ESPN says that what we've thought would happen

[Girthang]

And talked about here for years ... is now being discussed formally.

Sources: CFP mulls breaking football out of NCAA

The 11 college presidents and chancellors who make up the College Football Playoff's board of managers met via Zoom on Monday and began a discussion that could reshape the future of college sports, sources told ESPN.

www.espn.com

 

[lazydave841]

Wonder if this is why they pushed '26 and '27 title game sites through yesterday?

 

[satcheluk]

This will be interesting to watch play out. I wonder if this will change things on the field or will it mostly be administrative?

 

[Grumpyolddawg]

Not sure what effect this will have on college football. Court decisions have sided either the sthletes as far as the ability to transfer and get paid. Would a new organization change that? About the only thing left is being academically eligible, I wouldn't be surprised if someone sues because he has to attend class.

 

[Girthang]

Not sure what effect this will have on college football. Court decisions have sided either the sthletes as far as the ability to transfer and get paid. Would a new organization change that? About the only thing left is being academically eligible, I wouldn't be surprised if someone sues because he has to attend class.

It could have some good effects. It would change marketing, licensing, and perhaps bring freedom from capricious and random punishments from arbitrary/non-uniform/haphazard investigations that are not relevant to protecting the student athletes, but just the administrations and ncaa. Maybe they could finally address the problems with unaccountable and infallible officiating administration.

It's not really about NIL or transfers. It's about money and restrictions. Even if they want to say it is about the athletes, it's just PR spin.

 

[bigblueinsanity]

In modern times, the NCAA has mostly been a compliance machine. With that function now gone (after being so poorly performed) there is no reason to keep giving them a cut of anything. They have no function in today's sports world other than a massive unnecessary expense.

It's a good move to just kick them to the curb

 

[The-Hack]

It's a good move to just kick them to the curb

We have two major untapped potential revenue sources: the MASSIVE amount of money the NCAA makes off of the basketball tourney, and the potential profit of naming rights to an on-campus basketball arena.

Sure, I know (and frequently mention) that football is far more profitable than basketball, but in UK’s position, there are 8 or 10 schools that ought to dominate any end-of-season roundball tourney, and receive disproportionate compensation from it. And we are in the top of that mix.

On-campus arena’s have a mixed reputation: the Dean Dome supposedly is break even since they quit hosting rodeos and concerts.

BUUUUT, if a major sponsor came forward and paid 10 or 20 million a year for naming rights . . . an on-campus “Big Ass Fan” Arena would be profitable.

 

[bigblueinsanity]

We have two major untapped potential revenue sources: the MASSIVE amount of money the NCAA makes off of the basketball tourney, and the potential profit of naming rights to an on-campus basketball arena.

Sure, I know (and frequently mention) that football is far more profitable than basketball, but in UK’s position, there are 8 or 10 schools that ought to dominate any end-of-season roundball tourney, and receive disproportionate compensation from it. And we are in the top of that mix.

On-campus arena’s have a mixed reputation: the Dean Dome supposedly is break even since they quit hosting rodeos and concerts.

BUUUUT, if a major sponsor came forward and paid 10 or 20 million a year for naming rights . . . an on-campus “Big Ass Fan” Arena would be profitable.

Imo majorly disappointing there isn't a "big ass fan" student section or some section.

To your opportunity about post season money, with the useless NCAA out of the way they could even have monetary incentives for progressing in the post season and direct payouts to players in football bowl games. Would mostly end the opt outs

 

[KYCAT78]

We have two major untapped potential revenue sources: the MASSIVE amount of money the NCAA makes off of the basketball tourney, and the potential profit of naming rights to an on-campus basketball arena.

Sure, I know (and frequently mention) that football is far more profitable than basketball, but in UK’s position, there are 8 or 10 schools that ought to dominate any end-of-season roundball tourney, and receive disproportionate compensation from it. And we are in the top of that mix.

On-campus arena’s have a mixed reputation: the Dean Dome supposedly is break even since they quit hosting rodeos and concerts.

BUUUUT, if a major sponsor came forward and paid 10 or 20 million a year for naming rights . . . an on-campus “Big Ass Fan” Arena would be profitable.

