NCAA in "Deep Discussion" to Implement Revenue Sharing with Athletes

GVl52iTXgAAE2a9


 
Mavric said:
It's quite the Catch-22.  People have argued for years that athletes weren't getting what they deserved.  Now that it's moving that direction, the unintended consequence is that the athletes are getting (closer to) what they deserve, which also includes those who aren't bringing in the money getting less.
Click to expand...
I feel like this discussion over the last X years has completely ignored the unintended consequences to some athletes.

 
Mavric said:
It's quite the Catch-22.  People have argued for years that athletes weren't getting what they deserved.  Now that it's moving that direction, the unintended consequence is that the athletes are getting (closer to) what they deserve, which also includes those who aren't bringing in the money getting less.
Click to expand...


I was talking about the new scholarship/roster limits with a D3 men's soccer coach.  He said its great for the 20 or so extra football players getting free rides, but outside of select regions/sports (SEC baseball for example) pretty much bad for most everyone else.

He said he'll get better players going forward due to D1 soccer programs having roster limits (and programs getting cut) because kids will be pushed down to D2 and D3.  But he said the biggest problem he has with it is that there are going to be way less opportunities for high school athletes to play college sports.

 
Mavric said:
It's quite the Catch-22.  People have argued for years that athletes weren't getting what they deserved.  Now that it's moving that direction, the unintended consequence is that the athletes are getting (closer to) what they deserve, which also includes those who aren't bringing in the money getting less.
Click to expand...


And this unintended consequence can actually benefit Nebraska. With more schools moving to minimize non-revenue generating sports (as implied in the tweet), more and more schools may invest less in volleyball, making it easier for Nebraska to be Queen of the Hill in the sport. Currently, only one collegiate women's program (all programs, not just VB) operates in the black, that's Nebraska VB. For VB, majority of schools are in the red by $1M+. You can anticipate schools shrinking the budget for all women's sports, while maintaining compliance with Title IX. The more schools shrink their non-revenue sports budgets, the better for Nebraska VB to remain on top of the mountain.

That said, VB could easily become a revenue sport for a lot more schools if they move it to a second semester sport. Most games are played Fri-Sun, meaning they are competing for television spots against FB. Move it to the second semester, more opportunities to fill TV spots when networks are needing live sporting events. When VB is on TV, it has proven to be a draw for audiences, it's just finding times that they can get on TV. Moving the season to second semester seems like a win-win for both TV and schools.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top