Unless you are a really big school the best thing to do was be to drop football. I know I know pure heresy but here me out...
You drop football, because NOBODY cares about anything but the top programs. Then you (assuming you want to have sports) fund they non revenue sports.
If you drop football, where the revenue actually comes from, why then would you continue to have sports that don't generate revenue?
Those who can't keep up (all but 60 -80 schools) will drop football and make all sports club.
An awful lot of football programs outside the top 50 lose a LOTTTTTT of money every year. Check their budgets (if they are state schools) and see how much they get from student fees. It's outrageous.
The ONLY way this changes if the top 40-60 schools truly break away into a minor league where the players are have contracts and play under the name of the school, but they are really not associated with the school as far as being actual students.
The current NCAA TV contracts run through 2032, and the $2.8 billion settlement with previous athletes will run to 2035. That's the point that the top schools will leave the NCAA.
So that's an 8-10 year window to sort out all the details of how to pay athletes, and what will happen to minor sports. Also further conference realignment; who will make the final league.
I think the Vanderbilt model discussed here makes sense.
Lastly, is now likely that Congress will help once the system for paying players is finalized. That would eliminate threat of future lawsuits.
I have no idea what's going to happen. But, it feels like the next step (legally speaking) for revenue-making athletes is to become classified as employees. The NCAA and individual universities will fight tooth-and-nail to prevent this from happening, but I think it's definitely possible.
If this were to happen, I do wonder if eligibility rules could be next on the chopping block. In other words, if athletes were employees, how could you set a limit on eligibility? For example, up until the 1980s, most universities enforced mandatory retirement for tenured professors, but that was deemed illegal. If the QB on the football team is an employee, it seems like the same rules (no mandatory 'retirement') would apply.
Sorry for all of the speculation and what-ifs, but I do wonder if this is where we're heading.
The money is just too good to really do much about it. Look at what Vanderbilt does in the SEC. They fund the bare minimum of male sports, just make a token effort at football, but they get the same SEC TV check that Alabama gets. The non revenue sports are an unwelcomed but requirement to get this money, but a rounding error when it comes to the actual budget of a major university. Also these non revenue and women's sports are basically a built in DEI program for the school.
In the end they get to justify having a few more black kids on campus and they get to pocket wads of cash.
The ONLY way this changes if the top 40-60 schools truly break away into a minor league where the players are have contracts and play under the name of the school, but they are really not associated with the school as far as being actual students.
Now do your analysis of Austin Peay. Let's go pee.
If you drop football, where the revenue actually comes from, why then would you continue to have sports that don't generate revenue?
Those who can't keep up (all but 60 -80 schools) will drop football and make all sports club.
An awful lot of football programs outside the top 50 lose a LOTTTTTT of money every year. Check their budgets (if they are state schools) and see how much they get from student fees. It's outrageous.
All the more reason academia will decide to make all sports club.
An awful lot of football programs outside the top 50 lose a LOTTTTTT of money every year. Check their budgets (if they are state schools) and see how much they get from student fees. It's outrageous.
All the more reason academia will decide to make all sports club.
I said in another forum on this subject that football and basketball are the main beneficiaries of this. track, like all other non revenue sports, will have to settle for whatever crumbs the big 2 drop. I still say NIL deals and shoe contracts are the best way for top track athletes to earn money.
Track (and other sports) may move to a head count model, and roster caps to keep costs down. That has been talked about a lot, and I don't think it would be a terrible thing.
We could see the dissociation of Title IX with professionalized college athletics, and the moving of non revenue sports to a more local club model.
We could also see the splitting of divisions (or the dissolving of the NCAA as a whole) resulting in new and different models for regulating and governing support structures for a sport like track.
Hard to say. Anyone who has the answers already is lying. But we are likely to see some change.
One way I thought track could save money is to have a combined men's and women's team. Instead of scoring the men and women separately, you just score them together.
Also follow what is happening with resident assistants and union movements on campus. RAs typically were paid just board fees but no hourly wage. Now they are arguing they should get compensation for their "work" and many are unionizing. Athletics will follow similar paths. Colleges are asking third party companies to build dorms "near" or on campus and operate them separately from the school. So why not operate athletics as a third party "near' campus. Basically hire a company to run your club athletics program. School gets entertainment and kids get something to do but school removes title XI and equity issues.
