The future of G5 football?

[Roundball]

Good article, but really nothing new. Everyone knows the power conferences are poised to break away sooner than later. https://www.texasfootball.com/article/2 ... review_img

[Furmanoid]

Seems like it all comes down to fans accepting that they aren't really in the same division as UGA and OSU. I think most do, but every school has big money donors who are completely delusional, and they've called the shots. The regionality thing is big. I wonder how much that's to blame for dwindling crowds. Nobody's gonna fly across the country to follow UTEP.

[Roundball]

College football continues to slowly kill itself. https://wtop.com/sports/2024/05/propose ... ance-plan/

[Affirm]

College football continues to slowly kill itself. https://wtop.com/sports/2024/05/propose ... ance-plan/

How is this proposed $2.8 BILLION settlement going to impact FURMAN and similar schools? I wish I really knew the answer to that, and I hope people who do know better than I do will shed light on the subject.
My guess is that it will cost the Furman Athletics budget at least about $200,000 per year to be in compliance with the settlement, and that will be to help pay the big bucks to former FBS athletes going back to the year 2016, for example Trevor Lawrence, etc.
What would 1.68% of Furman's annual athletics budget equate to?
What would 1.00% of Furman's annual athletics budget equate to?
Please, someone who knows, really knows, shed some light.

Below are excerpts from 5/22/24 article by Nell Gluckman in The Chronicle of Higher Education.
(Sorry if it is far more than you want to read. It IS reduced from what you'd be reading in the full article as publshed.)
LOOMING LIABILITIES
A Major Sports Settlement Is Poised to Cost Colleges Billions. How Would They Pay for It?
By Nell Gluckman
MAY 22, 2024, CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION
There has been so much legal action about college sports …that you may have understandably tuned it out. Now is the time to tune back in.
NCAA’s most prominent conferences are voting on a proposed settlement in the case House v. NCAA, which seeks damages for athletes who played before the association began allowing NIL.
…news reports suggest the NCAA and the power conferences will vote by Thursday on the terms of a settlement that would cost them about $2.8 billion in damages — and a subset of the institutions even more in the future. Such a settlement, which would be reviewed by a federal judge after the two sides agreed to it, is aimed at heading off a trial that could reportedly cost the association an exponentially greater sum of around $20 billion. Even by today’s standards of constant challenges to the association’s limits on player compensation, this case is monumental.
But on top of that payment, the settlement reportedly includes a revenue-sharing plan in which universities in the most lucrative athletic conferences would have the option of paying up to about $20 million per institution a year to their athletes — a historic step for an enterprise that has long prohibited direct pay. Those colleges would face pressure to contribute to the athletes’ pool or risk losing top players to rival institutions.
That’s a heavy financial toll, and it could severely squeeze athletic programs already struggling to stay competitive.
This is the third major antitrust case that the NCAA has faced in recent years. The association had for decades argued successfully that “amateurism” was the source of college sports’ appeal, and thus could not be struck down on antitrust grounds. That argument began to falter with O’Bannon v. NCAA, which the association lost in 2015, and Alston v. NCAA, which it lost in 2021.
“Alston was a huge deal,” Marc L. Edelman, a law professor at Baruch College of the City University of New York, said, because it “put an end to the argument that NCAA was somehow different when it came to antitrust law.”
The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling was 9 to 0 in Alston, a decisive verdict that legal scholars say sent an unmistakable message to the association’s member colleges: If the House case went to trial, the NCAA would probably lose.
“It’s an amazing wake-up call for the NCAA member schools,” Edelman, … said of Alston and House.
Sink or Swim
According to news reports, hundreds of colleges will see revenue drops over the next decade to pay damages, while a smaller subset of the highest-profile conferences will put revenue away to share with players.
The question of how to divide up payments into the former pot has gotten contentious, according to multiple news reports. In some versions of the settlement, Division I conferences outside the power conferences have been on the hook for a sizable percentage of the payments. Leaders of those conferences have argued that is unfair because the payments would not be going to their former players, but would mainly benefit football players from the conferences that generate much more revenue ….
Then there’s the revenue-sharing plan, which would apply only to the Power 4: ACC, B10, Big 12, & SEC . News reports indicate that the proposed settlement would give each member college the ability to devote about $20 million annually to players directly.
Given the competitive pressures in the major conferences, it’s likely most colleges will opt to pay. Where will they find the money? Will sports that do not generate revenue — think swimming, soccer, squash — be cut? Would the state legislature help? Could insurance cover it? Much depends on the precise language in the settlement, but assuming revenue-sharing comes to pass, some scenarios are more likely than others.
First of all, athletic departments with the biggest revenue…will be able to take this hit much more easily than will their peers by, for example, drawing on major donors.
Other power-conference institutions that want to remain competitive but do not have $20 million lying around will most likely pull together the money from a variety of sources….
Taking from a university’s endowment would not be a conventional business decision, Smith added. “It would be pretty rare for a university to dip into the endowment to pick up this athletic revenue.”
Cutting less-lucrative sports has been a hard sell in the past. Stanford ..., for example, tried to cut 11 sports in 2020 to save money but reversed course after it faced lawsuits. Eastern Michigan Univ. also tried to eliminate four sports programs for financial reasons, only to be ordered by a judge to reinstate two of them.…
So what options will colleges have? Student fees, booster clubs, ticket sales, and the institution itself.
Dean speculated that colleges could raise millions a year by substantially increasing the annual fees students pay toward athletic departments. Colleges might also rely on booster clubs — fans and alumni who pay a premium for perks at football games — by increasing membership fees. Then the ticket prices could be raised.…
The bottom line is that a big new yearly expense will hurt some universities much more than others. “This is like throwing 60 swimmers in the deep end of the pool,” … “We’ll find out who can’t swim ....”