Do you realize that 90+ percent of NCAAT money is distributed back to the schools. I could care less about NCAA, but, the money earned is distributed.

 

[The-Hack]

Do you realize that 90+ percent of NCAAT money is distributed back to the schools. I could care less about NCAA, but, the money earned is distributed.

And I bet the programs that make it relevant and sell the most tickets don’t get a proportionate return.

Bowl revenue is not divided equally among the P5 schools.

Pull Kentucky, Kansas, UNC, Duke, and four or five other schools out of that tourney and they wouldn’t sell 10K tickets to the title game.

 

[bigblueinsanity]

Do you realize that 90+ percent of NCAAT money is distributed back to the schools. I could care less about NCAA, but, the money earned is distributed.

What are doing to justify even 10%? Nothing.

 

[Soupbean]

And talked about here for years ... is now being discussed formally.

Sources: CFP mulls breaking football out of NCAA

The 11 college presidents and chancellors who make up the College Football Playoff's board of managers met via Zoom on Monday and began a discussion that could reshape the future of college sports, sources told ESPN.

www.espn.com

Yeah but its kind of silly because the NCAA already just athe governing body of a collection of colleges that formed their own leagues years ago so they would just be restarting something just like the NCAA again. The keep acting like the NCAA is some organization that's lording over them all but its just them telling themselves they're tired of themselves.

Kind of like me getting upset with myself for denying myself that bowl of ice cream.

If they dont like the way the governing body they set up is working just reform it and restructure it. I guess thats what some will be doing.

 

[KYCAT78]

We have two major untapped potential revenue sources: the MASSIVE amount of money the NCAA makes off of the basketball tourney, and the potential profit of naming rights to an on-campus basketball arena.

Sure, I know (and frequently mention) that football is far more profitable than basketball, but in UK’s position, there are 8 or 10 schools that ought to dominate any end-of-season roundball tourney, and receive disproportionate compensation from it. And we are in the top of that mix.

On-campus arena’s have a mixed reputation: the Dean Dome supposedly is break even since they quit hosting rodeos and concerts.

BUUUUT, if a major sponsor came forward and paid 10 or 20 million a year for naming rights . . . an on-campus “Big Ass Fan” Arena would be profitable.

Do you realize that 90+ percent of NCAAT money is distributed back to the schools. I could care less about NCAA, but, the money earned is distributed

What are doing to justify even 10%? Nothing.

I do not know if it is 10% or less, but, somebody has to negotiate and manage processes. You think the tv contracts negotiate themselves? You think the venues just decide to host? You think the payments just magically fly out of the bank?

 

[KYCAT78]

And I bet the programs that make it relevant and sell the most tickets don’t get a proportionate return.

Bowl revenue is not divided equally among the P5 schools.

Pull Kentucky, Kansas, UNC, Duke, and four or five other schools out of that tourney and they wouldn’t sell 10K tickets to the title game.

So all the years that UK sucked at football do you believe we should have got a proportionate share of football revenue? What about our 9 win season, do you think we should have got a proportionate share? What about years we went to NIT? What about basketball helping football pay for non revenue sports?

 

[The-Hack]

So all the years that UK sucked at football do you believe we should have got a proportionate share of football revenue?

We actually got pretty close to a proportionate share . . . you don’t know how the SEC divides bowl money do you? P5 schools in other conferences might get shut out . . . and I don’t care as long as UK profits.

I’m not so sure of that 90 percent redistribution of NCAA tourney proceeds, . . . as a 30 second trip to Google revealed that . . .
“
Total Revenues
The NCAA distributes about 60% of its annual revenue back to its member schools and conferences. It's a complex web of payments, but the three biggest buckets are: scholarship grants, payments based on March Madness performance, and championship expenses.Mar 26, 2022.”

 

[The-Hack]

What about our 9 win season, do you think we should have got a proportionate share?

In 2022, according to recent press reports, we came out above average in the SEC, because the Citrus boosted its payout above two of the NYD6 bowls, so we were just ahead of the average SEC payout.

 

[The-Hack]

What about years we went to NIT? What about basketball helping football pay for non revenue sports?