The issue that is not being discussed but really plays on here is that colleges are "non-profits". We need to get ride of that term in American tax code. Churches, schools etc should all be taxed the same as businesses (which by the way is not as much as individuals anyways) but at least it would be more equitable.
The money is just too good to really do much about it. Look at what Vanderbilt does in the SEC. They fund the bare minimum of male sports, just make a token effort at football, but they get the same SEC TV check that Alabama gets. The non revenue sports are an unwelcomed but requirement to get this money, but a rounding error when it comes to the actual budget of a major university. Also these non revenue and women's sports are basically a built in DEI program for the school.
In the end they get to justify having a few more black kids on campus and they get to pocket wads of cash.
The ONLY way this changes if the top 40-60 schools truly break away into a minor league where the players are have contracts and play under the name of the school, but they are really not associated with the school as far as being actual students.
Now do your analysis of Austin Peay. Let's go pee.
LOL yeah.. why do they even field a team?
Austin Peay actually dropped football then brought it back.
Men's programs in Olympic sports are going to get gutted. I predict that 50-60 D1 men's track and/or XC programs get eliminated by the end of the 2025-2026 academic year.
Some women's programs will get cut but Title IX gives them much more protection, especially at football institutions.
I also would not be shocked if many smaller, academically focused schools just got rid of sports completely. It would eliminate a great deal of compensation and equity related headaches.
It will be interesting to see what happens to the elite foreign athletes that are competing in the power five conferences in track and field. Let alone the elite high school athletes that over the last several years have opted for the club route as opposed to NCAA. Thinking outside the present parameters, there could be university/club affiliations which offer a competitive alternative to the NCAA.
Men's programs in Olympic sports are going to get gutted. I predict that 50-60 D1 men's track and/or XC programs get eliminated by the end of the 2025-2026 academic year.
Some women's programs will get cut but Title IX gives them much more protection, especially at football institutions.
I also would not be shocked if many smaller, academically focused schools just got rid of sports completely. It would eliminate a great deal of compensation and equity related headaches.
It will be interesting to see what happens to the elite foreign athletes that are competing in the power five conferences in track and field. Let alone the elite high school athletes that over the last several years have opted for the club route as opposed to NCAA. Thinking outside the present parameters, there could be university/club affiliations which offer a competitive alternative to the NCAA.
I don't know how that would work. Universities won't want to dump sports since it is a large part of the who they are. The have millions invested in facilities.
I don't know how that would work. Universities won't want to dump sports since it is a large part of the who they are. The have millions invested in facilities.
This is obviously just a prediction/opinion as to how it will go so who knows. That said..
Some schools will continue fielding teams in a similar structure to our current structure. The school who will do that will be the schools who get the most revenue... SEC/B1G.
Other schools will question the viability of it all since they can't keep up.
The facilities are sunken costs.. what is the point of throwing good money after bad?
If they switch to club the expense of an athletic department, compliance, athletic training, budgeting for travel & recruiting, etc... gets shifted to the club. If the club can raise money, good for them. If not, why would the school care.
Facilities can be used for other school needs.
Tuition inflation is real. How will academia combat that? Seems like cutting costs would be a start.
I'm not for all this. I'm just looking at it pragmatically. (I think)
I don't know how that would work. Universities won't want to dump sports since it is a large part of the who they are. The have millions invested in facilities.
This is obviously just a prediction/opinion as to how it will go so who knows. That said..
Some schools will continue fielding teams in a similar structure to our current structure. The school who will do that will be the schools who get the most revenue... SEC/B1G.
Other schools will question the viability of it all since they can't keep up.
The facilities are sunken costs.. what is the point of throwing good money after bad?
If they switch to club the expense of an athletic department, compliance, athletic training, budgeting for travel & recruiting, etc... gets shifted to the club. If the club can raise money, good for them. If not, why would the school care.
Facilities can be used for other school needs.
Tuition inflation is real. How will academia combat that? Seems like cutting costs would be a start.
I'm not for all this. I'm just looking at it pragmatically. (I think)
Instead of going club, why wouldn't schools move to NCAA II, III or NAIA level and continue with intercollegiate athletics in the more traditional model?
For men (6 sports): Football and basketball bring in the money. Then you have baseball, golf and tennis and cross country.
THAT'S IT!
Then you offset the football roster with these sports for women (10 total): basketball, cross country, lacrosse, swimming, track and field,. bowling, golf, tennis, soccer, volleyball.
