![www.bloomberg.com](https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/ibMiXJI6Bfwc/v1/1200x800.jpg)
Apple Tries to Rein In Hollywood Spending After Years of Losses
The iPhone maker is starting to exert more control over its production partners
![www.bloomberg.com](https://www.bloomberg.com/favicon-black.png)
I'm so glad the Pac 12 didn't survive and that they didn't have to rely on Apple TV.
![]()
Apple Tries to Rein In Hollywood Spending After Years of Losses
The iPhone maker is starting to exert more control over its production partnerswww.bloomberg.com
I'm so glad the Pac 12 didn't survive and that they didn't have to rely on Apple TV.
Here's the 'money-shot' quote from the article.Article was focused on Hollywood not live sports. I'm glad CU is in a better place right now but I was one of those people who was hoping for a streaming only deal even if games still ended up on the linear networks.
Here's the 'money-shot' quote from the article.
Apple is spending billions of dollars a year on original programming that has received strong reviews and many awards nominations. But its streaming service is attracting just 0.2% of TV viewing in the US. Apple TV+ generates less viewing in one month than Netflix does in one day.
Yikes ! 0.2% of TV viewing.
Colorado dodged a bullet here.
Im shocked that The Athletic and Mandel put together a cogent thoughtful responseAll the stupidity about Prime to USC or other things do not take into consideration that being the king of something is a lot better than being just another cog in a league already dominated by others. Yes, many Big12 programs think they are ready to be the big dog, but most of the smart folks know that Colorado and Coach Prime can and will be the driver of the league and Yormark knows that he wants to keep Prime right where he is, and we (Colorado) must keep him here, even considering versions of ownership, profit and revenue sharing, etc...
View attachment 74007
View attachment 74009
View attachment 74010
Totally agreeIm shocked that The Athletic and Mandel put together a cogent thoughtful response
When I first looked at that chart, my reaction was "tumbling is an NCAA sport?!?!?", but then I kept scanning and got to "gym"
Animal cruelty at its finest.50 equestrian scholarships!
50 equestrian scholarships?
Why is softball not even on the list?
Those that are not defendants in the settlement case — schools and conferences in the Group of Five, FCS and non-football playing Division I programs — are bound by the roster limits, reporting system and enforcement mechanism only if they choose to share revenue with athletes. They can opt out of the new model if they decline to share revenue.
For some elite power programs, the total cost of both the scholarship additions and the sharing of revenue with athletes will exceed $30 million annually. To maintain compliance with the federal Title IX law, any scholarship increases in a men’s sport will likely need to be replicated in a women’s sport, driving up the additional costs.
But not all programs can afford to add so many additional scholarships. Some administrators are in the process of “tiering” their sports by decreasing investment on certain programs and increasing investment in others. This includes staff and salary cuts as well as the reduction in scholarships from Olympic sports, especially those that generate little to no revenue.
I guess 'gym' is gymnastics. Not sure why that's abbreviated (without a dot) but 'equestrian' and 'field hockey ' and 'beach volleyball ' aren't.
Most of those are ridiculously excessive. It's not making sense to me.
Yeah I don’t really understand the point of all thisMost of those are ridiculously excessive. It's not making sense to me.
Most of those are ridiculously excessive. It's not making sense to me.
Yeah I don’t really understand the point of all this
On the one hand, they're raising scholarships so high for non-revenue sports that it becomes easier to add a bunch of women's scholarships to gain Title IX balance. But they're also making it so that matching men's and women's sports have the same scholarship allotments, which works against Title IX balance (with some sports now having more men's scholarships than women's). So that doesn't seem to be the motivation.Yeah I don’t really understand the point of all this
Feels like they raise women’s sports scholarships like equestrian, tumbling and fencing so much that it provides flexibility to add women to those relatively less expensive sports so that football can increase without violating Title IXOn the one hand, they're raising scholarships so high for non-revenue sports that it becomes easier to add a bunch of women's scholarships to gain Title IX balance. But they're also making it so that matching men's and women's sports have the same scholarship allotments, which works against Title IX balance (with some sports now having more men's scholarships than women's). So that doesn't seem to be the motivation.
So, I thought maybe the focus was to put an end to walk-on status or partial scholarships to avoid NIL abuse of stacking rosters and stashing players, while ensuring that teams had large enough practice rosters to continue conducting their programs as they currently do without the elimination of walk-ons becoming burdensome. It seems to work that way for football (105) and basketball (15), but there's no way a men's lacrosse team needs 48 players or currently has that many as the standard with that many walk-ons (currently 12.6 scholarships) or that women's rowing with 20 current scholarships needed to go to 68 to put every partial scholarship and walk-on in the program on scholarship.
I'm very confused on this because the allocations don't seem to match with a consistent goal.
Most of those are ridiculously excessive. It's not making sense to me.
It's a kill shot to the lower funded schools/ADs.Yeah I don’t really understand the point of all this
• Any Division I athlete who played a sport from 2016 to present day is eligible for past damages, which will be determined by a proposed formula
• Football and men's basketball players from power conference schools will be eligible to receive an average of $135,000
• Women's basketball players from power conference schools could receive an average of $35,000
• Highest individual estimated payout for one athlete will be $1.8 million
• Schools will be permitted for the first time to pay their athletes directly via NIL deals; each school could provide up to 22% of the average revenue that power conference schools generate from media rights, ticket sales and sponsorships -- a sum that is expected to be between $20 and $22 million per school when settlement goes into effect
• The $20-22 million figure that serves, in effect, as a salary cap will increase over time as the leagues' revenue grows; number expected to grow to nearly $33 million per school by end of settlement's 10-year term
• Those payments when combined with tuition and other benefits athletes already receive will create a system where many schools are sharing close to half of the revenue they generate with athletes
• The 50/50 split calculation considers all athletes at the school as one group rather than on a sport-by-sport basis
• Athletes would still be able to make money from NIL deals with third parties
• The NCAA agreed to remove any limits on the number of scholarships a school can provide to athletes
• Settlement allows for the court to appoint a "special master" to rule on any disputes about new rules related to player compensation
Finebaum explained that while Virginia Tech may offer a better football game, the decision would be based on academics and the SEC's preference for state universities going forward.
"I believe that the SEC now wants to target state universities," Finebaum said. "In the state or commonwealth of Virginia, the University of Virginia is more highly regarded than Virginia Tech."