What's new
By:
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

College Football Realignment

The Alabaster Yak said:
I’m curious about where the “did not commit” piece of your #1 came from?

“While athletic departments are not required to compensate student-athletes up to the cap, in order to remain competitive, it is our intention to fully meet the $20.5 million responsibility.”

That’s an intention, for sure, but you can assuredly read that as a commitment to fully meet that. Prime wouldn’t be here moving forward if there was any wavering in that commitment.
Click to expand...
You are reading it like a civilian not a lawyer and yes I believe they have every intention. That is not a commitment.
 
Bread said:
Ok then lawyer me on how you arrived at 3, 4, and 5
Click to expand...
American GIF by TLC
 
The Alabaster Yak said:
Could go in a number of threads now but apparently two P4 programs have already signed on for some PE deals.

www.sportsbusinessjournal.com

Elevate launching PE-backed college initiative

Private equity has finally found its way into college sports with a new venture launched by Elevate.
www.sportsbusinessjournal.com www.sportsbusinessjournal.com
Click to expand...
This is why it should be an avenue of last resort only

“While he acknowledged the cost of capital will be more expensive than a typical bond or credit facility, the ideal outcome is for Elevate to recoup its investment through a share of newly created, incremental revenue.”
 
Highlander said:
This is why it should be an avenue of last resort only

“While he acknowledged the cost of capital will be more expensive than a typical bond or credit facility, the ideal outcome is for Elevate to recoup its investment through a share of newly created, incremental revenue.”
Click to expand...
Yeah, I’d need to see the specifics around that. Theoretically, if PE is allowing a program to create new revenue or more revenue than they otherwise would have been able to without it, and that’s where the PE earnings come from, then I can see the upside. The contract language would need to be very specific though.
 
The Alabaster Yak said:
Yeah, I’d need to see the specifics around that. Theoretically, if PE is allowing a program to create new revenue or more revenue than they otherwise would have been able to without it, and that’s where the PE earnings come from, then I can see the upside. The contract language would need to be very specific though.
Click to expand...
The fans are about to have their pockets picked. $30 hot dogs inbound.
 
Liver said:
if you haven't read the RG announcement and FAQ, then do so.

my net takeaways... and I could be wrong, I'm just a booster/fan spouting profundities.

1. CU intends but did not commit to spend the full 20.5 in year 1.
2. non-rev generating sports will likely lose scholarships.
3. the revenue disparity between the b12 and the sec/b10 is about to get ratcheted up to another level of anti-competitiveness. we ain't on the right side of the gap right now. I suspect some of the texas private schools in our conference are going to be able to narrow the gap easier than we will.
4. the NIL clearing house is not going to kill many if any NIL deals.
5. once again, not sitting in the sec or b10 puts our competitiveness further at risk. this is, imho, the single most important strategic issue facing CU.
Click to expand...
Deloitte told ACC officials that over 70 percent of deals last year would not have been approved. We’ll see.
 
The Alabaster Yak said:
The Tennessee and Texas house Bills that passed, insulating schools from NCAA punishment for skirting rules around collectives, will also play a role, IMO. Texas, A&M, Tennessee and Vandy have a distinct advantage over the other SEC programs right now unless they enter into an agreement with the SEC that they will adhere to the same rules. I think all of this and those bills could hasten the move to a football only entity/super league.
Click to expand...
The conferences will soon have a clause saying that schools have to follow their rules or be expelled from the conference. Those state laws will be null in my opinion.
 
hawg1 said:
The conferences will soon have a clause saying that schools have to follow their rules or be expelled from the conference. Those state laws will be null in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Some have said the conferences will potentially have to contend with certain state legislatures if they try to kick a school out based a violation of state law
 
how does it work if an entity enters into an inter-state contract whose terms are subsequently outlawed by the entity's resident state?

I legit have no clue, but this seems like something there must be precedent for.
 
The Alabaster Yak said:
What’s the hypothetical you’re asking about?
Click to expand...
well, I thought I was asking about the same situation you and Hawg are discussing:
  • a conference makes a policy specifying they must use the NIL clearinghouse. the by-laws of the conference require all members to comply
  • an individual state passes a law that outlaws any requirements forcing schools to use the clearinghouse. or for the sake of hypotheticals, say the law goes even further and outlaws use of the clearinghouse by member schools, and instead requires that they use a vetting process by the state elected Board of Regents.
 
hokiehead said:
well, I thought I was asking about the same situation you and Hawg are discussing:
  • a conference makes a policy specifying they must use the NIL clearinghouse. the by-laws of the conference require all members to comply
  • an individual state passes a law that outlaws any requirements forcing schools to use the clearinghouse. or for the sake of hypotheticals, say the law goes even further and outlaws use of the clearinghouse by member schools, and instead requires that they use a vetting process by the state elected Board of Regents.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I don't know. Speculation that state law would overrule any conference rules put in place. However, the article that 4BTDs posted suggests that Congress could be creating national NIL legislation that would pre-empt state NIL laws (as part of a broader bill), effectively taking care of this issue.

