She was a big influencer prior to attending LSU, but yes going to LSU enhanced her profile. Arguably though, she is more influential than LSU gymnastics. Whereas in football, the college program is bigger than the athlete. Arch Manning is big, but without the NCAA FBS football platform and the UT program, his influence is limited.
More potential NCAA changes
- Thread starter Carlsbad7
- Start date
To be clear, you support, for the sake of nostalgia, the redistribution of wealth to support non-earning sports in college? Where the top earners, in this case football and men's basketball, effectively pay for the remaining 23-48 sports?
Agreed. But its mutated to "student athletes" being to paid to attend a school solely to play a sport as opposed to to being paid for NIL. Maybe some see this as I subtle, or semantic difference, but I do not.
My concern is were running into a situation where college athletics become effectively disassociated from the actual college and becomes an NCAA pro league. The recent ruling on JC eligibility compounds my concern. I'm I being too idealistic of how college athletics should be? Maybe so.
The top earners are football and basketball but not necessarily the players themselves. My point is that people watch Duke basketball and Alabama football. The players obviously make that what it is, in the moment, but who do you credit? Mike Krzyzewski or Jason Tatum? Nick Saban or Tua Tagovailoa? To say that the NCAA is some evil entity, that's been screwing athletes for years, doesn't work for me. My company makes a ton of money and I see a fraction of it. Does that mean my company is evil? I think athletes have always received a certain amount of perks like scholarships, wink and nod acceptance into the school they may not have qualified for otherwise, preferential scheduling and class placement, wink and nod with professors, meal cards, etc. Stuff we all know about and, depending on your sport and school, some blank envelopes. I get that it's not all pure, and part of it is me being nostalgic, but I don't think this was broken. I don't think it needed fixing by making the transfer portal as wide open as it is and NIL being the reason a QB is on his fourth school in four years. I think that's sad and I think it's going to backfire on everyone participating in, and watching, college sports. I think they possibly could have done something to give athletes a better quality of life while in school, but if being a college athlete is such a horrible struggle, don't be a college athlete.
To answer your first question, I'm not sure how I feel about the 'redistribution' because schools offer the opportunity for those football and basketball players to make money in the first place. Should it ALL go to Shedeur Sanders instead of a % to the woman's soccer team? I think that's a bigger discussion and I can see the argument for both sides.
I'll have to look her up. I had no idea there was an Olivia Dunne before LSU. All I see is an average looking college girl doing cartwheels on the beach in tight sweats.
I stand by my statement that social media will destroy this country before anything else does.
But to be clear, if there wasn't a redistribution of wealth (and in the case for women, title IX), most colleges would only keep football and men's basketball. Do you agree with that premise? So in effect, we have to have some form of collectivism for college sports to exist beyond the top two earning sports, right? We have to spread the wealth, if you will.
Theoretically the money that the NCAA makes goes back to the member schools. The NCAA is a well organized entity and provides a very valuable and extensive service for college athletes. The CEO makes $3m a year which seems low for a billion dollar organization. The NCAA is not perfect and arguably greedy. However, compared to US Soccer, FIFA, the IOC and many other sports organization entities, the NCAA seems like a saint.
Personally I think that some schools will drop football and make other sports their focus.
Sure. But what was so wrong with what we had 5 years ago? Was it not working? If a 320-lb lineman at Alabama is going to bed hungry because his meal pass doesn't cut it, fine. Add 10 meals a week to the plan. Hell, give an athlete 2 free round trip flights home to see his/her mama every year. Whatever. When my daughter was looking at Santa Barbara for soccer, we heard that 'Paul is a great guy and obviously UCSB is a strong school with a great location, but he tends to carry too many players and that means less sugar for the players that don't start every match'. How do you travel? Does everyone get to travel? So that became a factor in the decision. That said, what a trade off. Do you want to stay in a Holiday Inn Express in Fresno or watch online (from your dorm) overlooking some of California's best coastal views?
I don't know how all those programs do their thing but I don't think a few tweaks would have been worse than essentially undoing the system. This bit about transferring because someone promised you NIL money (that didn't come) or you didn't play as much as you wanted, seems ridiculous. When you start seeing athletes at 3 or 4 different schools... I'd say it's not helping the cause.
Are you talking about schools that are known for other sports (like a Duke)?
Correct, more colleges will participate in sports where they can excel with limited funding.
Maybe, but at the D1 level I think the odds are much greater of it going the other way. Football not influences the viability of other sports but influences the growth of the university.
It would never happen at Duke. Football still generates a lot more $$$ than basketball.
Wow... maybe just a bad example but I never would have guessed that.
