NCAA op ed on NIL - I am looking at you wrestling (and other Olympic sports)

[billyhoyle]

6 minutes ago, Jason Bryant said:

That D3 school isn't getting that seat filled with a traditional student. That's the draw for the enrollment driven schools in Division III that are non-scholarship. They're bringing in students they wouldn't normally get by adding sports. Same with D2 and the NAIA, which do have scholarships, but they're still getting ahead with the tuition revenue brought in. That seat is at (insert private liberal arts college here) is empty otherwise, so the school makes money. The cost of running a Division III program like wrestling isn't exactly super expensive. 

But a D3 school that can't fill its enrollment is probably not going to stay a school for much longer.  If anything, these places are using athletes as a way to get them to take out big loans for a questionable quality of education.  NESCAC doesn't have this problem.  Centennial and UAA don't either.  

[Jason Bryant]

But a D3 school that can't fill its enrollment is probably not going to stay a school for much longer.  If anything, these places are using athletes as a way to get them to take out big loans for a questionable quality of education.  NESCAC doesn't have this problem.  Centennial and UAA don't either.  

Take a look at the number of enrollment-driven schools that have added men’s and women’s wrestling in the past 20 years and tell me it’s not working.

Here’s the list:

https://almanac.mattalkonline.com/new-college-wrestling-teams-since-2000/

[billyhoyle]

Just now, Jason Bryant said:

Take a look at the number of enrollment-driven schools that have added men’s and women’s wrestling in the past 20 years and tell me it’s not working.

Here’s the list:

https://almanac.mattalkonline.com/new-college-wrestling-teams-since-2000/

My point is adding more programs at bad universities isn't inherently a good or sustainable approach for the sport of wrestling.  Grand Canyon University is the most noteworthy example of this strategy completely backfiring.  "Enrollment driven" is another way of saying the university doesn't have much to offer students to get them to go there. 

The entire premise of NCAA athletics is that you get to compete at your sport while getting an education.  It's a terrible/cynical approach for a university to not offer a quality education (or at least have it be bad enough that they can't fill seats) but instead lure in students who are paying through loans most of the time because they will get to compete in their sport at the NAIA/D3 level.  

 

[Jason Bryant]

I disagree, since Grand Canyon was (at the time) a for-profit school that already had a huge online student presence. It purged several sports that didn’t fit the brand they wanted - lacrosse was another. They’ve spent a ton of money on image, with sold out basketball games and “name” hires in basketball and baseball. They want to be a brand vs. doing what these small middle America private schools are doing.

The quality of the education and the way students pay for it is a tangential (and valid) topic.

That being said, sports as a whole are how many of these small schools in numerous divisions are staying open - not just wrestling. So to the initial point I’m making IS valid - schools are making money off these “non-revenue” sports since those students wouldn’t be there otherwise. The difference is athletics budgets seem to ignore this fact when they drop sports. The school may not actually recoup x-amount if students from the roster they dropped.

[Jim L]

12 hours ago, billyhoyle said:

If you take away football money, we would see many more programs cut entirely or significantly reduced. Maybe Iowa and PSU can keep going as they are, but forget about places like Illinois, Indiana, Northwestern, etc.  I'm worried about Oregon State and Stanford with what happened to the PAC12. 

How exactly does a D3 athlete bring in money for the school? Replace that athlete with a student not participating in athletics and the school would save money from the cost of running the athletic program.  The only world in which D3 athletes make money is if there is a very significant alumni donor base for the program (you can probably count on one hand the number of D3 wrestling programs that raise more than they spend) or if the university is such an awful place that it struggles to get full enrollment.  

This shows much much DI model has corrupted college sports.  D3 programs should be all about giving the students a chance to do something they (hopefully) love and represent their school at the same time.  Not all that different than HS sports team.

[Idaho]

14 hours ago, billyhoyle said:

I'm worried about Oregon State and Stanford with what happened to the PAC12. 

Stanford landed in the ACC so they are fine. Oregon State, Cal Poly, Bakersfield and Little Rock will be left in the Pac-12 for wrestling. Of course, all of that is up in the air because of the conference as a whole. Technically, I believe they get a 1 year waiver if they drop below the 6 teams. There are many scenarios being floated out there. 

As for Oregon State specifically, they have a very large endowment, great facilities, 100% support from the school and the school sits at the minimum number of sports needed, so dropping a sport is something they will not do. They also have more women's than men's sports. All that to say, they aren't going anywhere, except maybe to a different conference. There is so much speculation, but my personal opinion is that if the Pac-12 takes a 2-year hiatus and WSU and OSU have to go independent until they can rebuild, then my guess would be that OSU ends up in the Big 12. Just my guess. It seems most logical. I am not hopeful they can add two new teams to a 4-team conference since they would have to get those teams to move from better conferences at this point. 

[Wrestleknownothing]

9 minutes ago, Idaho said:

Stanford landed in the ACC so they are fine. Oregon State, Cal Poly, Bakersfield and Little Rock will be left in the Pac-12 for wrestling. Of course, all of that is up in the air because of the conference as a whole. Technically, I believe they get a 1 year waiver if they drop below the 6 teams. There are many scenarios being floated out there. 

As for Oregon State specifically, they have a very large endowment, great facilities, 100% support from the school and the school sits at the minimum number of sports needed, so dropping a sport is something they will not do. They also have more women's than men's sports. All that to say, they aren't going anywhere, except maybe to a different conference. There is so much speculation, but my personal opinion is that if the Pac-12 takes a 2-year hiatus and WSU and OSU have to go independent until they can rebuild, then my guess would be that OSU ends up in the Big 12. Just my guess. It seems most logical. I am not hopeful they can add two new teams to a 4-team conference since they would have to get those teams to move from better conferences at this point. 