A discussion draft of a bill obtained by The Athletic outlines an upcoming proposal in the House of Representatives’ Committee on Energy and Commerce that would codify most of the federal support the NCAA has lobbied for in recent years. Although previous congressional efforts haven’t gained much steam, college sports leaders hope the settlement will finally provide the spark for something to get done. The Republican-led committee would work hand-in-hand with two other House committees for a three-pronged approach this week that would do the following:

  • Fully deputize the Collegiate Sports Commission (or another entity) to enforce the settlement rules, such as requiring athletes disclose third-party name, image and likeness deals worth more than $600 and allow the prohibition of compensation that is not considered fair market value
  • Allow an entity to establish a revenue-sharing cap; the one instituted by the settlement begins at around $20 million for the 2025-26 academic year
  • Pre-empt state NIL laws with this national NIL law
  • Allow the NCAA, conferences or another entity to establish and enforce rules around transfers, eligibility length and the paying of recruits
  • Declare that college athletes are not employees
  • Require athlete agents to register with an entity such as the CSC or NCAA
Click to expand...
 
The Alabaster Yak said:
Yeah, I don't know. Speculation that state law would overrule any conference rules put in place. However, the article that 4BTDs posted suggests that Congress could be creating national NIL legislation that would pre-empt state NIL laws (as part of a broader bill), effectively taking care of this issue.
Click to expand...
This points to a larger issue of how divided each conference and School is from one another. Even when P2 or P4 Schools leave the NCAA, I don't see how they will come together to make the best decision for all. There is simply no cohesion whatsoever, and every School is out for themselves. I'd even be surprised if the BIG and SEC could ever decide on a correct path forward for a P2 league.
 
That
hokiehead said:
well, I thought I was asking about the same situation you and Hawg are discussing:
  • a conference makes a policy specifying they must use the NIL clearinghouse. the by-laws of the conference require all members to comply
  • an individual state passes a law that outlaws any requirements forcing schools to use the clearinghouse. or for the sake of hypotheticals, say the law goes even further and outlaws use of the clearinghouse by member schools, and instead requires that they use a vetting process by the state elected Board of Regents.
Click to expand...
That team gets kicked out of conference, yes?
 
hokiehead said:
IDK. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that there are federal laws protecting them in this case.
Click to expand...
Teams will sign affiliation agreements. That means they will sign conference agreements to follow House agreement stipulations on payment caps and NIL clearinghouse EVEN IF state laws permit less restrictions on these matters. This does not require federal legislation.

Federal legislation on these matters will be nice some day but these affiliation agreements should work in the interim.
 
Buffnik said:
Given the financial considerations and this $20.5M number not officially being tied to a specific sport, I think some schools are going to have to take a long, hard look at whether they should be offering football any more along with moving other sports to club status.

For example, if you're Duke and basketball is the most important sport to your university, maybe you drop football so you aren't using $15M on football like everyone else and leaving too little to dominate in basketball. Might they be better off if they offered Men's & Women's Soccer in the fall, Men's & Women's Lacrosse in the Spring, and Men's & Women's Basketball being the featured sports for the Winter across both academic semesters?

They could then put $15M into MBB and then outspend their competition across the other 3 sports. Why wouldn't they do this? Why wouldn't others like UConn, Kansas, Arizona, Indiana, Kentucky and others where the state and alums care most about basketball make the decision to drop football? Is football so important that having it and being mediocre at it is so vital that they are willing to also allow their basketball programs to become mediocre as they can't pay their players as well as Big East programs and universities like Gonzaga that don't offer football? Going down from the P4, why would resource constrained ADs like New Mexico, Nevada, UTEP, etc. in the new MWC that pack their basketball arenas and have a rich tradition there maintain football programs that usually suck and can't draw a crowd? I wouldn't be surprised at all if the MWC drops football and becomes a western version of the Big East.

Also, this could be the line that's drawn in the ACC and Big 12: total merger and split with the football-committed schools becoming one conference and the basketball-focused schools becoming the other conference.
Click to expand...
leagues need doormats.

MBB schools will accept their fate to be football doormats. They have mostly been for most of their existence anyway, so why wouldn't they go back to their roots?
 
skibum said:
leagues need doormats.

MBB schools will accept their fate to be football doormats. They have mostly been for most of their existence anyway, so why wouldn't they go back to their roots?
Click to expand...
They might if it's up to them. If the media companies have a problem with paying them for a product that's almost never worthy of a national broadcast or the football powers get annoyed at equal revenue sharing with them when they're not spending on par for football, it could blow up.
 
Buffnik said:
They might if it's up to them. If the media companies have a problem with paying them for a product that's almost never worthy of a national broadcast or the football powers get annoyed at equal revenue sharing with them when they're not spending on par for football, it could blow up.
Click to expand...
I don't think the football powers get pissed off at have a few easy "power" conference wins. As long as it's only 2-3 schools/conference, I think everyone is happy. And, let's be honest, we can all name the 2-3 schools/conference it would be.

UNC and UCLA may have some soul searching to do, but most of the basketball schools already know what they are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top