mill includes scholarships. I don't know their details but I'm guessing 105 scholarships chews up most of that.

 

[Bosler]

I'd guess most g5 level teams don't generate a profit without revenue from taxpayers/students. It will be very hard to justify paying athletes until the contributions from taxpayers and students is 0.

Agreed, about the profit. None of them do, including of course UW.

Not sure why it would be hard to justify paying athletes. Athletics (at least the big three....football and men's and women's basketball) are entertainment and marketing for a school. It's not about making money. If you believe that entertainment/marketing arm is better when you are competitive at a higher level, you pay athletes. If you don't believe that, then you don't.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

Agreed, about the profit. None of them do, including of course UW.

Not sure why it would be hard to justify paying athletes. Athletics (at least the big three....football and men's and women's basketball) are entertainment and marketing for a school. It's not about making money. If you believe that entertainment/marketing arm is better when you are competitive at a higher level, you pay athletes. If you don't believe that, then you don't.

Athletics isn't a core university mission. You're going to take money from a WYO student who is working a job and busting ass to pay for a degree then turn around and give that to another student who likely will only be here for a year or two.

You're going to take from a blue collar guy busting his ass for 75k a year to turn around and give it to some 18 year old kid that will be at WYO 1 or 2 years to play football?

I think it crosses a line. My guess is that most in the state would agree.

 

[Bosler]

Ragtime:

Absolutely right. Athletics is not a core mission. UW can get rid of sports tomorrow.

But those imagined people have been paying athletes at UW for decades. Now the world has changed, and to get the better athletes you need to pay them even more. So, if you're right and Wyoming doesn't want to pay them more, that's totally understandable. We just need to accept the consequences.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

Ragtime:

Absolutely right. Athletics is not a core mission. UW can get rid of sports tomorrow.

But those imagined people have been paying athletes at UW for decades. Now the world has changed, and to get the better athletes you need to pay them even more. So, if you're right and Wyoming doesn't want to pay them more, that's totally understandable. We just need to accept the consequences.

Let me ask you this, are you comfortable paying 18 or 19 year olds to play football for a year and paying them more than a seasoned teacher or nurse or police officer in the state?

On the flip side, what will paying do? Win? How many games? What will be the roi on those wins? If we don't pay, how many wins? Etc.

 

[rocket city poke]

Burman will still pick up $551k annually, our football coach will still make $1.2 million and there will be more reasons (like $20 million) that we don't win, but everybody will keep getting paid more than any of the other schools in the new MWC.

 

[OrediggerPoke]

UW funding is about to get ‘DOGEd’ according to the freedom caucus’ official statement. I don’t believe we should be paying players much beyond a reasonable living stipend. But not only will that not occur but be prepared for massive cuts University wide and I expect athletic funding not only to not increase but to actually decrease substantially.

 

[307bball]

Let me ask you this, are you comfortable paying 18 or 19 year olds to play football for a year and paying them more than a seasoned teacher or nurse or police officer in the state?

On the flip side, what will paying do? Win? How many games? What will be the roi on those wins? If we don't pay, how many wins? Etc.

This topic has exposed a rift that was probably visible before the house settlement even if you may have had to squint to see it. As colleges began to capture more and more revenue over time it became difficult to keep athletes from seeing direct benefits based on the value their performances were producing. The NCAA kept a lid on things even as media deal amounts skyrocketed and athletic departments spent lavishly on facilities and coaches.

There is something to be said for a "pay them if you want to" approach to this that appeals to my simple mind, but I'm nearly certain that will lead to a world where UW just doesn't compete. We are talking about a low-enrollment school in a small town in a low population state. There is not much there..there. Competitive results will come from "buying" talent in a way that is going to really favor places with bigger populations and economies. There are probably plenty of people who are philosophically opposed to paying college athletes but they are dwarfed by folks who just want to win and watch their school beat everybody else. I've not enjoyed the slow degradation of UW athletics since the mid '90s but this feels even worse.

 

[McPeachy]

UW will do nothing. They will sit on their hands and get overwhelmed.

Unfortunately, past result(s) predicting our future isn't hard under our current leadership.

 

[McPeachy]

I'd guess most g5 level teams don't generate a profit without revenue from taxpayers/students. It will be very hard to justify paying athletes until the contributions from taxpayers and students is 0.

I saw wsu said they will be sharing 3.5 million for football with one huge asterisk, that 3.5 mill includes scholarships. I don't know their details but I'm guessing 105 scholarships chews up most of that.

Sneaky way to announce it, without really announcing it.

 

[doreno5]

The settlement basically made legal what was the reality for years. There are those who can and will pay what is needed to recruit the best talent. There are others who cannot afforded to. Wyoming absent some infusion of cash from some sort of Phil Knight type is one of the others.

 

[307bball]

The settlement basically made legal what was the reality for years. There are those who can and will pay what is needed to recruit the best talent. There are others who cannot afforded to. Wyoming absent some infusion of cash from some sort of Phil Knight type is one of the others.

You can form a matrix with these categories of programs.

	Has ability to Pay	Can't Pay
Choose to Pay	Every Big Time Program.	Schools here are borrowing immensely with the hope something hits and they get a payday. CSU? UNLV?
Choose Not to Pay	Does any program that *can* pay ever choose not to join this arms race? Maybe the Ivy's?	Probably where Wyoming is.

If you have the ability and choose to pay your athletes...you are going to reap results. You can probably get results by choosing to pay even if you really don't have the money but that's a risky gamble that you will get rewarded for winning.

Then there are the group who will, at some point, choose not to pay. This will eventually be the strata for Wyoming....I think it will look a lot like the FCS does currently.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

Sneaky way to announce it, without really announcing it.

Check this out. 100 mill in debt then not until July 1 and back to 100 mill in debt. No wonder they don't want to pay poaching penalty.

WSU Regents To Briefly Transfer 100 Million Dollars To Cover Athletics Cumulative Debt-Money Coming From Several Units Including Housing, Dining, Parking & Transportation-Athletics Did Not Run Overbudget This Year

The Washington State University Regents are set to briefly transfer nearly 100 million dollars in the annual exercise to cover Cougar Athletics cumulative debt. State law in Washington requires the…

pullmanradio.com

 

[evilpoke]

We either want to pay for it or we don't.

These kids are now going to get paid. By definition they are professionals - so you have to pay to bring them in and keep them. Basic free market economics. If we don't pay, we need to find a new game to play.

Wyoming can treat UW as its 'pro team' with financial backing higher than other G5 counterparts - but that would require a vision that I doubt the State Legislature is comfortable with. However, it's probably more likely here than in any other state in the nation.

We could also have a Phil Knight-type situation - but that's less likely than the State Legislature footing the bill.

I think when the dust settles, we will be in a decidedly G5 Division that will be competing in championships against each other.