Funny, because OSU’s first move was to cut all scholarships to Men’s Gymnastics. The AD said he expects most of these non revenue teams to transition to more of a club format.
3 Likes
But of course the issue is whether that is really relevant to other sports very unlike football.
Like how much are you talking per student per year for team collectives for sports like rowing? Like what sort of order of magnitude?
Yeah, again not that I am predicting anything necessarily on the scholarship side. But among the range of possible outcomes from here, I could see more non-revenue sports becoming the sorts of sports in which the Ivies are actually really competitive, at least on the men’s side. Because those big juicy need-based scholarships plus whatever other marginal value you see in going to one of those colleges are not on the chopping block.
Because it’s one of the sports I mention in my original post, in this thread which I started?
But I’m glad you at least realize now there is no “net loss of elite athletes” in the Swimming vs Football example.
Tell me, what type of academic resources/support do football players get at Ivy Schools? How much is above and beyond what is available to the rest of the student body?
Do you have any point of reference vs what the football team receives at a major P4 school? Because those football players are not in the same classes, don’t have the same test/project/homework schedules, and are certainly getting A LOT more academic support than the rest of the student body.
So yes, many Ivy Football players are just getting by.
Btw, if every other D1 Football Team (that chooses to keep their program) is now going to 105 full scholarships, how in the world can Ivy football teams compete with them going forward? They are already outmatched by most teams in the sub-D1 tier they play in - other remaining teams will get stronger, Ivy will get weaker (both relative but probably on an absolute basis as well).
The same basically applies for every other sport with increased number of scholarships.
My understanding was that we weren’t discussing football and basketball, but most of your examples involve football and basketball.
To me that’s a separate discussion.
You mentioned both track and XC in several of your comments.
Ivy recruiting in both of those has actually become more competitive in recent years, and the quality of recruiting classes better not worse.
National champions who could have transferred have instead stayed in the conference.
Several top level athletes did opt to take fifth and sixth years at schools like Arkansas, Duke, ND, UW as grad transfers (not before using up Ivy eligibility).
Harvard and Princeton are ranked in the top 25 in men’s XC this year, along with schools like NAU, Cal Baptist, New Mexico, etc.
So there doesn’t seem to be much sign of a drop off in talent. This is despite the current financial landscape.
Most knowledgeable folks I talk to expect that to continue, at least in those sports.
One thing you might factor into your assumptions is that the revenue sharing does not necessarily expand scholarships or compensation in most of these sports. Schools CAN compensate more athletes in some of these sports. But most will likely choose to concentrate funds in football and basketball (and perhaps a few other sports, likely different at every school) in order to remain competitive.
5 Likes
Maybe OSU’s Men’s Gymnastics Team will transfer to Harvard or Yale, to compete for them.
(Yes, I know)
No Ivy League school offers varsity Men’s gymnastics. Is that what you meant by ‘yes, I know’?
2 Likes
So NIL $ hasn’t been an incentive to transfer - fair point. Although transferring is pretty disruptive and isn’t really comparable to choosing between schools as a junior or senior in high school.
Now, fast forward a couple of years, and some P4 teams have decided to fully fund athletic scholarships for their XC team. And outside NIL and school collectives probably increase in quantum and importance.
Do you think the high school class of 2027 and younger won’t be more attracted to those P4 schools where they go to school for free and get paid, vs Ivy where they pay sticker price (a very high % of Ivy student-athletes are paying full freight) and hand out coupons for the local cheesesteak joint (direct reference from the Daily Pennsylvanian article above)?
And competing at a high level (sometimes national championship level) in other sports - crew, lax, hockey, skiing. Sometimes individual athletes can rise to the top in golf, tennis, swimming, wrestling even if the team isn’t the champion.
IMO, if the Ivy League dropped to Div 3, they would win everything because the size of the schools is bigger than most D3s, and the athletic budget is certainly bigger. I think many athletes would choose to stay in D1 and pick similar academic schools (Stanford, Duke, Vandy, Michigan) to continue to play in D1. In some sports, the Ivies are competing for the same players are the top schools in those sports. Sometimes an athlete can’t make the money work so they have to take the scholarship at Stanford, Duke or Vandy (poor things) and pass on Yale. It happens. It will continue to happen for those looking for NIL money.
And looking at mean or averages for NIL money is rather pointless. At CU,about 10 players are making big money (with 3 with real big money) and the rest are splitting some deals.
"It’s difficult to know the average amount of NIL (Name, Image, and Likeness) money that all University of Colorado football players receive because most NIL payments are small. However, here’s some information about NIL money for Colorado football players:
-
Shedeur Sanders: The quarterback has an NIL valuation of $5.1 million, making him one of the most valuable players in college football.
-
Travis Hunter: The two-way star has an NIL valuation of $3.1 million.
-
Shilo Sanders: The safety has an NIL valuation of $1 million.
-
Production company: A production company with ties to football coach Deion Sanders has given nearly $600,000 to the team’s players.
I still think they are happy to make more than they used to, get free food, get some publicity and be paid for it.
3 Likes
OP you still haven’t explained why it is better for Ivy to go D3. I am genuinely trying to understand this argument. Not getting players that they aren’t getting either way does not seem compelling. What do you view as the benefit of such a move?
Also - how connected are you with the Ivy League? Your impression/focus seems to be different than the few here who I know have direct experience with these schools. So I am curious what kind of “knowledge” is influencing everyone’s arguments.
3 Likes
Well, I won’t pretend to know what future recruits will do but current recruits are already facing these sorts of choices and there isn’t much evidence that it’s diluting the recruiting pool. (Increasing generosity of need-based aid formulas has reduced the financial delta for many recruits, which is also part of the equation here).