Had to check...
That gets them to 16, the minimum required to compete as a Division I FBS school, and is in the "safe harbor" for proportionality for Title IX.
So, yes, that is a model we could be looking at in the future.
They could move down to FCS and sponsor 5 men's and 9 men's teams. Or they could get rid of football and sponsor 7 men's and 7 women's sports.
How many FBS schools outside of P4 make net profit from football? Some of them get to play in smaller Bowl games, but those don't pay much, and the money has to be shared with other teams in the conference.
And 16/14 are not numbers set in stone. Those could be lowered in future.
This is obviously just a prediction/opinion as to how it will go so who knows. That said..
Some schools will continue fielding teams in a similar structure to our current structure. The school who will do that will be the schools who get the most revenue... SEC/B1G.
Other schools will question the viability of it all since they can't keep up.
The facilities are sunken costs.. what is the point of throwing good money after bad?
If they switch to club the expense of an athletic department, compliance, athletic training, budgeting for travel & recruiting, etc... gets shifted to the club. If the club can raise money, good for them. If not, why would the school care.
Facilities can be used for other school needs.
Tuition inflation is real. How will academia combat that? Seems like cutting costs would be a start.
I'm not for all this. I'm just looking at it pragmatically. (I think)
Instead of going club, why wouldn't schools move to NCAA II, III or NAIA level and continue with intercollegiate athletics in the more traditional model?
Shifting to club sports gets most of the athletic budget off of the books. The university is no longer obligated to pay for coaching, travel, compliance, medical treatment, tutors and academic counselors devoted to the athletic department, facilities, etc. As posted upstream, most schools would gladly demolish athletic facilities and re-purpose the land for academic buildings, housing, parking lots, etc.
"But schools use athletics to recruit students to their institutions! How would the replace the athletes that won't enroll if there are no sports?".
While this may sound far-fetched for some of you, how many students would enroll at a university that had a water park or Las Vegas styled pool area just for students? How about an amphitheater or indoor venue that hosted concert tours with students getting free admission? Swanky dorms with private bedrooms and better dining options? State of the art e-sports facilities? That would likely draw more applicants than the ability to run track or to watch a perpetual 4-8 football team go nowhere.
Sports are just entertainment and we do not treat any other form of entertainment like we treat sports. We would think it crazy to make a recording artist or movie star spend time at a university before "going pro" but when it comes to sports we think these people MUST detour off to do time at university first.
It's time to divorce the two and take up the European model.
Unless you are a really big school the best thing to do was be to drop football. I know I know pure heresy but here me out...
You drop football, because NOBODY cares about anything but the top programs. Then you (assuming you want to have sports) fund they non revenue sports.
If you drop football, where the revenue actually comes from, why then would you continue to have sports that don't generate revenue?
Those who can't keep up (all but 60 -80 schools) will drop football and make all sports club.
Yes, Drop football. Only the big conferences generate revenue from football. And it is only going to get worse. The Greedy 4 have made absolutely sure that no other schools can earn money in Football. The old College Football TV sharing was $6 mill to the Greedy 5 schools and $1 mil to other schools. Now the new TV money deal is the Greedy 4 conferences get 90% of the playoff TV money. Football has been nothing but death to College sports, who needs it????? Over-hyped and Over-steriod programs bully everyone else into dreams of grandeur, which they have no intention of sharing.
For men (6 sports): Football and basketball bring in the money. Then you have baseball, golf and tennis and cross country.
THAT'S IT!
Then you offset the football roster with these sports for women (10 total): basketball, cross country, lacrosse, swimming, track and field,. bowling, golf, tennis, soccer, volleyball.
Not that its necessarily relevant to this conversation, but just by point of clarification - the "Vanderbilt model" did not really come about by design. Its the product of decades of willful neglect if not outright active suppression of investment in athletics by past university leadership who held athletics in utter contempt. The new chancellor and AD are slowly turning the boat around, but the only reason Vanderbilt funds the bare minimum number of required teams is because it is the minimum required.
Not to say that it isn't now advantageous for the university and will benefit them in this new era of college athletics. Just that the "Vanderbilt model" doesn't actually exist by design. Case in point - they are actually adding a sport. Volleyball doesn't start competing until 2025, and will be their 17th sport since women's track counts as 2 (indoor & outdoor).