Future of NCAA basketball

Hard to know for sure at this point what the news of autonomy for the "big five" conferences will mean for the future of NCAA basketball.

However, I could see basketball breaking into a sort of football setup in the future where you would have the top 125-150 programs in what amounts to the FBS, another 150 or so programs in what amounts to the FCS, followed by DII and DIII.

I would prefer the current setup because the NCAA Tournament is great in large part because of upsets like the one Mercer pulled off over Duke last season.

It does appear to me the Big East is poised to remain at the highest level, thanks in large part to the TV contract from FoxSports 1 and the commitment level of the 10 schools in the league.

I can't help wondering if the ruling in the Obannon case might have a greater impact on schools/programs than the autonomy vote.

I don't understand the potential ramifications of the $5,000 per year per athlete trust fund. Does that apply to every athlete in every sport? Does it apply only to football and basketball players?

What are the criteria for receiving payment?

It seems to me that this ruling could prove to be more expensive for universities than the increased stipend of roughly $3,000 per year per athlete.

Does this mean that combined it will cost schools at roughly $8,000 per year per athlete?

I'm so confused!

(And I still don't understand if all D-1 athletes will get an increased stipend of just football and basketball players.)

Phantom, I think you are correct that the OB ruling has a larger effect.

However as I understand it, the players wouldn't be paid by the University directly, but though licensing, advertising, etc. paid by a third party. One of the proposals is that the money would be held in trust and distributed every year. I might be completely wrong about this.

It would be open to all athletes, but my guess is that only those with the highest profile could benefit. So for instance, the local booster who owns a car dealership could have Duane Wilson appear in a couple of his ads and gets paid (eventually) $5,000 for it. That same opportunity will likely not be available to the back up volleyball player.

Sultan,

If that's the case - that a third party would provide the money - then I'm not sure I get why all the hullabaloo. The articles I read mentioned video games. Well, very, very few of these college athletes will ever have their images appear in video games.

But the articles also mentioned "broadcast" of "broadcasts." Does that mean that any athlete who appears on a national - or even local - telecast is entitled to reimbursement? ESPN said the ruling does affect them financially, that the networks don't have to pay into these trust funds, but that it will involve solely the schools and the athletes.

What about athletes' pictures being in game programs that are sold at the games?

I understand your car dealership example, but the ruling, it seems to me, has to have a much greater impact than that.

It is all very murky to me.

Yeah you are probably right...and I honestly don't know.

The OB ruling is the death knell for college sports. What will prevent T Boon from paying OSU players outrageous sums for personal appearances, ads, etc?

Edited to add:
Saw the $5k minimum, but how soon does the Big 5 vote to raise the limit to an amount unattainable for the rest of the schools?
TBoon could pay each and every football, bball player a ton.

I don't think schools can raise that sum as it was set as the maximum by the court. Now the plaintiffs may appeal that limit, but they might not. But if they don't, and the decision is not overturned at some point, then the Ego 5 conferences can't mess with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phantom Warrior

I don't think schools can raise that sum as it was set as the maximum by the court. Now the plaintiffs may appeal that limit, but they might not. But if they don't, and the decision is not overturned at some point, then the Ego 5 conferences can't mess with it.

---

I guess the NCAA's new Division I (P5) could unilaterally increase that sum? The judge just added something that was not there before.

The court said the NCAA could set those limits. The Power 5, through their new voting power, might vote to do so. But I doubt it. They need a 60% threshold and my guess is that even within the Power 5, 40% of the schools wouldn't want it raised for the reasons that pbi state.

Interesting take by Dennis Dodd.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoot...llegiate-model

From the ESPN article, it appears that $5k is the minimum:
In a partial victory for the NCAA, though, Wilken said it could set a cap on the money paid to athletes for use of their names and images, as long as it allows for no less than $5,000 per athlete per year of competition for players at big football and basketball schools. Individual schools could offer less money, she said, but only if they don't unlawfully conspire among themselves to set those amounts.


Seems like the bigger schools that can offer more marketing opportunities will land the highest rated players.
Would you pick KY or MU if you could get way more $$$$$$ by signing with KY.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSultan

Phantom, I think you are correct that the OB ruling has a larger effect.

However as I understand it, the players wouldn't be paid by the University directly, but though licensing, advertising, etc. paid by a third party. One of the proposals is that the money would be held in trust and distributed every year. I might be completely wrong about this.

It would be open to all athletes, but my guess is that only those with the highest profile could benefit. So for instance, the local booster who owns a car dealership could have Duane Wilson appear in a couple of his ads and gets paid (eventually) $5,000 for it. That same opportunity will likely not be available to the back up volleyball player.

---

Don't be so sure. We live in the age of social media. It would not take much for that backup volleyball player to become a social media favorite and get that ad job - especially if she is attractive . Now that I think of it an advertiser could run a great campaign with basketball walkons. Robert Frozina graduated just a few years too early I guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phantom Warrior

Sultan,

If that's the case - that a third party would provide the money - then I'm not sure I get why all the hullabaloo. The articles I read mentioned video games. Well, very, very few of these college athletes will ever have their images appear in video games.

---

That all depends on how you define image. For non-revenue sports, I agree that they don't show up in video games, but for basketball and football, I would guess at least 98% of all scholarship athletes have their likeness in the EA game, at least from a skin color/uniform number perspective. It's amazing how many player likenesses there are in those games, the players on the teams in game are never just random characters. Each one is based on an actual scholarship player.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phantom Warrior

I can't help wondering if the ruling in the Obannon case might have a greater impact on schools/programs than the autonomy vote.

I don't understand the potential ramifications of the $5,000 per year per athlete trust fund. Does that apply to every athlete in every sport? Does it apply only to football and basketball players?

What are the criteria for receiving payment?

It seems to me that this ruling could prove to be more expensive for universities than the increased stipend of roughly $3,000 per year per athlete.

Does this mean that combined it will cost schools at roughly $8,000 per year per athlete?

I'm so confused!

(And I still don't understand if all D-1 athletes will get an increased stipend of just football and basketball players.)

---

Rule applies to footbal and basketball players only.

Let's see if this happens:

Delany [Big 10 Commish] followed NCAA president Mark Emmert to the witness stand in a landmark antitrust suit brought by former UCLA basketball player Ed O’Bannon and others.

The idea of paying players, Delany said, goes against the entire college experience, and he couldn’t see league members agreeing to it. If some did, he said, they likely would be kicked out of the conference because the move would create an imbalance among schools that could not be resolved.

LOL...it won't.