[Davemeister]

Cutting less-lucrative sports has been a hard sell in the past. Stanford ..., for example, tried to cut 11 sports in 2020 to save money but reversed course after it faced lawsuits.

Don't go giving apaladin any ideas.

[Furmanoid]

So where do they come up with the number? Are we saying the backup left guard at Toledo would have raked in NIL money if the rule had allowed it? The NCAA needs better lawyers if they can’t beat that.

[Affirm]

So where do they come up with the number? Are we saying the backup left guard at Toledo would have raked in NIL money if the rule had allowed it? The NCAA needs better lawyers if they can’t beat that.

If any of you did not read the AP article that WTOP posted on its website, as provided in the first post in this thread, here is some info in it. Go back and read the whole article if you prefer:
The Associated Press
May 22, 2024
… settlement of an antitrust lawsuit cleared the second of a three-step NCAA approval process Tuesday, and the presidential boards of two of the five conferences named in the complaint voted to approve the deal…The D-I board’s finance committee recommended on Monday to stick with the original finance plan for the settlement, which has drawn the ire of non-power conference leaders who believe their leagues will bear a disproportionate financial burden.…
The NCAA office is set to cover nearly $2.8 billion in damages over 10 years. A reduction of operating expenses, insurance and reserve funds is expected to cover about $1.2 billion. The rest would come from withheld distributions to 352 Division I member schools. …
The approved finance plan for the settlement calls for the NCAA to cover 41% of the $2.77 billion in damages, with the Power Five conferences accounting for 24% and the other five major college football conferences — the so-called Group of Five — covering 10%.
The conferences that compete in the second tier of Division I football, the Championship Subdivision, would cover 14% of the overall settlement and the non-football D-I conferences would be on the hook for 12%.
…
The 27 conferences not named in the lawsuit are expected to cover 60% of withheld distributions, with the other 40% coming from power conferences that currently comprise 69 schools.
… the 22 non-FBS conferences sent a memo to NCAA leadership, proposing the finance structure be flipped so power conference withheld distributions cover 60% of the $1.6 billion.
Big Sky Commissioner Tom Wistrcill said … Tuesday the non-FBS conferences were holding out hope for reconsideration. “We’re fighting uphill,” he said.…
“We believe over 95% of the damages are going to go to (Power Five) football and basketball players. For non-A5 conferences to pay for that is disproportionate. We’re asking for a more proportionate structure because our student-athletes are not going to see the money,” Wistrcill said.
… parties on both sides sounding hopeful that it will be approved.
The conferences not named in the lawsuit did not find out about details of the proposed settlement until two weeks ago through media reports, Wistrcill said. He said they are hoping the settlement can be approved with an opportunity for the NCAA financing plan to be readdressed, but the prospects of that diminished even further with the full board’s approval Tuesday night.…
“The money is flowing to their student-athletes while disproportionately (the settlement) is penalizing our institutions,” Wistrcill said.___
In an earlier version of this story, the breakdown of how the NCAA will pay for $2.77 billion in damages was incorrectly stated as the entire amount being paid for by cutting operating expenses, insurance and reserve funds. The NCAA will cover nearly $1.2 billion through cutting operating expenses, insurance and reserve funds. Withheld distributions to member schools will cover the rest, about $1.6 billion

[Furmanoid]

My question is how was anybody damaged by not receiving NIL money they weren’t going to get anyway because their nil had no value?