In the years I’ve been involved in the sport I haven’t really seen much enthusiasm among ADs to shift scarce resources to XC. And even with the revenue sharing, resources will remain scarce, opportunity costs will still exist, and roster limits will have an impact.
I guess we’ll see. But D3 would be a pretty radical shift. More likely to me is the NCAA blows up and college athletics is restructured. In that case, I don’t see Harvard competing at the same level as Amherst
4 Likes
Moving to D3 seems unlikely at this time.
Potential tripping points based on House settlement.
- Paying part of the $2.8 billion settlement to compensate former and current players.
- 22% revenue sharing
- NIL
A couple Ivy plus ADs were sensitive to financial pressures in 2020: Stanford, Brown, and Dartmouth. My guess is that they are more likely to cut non-revenue sports teams (again) than migrate to D3.
JHU and NYU are examples where a school offers 1 D1 sport with the remainder D3. Could that be a hybrid model?
I think many kids are looking to the (at least for now) perceived stability of the Ivy League. Even the top recruits may peak Sr. or Fr. year and face being dropped by coach late in the game. Its happening already with a lot of 25s and its too late for many of them to pivot. I think some will reclass to '26 and, in turn, make havoc for the '26s. So much for the 5th years finally getting out of the way…
Schools outside P4 are not obligated to opt in (though they do have to cover a share of the settlement, which will be devastating to some lesser programs).
The Ivy league has stated they are not interested in offering athletic scholarships. I don’t think that has changed.
1 Like
Those schools (mostly hockey but a few exceptions like JHU for lax and Colorado College with women’s soccer to offset hockey scholarships) were grandfathered in in 1972(?) when the NCAA split into divisions. Not all of those schools give scholarships to the D1 sports but just play D1.
The Ivy will just remain the Ivy League and it will be less competitive in football and basketball outside of its conference. The best athletes in football and basketball don’t currently chose the Ivy, and that will just get worse.
Over time, I would guess that “Olympic sports” will get even better at the Ivys if they are considered “lesser sports” in other conferences. And if you believe that all athletes are equal as student-athletes, that does not make a terrible alternative.
Ivy football does not participate in the bowl games or playoffs. Basketball may miss out on some March-madness money, but otherwise they will not really loose anything.
5 Likes
The Ivy League, like every other D1 conference, gets one automatic bid to the tournament. So that really won’t change.
1 Like
I was ref this for smaller conferences:
From the analysis from the House settlement, written in Duke Chronicle:
Breaking down the House v. NCAA settlement and the possible future of revenue sharing in college athletics
Interestingly, the conferences will pay players by taking a chunk out of their future revenue from the March Madness tournament. The NCAA pays conferences based on how many games its teams play in the tournament — roughly $2 million for every game — and conferences will use part of these future “NCAA tournament participation payments” to fund the athlete payments.
So even though football is the highest revenue-generated sport in the NCAA because of TV viewership and ticket sales, basketball helped support the settlementbecause the NCAA earns large sums off its annual tournament in March.
However, this structure could end up hurting small conferences more — especially one-bid leagues that rely on this guaranteed $2 million payment for revenue. They would also be forced to pay a disproportionate amount of the settlement to mostly former Power 5 athletes.
From today Yahoo Sports:
Historic House-NCAA settlement leaving hundreds of Olympic sport athletes in peril
In all, the 68 power conference schools are expected to eliminate at least 3,000 roster positions as administrators work to adhere to new roster limitations, reallocate resources from lower-tier to revenue-generating sports, and balance men and women opportunities to comply with the federal Title IX law.
4 Likes
From the article
“Someone might say we are taking better care of our student-athletes with the settlement. I’d say we are taking better care of a percentage of our student-athletes,” Barany said.
That’s exactly right…there is no way to make this change happen that makes everyone happy or preserves all roster spots.
The 68 P4/5 schools are not only on the hook for a large proportion of the back pay, but going forward 22% of revenues (increasing over time) will be paid out to athletes. (Note we don’t yet have a final settlement in House vs NCAA)
Those facts mean less money which will result in team and/ or roster cuts in some sports.
I feel for the athletes impacted, and the Olympic sports. The USOC is going to have to change how it finances and trains athletes in the affected sports…it can no longer rely on the generosity of colleges to do that.
3 Likes
One of the founding core principles of the Ivy League is that “athletes should be students first and representative of a school’s overall student body- and that athletes should be treated like any other students, receiving nothing more nor less.”
Compensating former and current players, providing revenue sharing to current and future players, and organizing NIL collectives to facilitate 3rd party payment to student athletes abrogates that core principle. Accepting the current terms of the House settlement would be a tacit recognition that student athletes are no longer representative of the overall student body and that they are essentially student-athlete employees.
Since the Supreme Court SFFA vs Harvard decision, there has been increased scutiny of the remaining special populations including athletes, legacies, and donors and whether they should continue to receive admissions preferential treatment. One area of criticism is that white, high SES, and NE region athletes comprise the bulk of the rosters of the Ivy League non-revenue varsity teams. Harvard, Yale, and Princeton currently support 42, 35, 38 varsity teams, respectively. Meanwhile, the University of Alabama, which has a significantly larger student population, only supports 11 varsity teams. Paying student athletes who largely represent families that least need the money and who play niche sports that require significant financial support from the university and its boosters could invite a tremendous backlash.
The rules of the NCAA’s D3 division largely conform to the Ivy League’s original concept of the student athlete. I agree that dropping to D3 is a very undesirable outcome because the Ivy League prides itself on its historic tradition of athletic excellence and it probably won’t happen, but I also believe that there are potentially significant downsides to the Ivy League if it remains D1 after the settlement. We have yet to see the exact terms of the final settlement.
3 Likes
Which are?
1 Like