Interesting point about the portal. I can’t see the Ivy league allowing students to transfer in outside the normal timelines, so its not clear how an increase in transfers would affect things. Anecdotally, it seems like swimmers and trackos (the two sports I know) are more likely to just stop doing their sport than to transfer out of an ivy league.
Sorry, I don’t know if this has been already discussed earlier in this thread. My understanding is that if the House settlement is approved, it would mean that every player on the roster of every D1 sports team is eligible to receive an athletic scholarship. There are no longer any NCAA caps on D1 athletic scholarships. This could have significant ramifications for the funding and recruitment of players on non-revenue varsity sports teams.
The Ivy League teams are already disadvantaged by refusing to give athletic scholarships. This could make it worse for them, especially in the non-revenue sports where they remain very competitive.
750 scholarships are coming. That says nothing about the number of scholarship dollars. Football teams can now award 105 full scholarships. That money has to come from somewhere, right? So IMO those scholarships are not going to make an appearance. Plenty of non Ivy D1 programs function without scholarships, as is the case with Georgetown swimming, for example.
Ivy’s are not interested in giving athletic scholarships but more than make up for it by awarding extremely generous need based financial aid that to not make you beholden to a coach/team to complete your education. There is something to be said about that.
The roster limits and lifting of scholarship caps only apply to schools that opt into the revenue sharing model. Most schools don’t have revenue to share to begin with.
It bares mentioning that non P4 schools, including Ivies, are responsible for 1/3 of the settlement, non of which will go to any of their players. Maybe pennies for Princeton and Harvard, but a significant chunk for many barely surviving schools in lower D1.
I just wonder how all these schools will afford it given that athletic departments are money losers at most D1 schools. I don’t see how these increases are going to be sustainable. At what point does the cost of athletics start taking away from the actual mission of schools - you know, education. Often I’ve read that high profile sports teams more than pay for themselves, but if athletic departments are operating in the red, how can that be?
The only think I can think of a school paying an athlete for NIL is if the student is on the cover of the game day program or some other kind of publicity, but even then I’d think is is rare. The NIL groups are alums. Joe Paterno’s son runs one for Penn State. I think he gets paid by the group, not by the school.
The issue is that these teams amount to two handfuls. It’s not the reality for the vast majority of programs.
I realize that. I think those articles are often written to justify outsized coaching pay etc. In reality most D1 athletics aren’t even breaking even let alone covering the cost of other departments but no one really wants to look at that closely because then you’d have to start questioning why unprofitable activities are not being cut.
Men’s football and basketball do extremely well in the P4 and run a profit due to TV. All other sports cost money. If a University sponsors 25-30 D1 sports, it has a huge Athletic Department budget. Perhaps ~20 big time schools make a net profit across all athletics.
That said, even those numbers were going down prior to the House settlement.
I read somewhere that 10% or fewer D1 school athletic departments break even - I assume the number making a profit is even lower. I understand that football/basketball would be profitable many places as stand alone, but whatever they make needs to cover everything else and, well, it isn’t enough. I just don’t see how this model is sustainable when you throw in more scholarships and direct payment to players on top of that. At what point does everything become so professionalized that it barely passes for college sports anymore (basketball is already edging close with the number of one and done players).
But it’s a great marketing tool.
You know how many want Bama or UGA or UF because of football or Duke or Syracuse (back in the day) for hoops.
Schools could rein it in but they hired ADs now at high 6 and 7 digits and they bid higher and higher on coaches.
What was the status above about being in some academic research association.
You think Ohio State or Penn State care about that relative to athletics ?
Is surmise that’s a big no.
Olivia Dunn is the highest earning NIL female athlete, and she’s a gymnast at LSU. Gymnasts at D1 do get a full ride, so the $2-3M is just her side hustle.
I have heard of her but I’m not talking about athletes who are making $$ by being instagram influencers or engaging in other personal side hustles. What I want to know is if your typical gymnast or rower or x-country runner is making $100k just for that.
It’s actually much, much lower. There’s 10 conferences comprised 134 D1 football schools in the BCS, and 350+ playing D1 basketball. (The latter includes the Ancient Eight.)
These schools are not for profit. Making money from football and basketball to invest and promote other sports is a worthy proposition. Instead, it’s all about making $$$. They amount the coaches get paid is obscene. Recruits and families get lavish weekends at the Four Seasons. There is something wrong with that!
I read (can’t remember where exactly - NYT?) that the football money is earmarked and protected in such a way that most of the settlement will come from basketball revenues (yet the majority of it goes to football players).
Unless you don’t qualify for financial aid. There was a quarterback on the documentary QB1 who was a Harvard recruit and he wanted to go there but ended up at Kentucky. His parents had some money but not buckets. They decided he needed the scholarship so Harvard was out.
Nonprofit does not mean “no profit.”
Agree, but that ship has sailed. In the next few years, (likely 2+), 40-50 big time football schools will split off from thier existing conferences and take the football revenues with them. Lavish spending on football will only increase for those ~50.
All of the others will be relegated to what was formally known as D1AA. TV revenues of such schools will plummet by millions from what they are getting today. (Here’s looking at you, Rutgers, Indiana, Vandy…) There will be nothing left to spread around to support the non-rev sports.
My personal opinion is that, if that is the case, you should go for the merit scholarship.
I wouldn’t say it’s typical, but yes some are.
On athletic departments covering costs or running deficits, etc. Important to keep in mind that there were athletic departments before the explosion in revenues and there are athletic departments now at schools that cost the school considerably more than revenues. These costs are covered with institutional funds and/or student fees. I don’t think it’s clear that wouldn’t continue at many schools.
But non athletes have this too. - $$ from social media.
As for Kentucky over Harvard - I imagine it happens more than people think.
Nearly half of Harvard undergrads are full pay. There other examples - similar stats or like a Brown, 46% get need aid.
These schools have tremendous yields. But that tells me certain families self select out. Don’t even apply. Ultra wealthy who see the value do apply.
Not saying mine was a candidate but we came back from our Gtown visit after learning about no need and took off many schools - Cornell, Vassar, Tufts and more. But we kept W&L because of the merit aid, which she did not receive upon admission.
So I have no doubt that schools that don’t offer merit probably have an applicant count that is deflated from what could be - which makes their low admission rates inflated. They’d be even lower!! Scary to think given how low they already are.
And that many kids that can gain admittance to top schools don’t even try as their families set budgets and deem the potential rewards not worthy of the cost.
The Harvard / Kentucky case is interesting because if an athlete chooses a school where they can’t be an athlete vs can, in addition to the varying experiences the schools will deliver, there’s also the difference of being an athlete vs not - and I’m sure that has a big impact.