[Affirm]

My question is how was anybody damaged by not receiving NIL money they weren’t going to get anyway because their nil had no value?

You could read up on House v NCAA.
Also you could search for more reporting online about developments in the last 24 hours.
It seems that additional lawsuits are not unexpected.
Yeah, I too wish someone would provide more simplified, consolidated info on all this - and especially as it impacts Furman specifically.
Bottom line appears to be that the “age of amateurism in college athletics” is officially over, at least at the D-1 level (maybe D-2 also).

[Furmanoid]

So the idea is that FCS sports lose so much money that its a big business. So the people working to lose all that money need to be rewarded or they'll stop losing it.

[Affirm]

Perhaps the reality is that …
things are probably going to change for Furman Athletics, and for many other D-1 schools that have FCS football programs, very soon. For a majority of them it will be a negative change. For a few of them, it may be a positive change.

[youwouldno]

I would think there could be further litigation regarding the settlement payout. Regardless I'm struggling to see how low majors in particular would be able to come up with that kind of money - something like $5 million per school if the power schools only pay 40%.

Even with financing, seems like entire conferences could potentially be bankrupted. My guess is that the NCAA will come up with a scheme where the power schools effectively become creditors and in exchange cut off existing revenue share (eg, march madness), which would still break the weaker schools but a little more slowly.

The entire case feels more like an NCAA move than a legitimate antitrust dispute.

[FUBeAR]

Below is part of FUBeAR’s post copied over from another thread … another issue with this settlement worth considering / discussing …


BUT…related to that …

here’s another matter associated with this NCAA ‘plan’ to handle these lawsuits and restructure - “Roster Size Limits are “in” / Scholarship limits are “out”. Again, we would need to see the fine print of a final plan, but FUBeAR is reading that Football roster sizes will be capped at 85 and scholarship limits will be eliminated. That works great for the big schools as they all ‘fully funded’ their 85 allowed scholarships AND in recent years expanded their rosters by using NIL Collective Funding to fully ‘scholarship’ as many “walk-on’s” as they desired - typically 10-20. Now, they won’t have to ‘waste’ that NIL money on the ‘worst’ 10-20 Players and can use it to distribute more to the 85 Roster Players whose ‘scholarship expenses’ they will also cover…knowing their competitors are playing on a level field … roster-size-wise.

So…your 1st thought may be, “Wow, that means 1,340-2,680 ‘FBS Quality’ Players are gonna be ‘off-rostered’ by FBS Teams and available to play FCS Football. FCS Foootball is going to be so much better!” And, you would be correct about the numbers, but FUBeAR would disagree with you about a significant quality uptick. The bottom 10-20 Players on an FBS roster, would probably fall into the 35-55 ranking level of Players on an FCS roster - so, some more barely visible quality depth. Great to have, but not really very ‘sexy’ in the big picture.

OTOH …Furman had around 120 Players on last year’s roster. So, way oversimplifying the ‘math’, FU was receiving full tuition from 57 ‘students’ (whole or partial ‘students’) who happened to also be on the Football roster. In the new world, FU will only be able to receive full tuition from 22 whole or partial ‘students’ that also happen to be on the Football roster. So…further over-simplifying the math, that’s 35 x 80k = $2.8 million in tuition revenue that FU’s VP of Enrollment management has to find from elsewhere …cuz in most cases, those young men aren’t coming to Furman if they don’t get to wear their purple jerseys in Paladin Stadium on Saturday’s in the Fall. They can take their tuition $’s to Alabama or Clemson or to MIT and also NOT play D1 Football instead.

So…that certainly hurts the Football Team’s overall contribution to the University. And, also…Furman’s FCS competitors may also be in a better financial position to ‘fund’ an 85 man (non-tuition-generating) roster than Furman is…further compounding the economic issues with this whole thing. Maybe not, but maybe so.

Stay tuned…