I find it interesting that it appears the two conferences, who have seemingly been pitted against each other, are on the same page here.
ACC, Big 12 vote to settle NCAA lawsuit
- Thread starter HailToPitt725
- Start date
Schools can pay players up to $22 million per year. So lets say a Bama or OSU pays:
Football
$18 million
Basketball
$3 million
W Basketball
$1 million
Plus booster NIL pay for play salaries on top of that
Football
$18 million
Basketball
$3 million
W Basketball
$1 million
Plus booster NIL pay for play salaries on top of that
How is there going to be a cap without legally recognizing players as employees?
I dont know how this would work. Its all stupid. Instead of paying them as employees, the schools will pay them, not to play, but to use their name, images, and likenesses as stupid as that sounds. You know, because God forbid they be employees. You ask how they can put a cap on university-paid NIL? It would be an NCAA rule I guess just like the NCAA has a rule prohibiting pay for play. Lol
Right. But the conferences are doing away with pay for play because the legality of it is on thin ice, and they are trying to get out ahead of it.
A cap would just result in the “how can you do this when they aren’t employees?” problem that they are trying to avoid with a settlement.
This settlement actually makes a cap on even weaker grounds legally.
Any cap would last until UGA signs a player that would put them over the cap, and that player seeks temporary injunctive relief. Because we are seeing the courts are passing those out like candy against the NCAA right now.
pittdan77
Athletic Director
Just a matter of time now until private equity jumps in and destroy a few athletic departments.
Again, you are a socialist. I estimated those numbers based on the revenue those teams generate but I am sure you want to redistribute the wealth that the football team generates and give it to athletes who dont generate revenue under some presumption of "fairness."
I still don't think this is pay for play though, right? This would just be the college paying a player to use their name, image, and likeness, not to play for the team. I dont see how you can do REAL pay for play and them still not be employees so I dont think this is that.
Have you ever heard of Title IX?
Btw, do you think that women's volleyball generates any revenue?
Again, you don't know what socialist means. If you actually believe what you say, then you should just sit this out. But I tend to think you're trolling, though I can never underestimate how dumb you really are.
So every player gets paid the same, right? After all, each player's name, image, and likeness appears on TV. Unless you want to pay based on tiers, like starters get more. Backup QBs get next to nothing so that stops stockpiling talent. Players who get penalties get highlighted more so they get extra money.
That's how silly your thoughts get.
But it’s still an artificial cap.
We always know the schools can’t limit NIL from sources outside the school. They lost that argument because the athletes aren’t employees.
We know they are going to lose the “schools can’t pay players” argument, whether it be NIL or salary. That’s why they are trying to settle.
But a settlement is not a substitute for collective bargaining.
“You can’t stop the players from getting NIL because they aren’t employees. You can’t stop the schools from compensating the players because they aren’t employees. But you can limit the compensation because they aren’t employees.”
Which jurisdiction is that argument winning in?
There will be no cap on anything until there is collective bargaining. There legally can’t be.
Title IX deals with participation not player salaries as NCAA Pres Charlie Baker said. Stop trying to take from revenue-generating athletes, you socialist.
I'm not disagreeing. I have read someone describe this as the last step before they become employees. This agreement is made. This weird university-paid NIL cap is installed and then someone sues a year later, the NCAA loses, and now they are employees.
From ESPN:
"Title IX prohibits sex-based discrimination in any educational institution that receives federal funding. For college sports, that means that schools must provide equal opportunities and benefits to men and women athletes. Baker's letter to the NCAA schools said these proposals would help to improve gender equity in college sports by more evenly distributing some of the money that flows to athletes.
A judge would likely have to decide exactly how these unprecedented payments to athletes fit into Title IX, but past rulings about other benefits that schools give to their athletes provides some helpful guidance.
For the trust fund money, Title IX law would likely dictate that schools distribute a proportionate amount to women and men. For example, if a school's total trust fund for athletes is $10 million and half of its varsity athletes are women, then $5 million of that fund would go to women."
Another issue you should probably sit out.
Then this just isn't happening. There's no way anybody can seriously think every player across every sport deserves the same payment. That's nonsensical.
pittdan77
Athletic Director
Why not? The wrestlers and volleyball players don't work as hard as the football players? Pitt has around 500 student athletes so $22 million breaks down to just over $40,000 a piece. I don't think the QB will go without because a girl on the lacrosse team gets the same amount of money.