Duke's football program makes more money than it's basketball program, but probably about the same profit ($20m). But, yeah Duke isn't dropping football anytime soon.
whatithink
GOLD
The NCAA makes the majority of their $1B annually from March Madness ($870M annually from MM). If the basketball colleges decided one day to do what football does (conferences or colleges negotiate their own TV deals), then the NCAA would run out of money pretty quickly. Those colleges would prob make more money going direct, but many colleges programs would probably fold.
I think the point I'm trying to make is that I agree with your nostalgic feeling around this. In that this is an example in society where collectivism is necessary for the non-revenue generating sports to even exist. It would be easy for the revenue generating sports to say, "you're not contributing to the pot of money, therefore, you shouldn't exist". I think this nostalgic feeling for me, is what this country is about. It's who we are; we help each other out. At the same time, some of these athletes were absolutely being taken advantage of. That should be fixed. Finding the right balance is the hard part I suppose.
Maybe I'm romanticizing college athletics but the optics are it's still a relatively pure process. It's a bit like the Olympics. They're somewhat underdogs and we root for them. What concerns me more than them getting paid is knowing NIL is promised by boosters... which I didn't know until someone here posted it. That's frightening. That was the kiss of death for programs like SMU and Miami just a few decades ago. God only knows how that story is going to end. Who is more vulnerable than a starving kid 2,000 miles away from home and who is managing the process?
You're a purest and I respect that. I loved college sports back in the day but when the NCAA agreed to allow a man to be a woman all because the cheater considers himself to be a lady will be the "death penalty" for NCAA. What comes around goes around. Once you go woke, you will go broke and be toast. NBA is a joke and unwatchable now and I only watch college basketball when I have time and that is barely hanging together. It's all about March Madness as Nocal said. I'm in Vegas for a few months helping a dear friend and I will be watching March Madness at the Winn. The whole college system is a complete and utter mess because of Mr. Rich Booster and all the other elites. They got their hands in everything.
The SMU case was the first modern "death penalty" – that is, the first one utilized under the "repeat violator" rule. It is the only modern death penalty handed down to a Division I school. SMU football had already been placed on three years' probation in 1985 for recruiting violations.
whatithink
GOLD
The American Olympic Committee stands tall on the shoulders of college sports and contributes nothing to it. Not just that but how many times do you recall hearing of international athletes being talked up at the games and they went to this or that US college. All that "investment" is paid for by US colleges. At the elite end, many Olympic athletes are millionaires or making a very nice living traveling the world to various meets, paid appearance money and winning bonuses - they are full time pro athletes. There is the wider group who obviously struggle, the plucky underdogs, but the sports are awash with money. The AOC takes in hundreds of millions annually. The IOC takes in billions in the 4 year cycle with the biggest chunk from media rights for the games, with the biggest chunk of that coming from NBC (with a portion of that coming back to the AOC).
WRT the starving kid, look these "kids" are 18 and older; they are adults, can join the military, vote, buy a gun, get married ... if Daddy & Mommy are still helicopter parenting, then the parents are the problem and how they raised their
For NIL, I asked ChatGPT if NIL was new or redistributed and it said (below)
The money generated from Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) agreements in college sports represents a combination of "new" money and redistributed money from existing revenue streams. Here's a breakdown:
1. New Money
- Non-traditional Sponsors: Businesses and individuals who were not previously involved in college sports are now entering the market to sponsor athletes directly. Examples include local businesses, influencers, and startups looking for affordable marketing options.
- Niche Endorsements: NIL deals allow athletes to tap into specialized markets (e.g., social media influencer deals, personal training, or camps). These opportunities didn't previously exist in the NCAA framework.
- Athlete-driven Merchandising: Athletes creating and selling their own branded merchandise or offering services such as appearances, social media promotions, or personalized content are generating entirely new revenue.
2. Redistributed Money
- From Athletic Departments or Conferences: Some sponsorship dollars that previously went directly to schools or conferences are now being redirected to individual athletes.
- Reallocation of Marketing Budgets: Brands and companies that used to sponsor NCAA events, programs, or teams may now allocate part of their budget to individual athletes, leading to a redistribution within the sports marketing ecosystem.
- Shifts in Booster Contributions: Boosters, who might have previously donated to universities for facilities or scholarships, are now channeling money into NIL collectives to fund athletes directly.
Key Observations
- NIL is adding to the overall financial ecosystem of college sports but is also diverting and redistributing funds within that ecosystem.
- The introduction of NIL has created opportunities for athletes at all levels, especially those in non-revenue-generating sports, to capitalize on personal branding in ways that were previously unavailable.