We go to the NIT ten percent of the time.

This is a greedy world, and business is business.

The football powers rule the roost in all matters concerning college sports so programs like UK and Duke and Kansas need to make more for their participation/victories in roundball.

I suspect Bama, Notre Dame and Ohio State would agree to that: they know who sells NCAA tourney tickets.

 

[The-Hack]

What about basketball helping football pay for non revenue sports?

That’s a good thing. Add to our haul from March Madness, and roundball is even more profitable!!

Would this screw the G5 programs? I don’t care, as long as it benefits UK. [Do they call them G5 programs in basketball?].

 

[bigblueinsanity]

Do you realize that 90+ percent of NCAAT money is distributed back to the schools. I could care less about NCAA, but, the money earned is distributed

I do not know if it is 10% or less, but, somebody has to negotiate and manage processes. You think the tv contracts negotiate themselves? You think the venues just decide to host? You think the payments just magically fly out of the bank?

You think mark emmert was in there hashing out contract details and making pitches? Hardly. They hired someone to do it. The bcs schools can do the same thing with giving the NCAA a cut for doing nothing.

 

[KYCAT78]

You think mark emmert was in there hashing out contract details and making pitches? Hardly. They hired someone to do it. The bcs schools can do the same thing with giving the NCAA a cut for doing nothing.

What does it matter whether the NCAA hires the Attorneys or the schools? Somebody has to pay for it and it will not be any cheaper one way or the other. In fact it will be more expensive because instead of lawsuits made against NCAA being against one Entity under your proposal each University would have to settle these suits individually unless it is a class action.

 

[bigblueinsanity]

What does it matter whether the NCAA hires the Attorneys or the schools? Somebody has to pay for it and it will not be any cheaper one way or the other. In fact it will be more expensive because instead of lawsuits made against NCAA being against one Entity under your proposal each University would have to settle these suits individually unless it is a class action.

Because if you hire them directly, you aren't paying a premium to the NCAA for nothing.

You can't see the difference between a percentage of billions vs not paying a percentage of billions?

 

[KYCAT78]

Because if you hire them directly, you aren't paying a premium to the NCAA for nothing.

You can't see the difference between a percentage of billions vs not paying a percentage of billions?

Billable hour is a billable hour at the NCAA or University level.

 

[bigblueinsanity]

Billable hour is a billable hour at the NCAA or University level.

Exactly. So why pay the NCAA 10%? Just alone the march madness contract was over $10 billion. To save 1 billion, they can hire the same firm at the same price.

That's just for starters. Who knows how much of a cut they get of football tv revenue

 

[Grumpyolddawg]

It could have some good effects. It would change marketing, licensing, and perhaps bring freedom from capricious and random punishments from arbitrary/non-uniform/haphazard investigations that are not relevant to protecting the student athletes, but just the administrations and ncaa. Maybe they could finally address the problems with unaccountable and infallible officiating administration.

It's not really about NIL or transfers. It's about money and restrictions. Even if they want to say it is about the athletes, it's just PR spin.

I disagree, NIL, the transfer portal have changed college football. Week zero starts in less than a week, my team is defending national Champs and I just can't get excited for the season. I will watch I think, at least for a while. I don't watch the NFL and college football has turned into a play for pay game, without a contract binding them to a team for 4-5 years.

If players are going to be paid at least sign a binding contract binding them to a school, I mean the entire deal is about coaches being able to leave without penalty which was never true because their contract had to be bought.

Marketing, we go from one logo to another, don't see a big deal there, there are no serious investigations going on, won't be any, court rulings have been more than clear how every case is going to go. As far as officiating goes, you can't be serious there.

 

[The-Hack]

That's just for starters. Who knows how much of a cut they get of football tv revenue

The NCAA?

None, nada, never did and never will.

And if the roundball tourney pulls 10
Billion . . . that is on par with the published NFL annual gross. [Just looked it up: about 800 million a year, a fraction of the NFL, but still strong].

As a non-traditional football program, we keep our heads down and let Bama, etc, take the lead (politically, at least) on football issues.

But we rule the roost in roundball and need to get a bigger share of that money than the Saint Peters of this world, and split with our SEC brethren.