At some point, revenue generated has to matter. Otherwise, they'll just cut basically every men's sport not named football and basketball, cut a bunch of women's sports too so the scholarship numbers work out for Title IX purposes, and be done with it.
pittdan77
Athletic Director
Doesn't the NCAA still require each school to sponsor at least 16 varsity sports?
When does hard work = equitable payments? This is about revenue generation. Football and men's basketball players generate revenue. Wrestlers do not. You should be paid what you are worth, not for how hard you work. Roofing is one of the hardest jobs out there and those laborers dont make much. You know why?
Again, these are elementary concepts that people dont understand.
Ok, I was a little confused by cashisking's post. What you are talking about is an educational trust fund of 30K each. Yes, every athlete will get that. That is what's "capped." Its not NIL and that's why it can be capped.
Any pay for play NIL would not have to be distributed evenly. Trust fund money would.
Yes, for FBS D1, 16 is the minimum, and of those (for a coeducational school), a minimum of 8 must be women's sports. And you must provide 90% of allowable scholarships for those 16 sports over a 2-year rolling period with an annual minimum of 210 total scholarships totaling at least $6 million in scholarship support.
The ACC requires the following women's sports for membership:women's basketball and either women's soccer or women's volleyball team.
Pitt fields 19 varsity sports, 6 of which are men's and women's cross country, indoor track, and outdoor track which all share a combined total NCAA max of 12.6 scholarships for men and 18 for women. 10 of Pitt's 19 sports are women's sports, or 2 above the NCAA minimum. Title IX separately speaks to the proportion of women's varsity athletics opportunities that must be offered; 56.6% of Pitt undergrads are women in 2023-24.
Last edited:
Thanks. That's what I thought, and you added the details that I wasn't aware of.
Why do you insist on Pitt acting illegally?
Title IX is an elementary concept that you don't understand.
You just don't get it. Maybe this will help you though I doubt it. The House in the House vs NCAA that is being settled, y'know the main plaintiff, is a SWIMMER. So swimmers will be among those getting NIL. Do you understand that?
They will be getting money invested into a 30K educational trust fund. Its specifically not NIL.
So, the answer is no, you don't understand.
No surprise. Your heels are yet again dug in despite the facts.
pittdan77
Athletic Director
Equitable doesn't mean equal, by the way.
Revenue generation by the football program has only ever meant nicer locker rooms and a few amenities that the soccer team doesn't have because of booster involvement. The scholarship and meals and access to similar facilities and opportunities that the university provides are all the same.
Should NBA and WNBA players make the same? After all, WNBA players work just as hard and isnt that what its all about?
pittdan77
Athletic Director
That couldn't be more apples to oranges with college sports.
Are you working overtime to be obtuse or are you really just grasping at straws?
From having a child play sports at a D-1 school, from transportation to meals to lodging, this is usually not the case.
They do, but of course the moment that the schools decide they don't want that rule any more, that rule will cease to exist.
It's been handy in the past (although less so as time has gone on) because it made it harder for "non-power" schools to play at the D1 level. It was more money that they had to spend, and that they really didn't have to spend. But as time goes on here and the difference between the haves and the have nots gets bigger and bigger and more of the decision making is concentrated in the hands of the power conference schools, at some point they could just decide "who cares what UTSA calls their football program, we aren't really affiliated with them in any real way any more, who cares if they move up or down a level."
All the conferences are on the same page, because they are all trying to avoid going to trial, which they all know they will lose, and which would most likely end up costing them all significantly more money.
Yep, this was made official yesterday. Does this save the NCAA (for now)? Seems like this could stabilize a few important issues.
Just 1 more 2 more lawsuits left to go:
When someone sues to become an employee
When someone sues for unlimited eligibility. If a guy wants to attend college for 15 years, seems kind of a dumb rule that he can only play in 4 of those years.
According to reports 75% of the 2.8 billion will go to Power 5 football players and 15% will go to Power 5 basketball players.
I see another lawsuit soon. If you declare for the NFL draft and don't get selected as high as you expected, why shouldn't you be allowed to enroll at a college and play football the next season? For that matter, if you play 3 years in the NFL and flame out why shouldn't you be allowed to go play at LSU next year and get an NIL deal?
Similar threads