I worry about Stanford BECAUSE they landed in the ACC. Their travel expenses will skyrocket at the same time their income will dwindle given the TV rights deal they got with the ACC.

[Idaho]

21 hours ago, bnwtwg said:

The moment it becomes minor league football the shine is removed. Forever. And they know it.

Exactly... so we will feed off the large donors to those schools for our NIL money and now we will unionize and make the school and the NCAA provide our benefits. At what point, do these extra costs to schools finally outweigh the profit that is coming in to help the other sports? 

 

14 hours ago, billyhoyle said:

If you take away football money, we would see many more programs cut entirely or significantly reduced. Maybe Iowa and PSU can keep going as they are, but forget about places like Illinois, Indiana, Northwestern, etc. 

I would need to find the most current breakdown, but only about 1/2 of football programs make a profit. My question is the same above, when the investment into NIL and football takes money away from programs via donors spending on NIL rather than donations to the program itself, and if the unionization of football players happens, will profits go down significantly anyway and not make a difference to other programs?  Is it better for the school to have football go FBS then lease everything back to the program and use those funds to fund other programs? I agree with @bnwtwg, that it will become less shiny and then donors are no longer giving really to their school but a separate entity connected to the school by name only. It certainly changes the landscape. As a side note, it has been discussed as a possibility that football breaks off from the NCAA, but I don't know the current status. 

[Idaho]

5 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

I worry about Stanford BECAUSE they landed in the ACC. Their travel expenses will skyrocket at the same time their income will dwindle given the TV rights deal they got with the ACC.

I agree, it's not an ideal situation. It's a concern of all the schools that left the Pac-12... now they travel across the country. For football it's a drop in the bucket.... for all the  other sports that play 25+ games/matches, this is a huge deal. I'm pissed if I'm baseball or softball now traveling 30x or more verses football who will travel 2-3 times across country, yet football get to make the decision and the money. Now all non-revenue sports have to get creative with travel and kids going on 5 day roadtrips to get games in while trying to do school. 

[bnwtwg]

4 hours ago, Idaho said:

I agree, it's not an ideal situation. It's a concern of all the schools that left the Pac-12... now they travel across the country. For football it's a drop in the bucket.... for all the  other sports that play 25+ games/matches, this is a huge deal. I'm pissed if I'm baseball or softball now traveling 30x or more verses football who will travel 2-3 times across country, yet football get to make the decision and the money. Now all non-revenue sports have to get creative with travel and kids going on 5 day roadtrips to get games in while trying to do school. 

This was always the inevitable outcome. First time working with a board of directors?

Ask Toys-R-Us how it goes when you can still run a good business but you are straddled with corporate raiders. Then tell me with a straight face that the NCAA hasn’t been a longtail a 1:1 comparison.

[billyhoyle]

6 hours ago, Jim L said:

This shows much much DI model has corrupted college sports.  D3 programs should be all about giving the students a chance to do something they (hopefully) love and represent their school at the same time.  Not all that different than HS sports team.

I completely agree. I feel bad if athletes get suckered into attending a university like GCU and paying thousands more than they should because they added a wrestling program.  If this is where the growth of the sport has been, it is completely superficial in my opinion and says just how bad we have been doing with expanding the sport.  

4 hours ago, Idaho said:

Stanford landed in the ACC so they are fine. Oregon State, Cal Poly, Bakersfield and Little Rock will be left in the Pac-12 for wrestling. Of course, all of that is up in the air because of the conference as a whole. Technically, I believe they get a 1 year waiver if they drop below the 6 teams. There are many scenarios being floated out there. 

As for Oregon State specifically, they have a very large endowment, great facilities, 100% support from the school and the school sits at the minimum number of sports needed, so dropping a sport is something they will not do. They also have more women's than men's sports. All that to say, they aren't going anywhere, except maybe to a different conference. There is so much speculation, but my personal opinion is that if the Pac-12 takes a 2-year hiatus and WSU and OSU have to go independent until they can rebuild, then my guess would be that OSU ends up in the Big 12. Just my guess. It seems most logical. I am not hopeful they can add two new teams to a 4-team conference since they would have to get those teams to move from better conferences at this point. 

Read the fine print. They only get a fraction of the ACC TV deal. The move is going to cost them about 15 million per year for the next 7 years, and who knows if the ACC still exists at that point. 

4 hours ago, Idaho said:

Exactly... so we will feed off the large donors to those schools for our NIL money and now we will unionize and make the school and the NCAA provide our benefits. At what point, do these extra costs to schools finally outweigh the profit that is coming in to help the other sports? 

 

I would need to find the most current breakdown, but only about 1/2 of football programs make a profit. My question is the same above, when the investment into NIL and football takes money away from programs via donors spending on NIL rather than donations to the program itself, and if the unionization of football players happens, will profits go down significantly anyway and not make a difference to other programs?  Is it better for the school to have football go FBS then lease everything back to the program and use those funds to fund other programs? I agree with @bnwtwg, that it will become less shiny and then donors are no longer giving really to their school but a separate entity connected to the school by name only. It certainly changes the landscape. As a side note, it has been discussed as a possibility that football breaks off from the NCAA, but I don't know the current status. 

I guarantee you almost every football program in power 5 conferences is profitable with the TV deals that have been made in the past decade. This of course is going to change for the schools that were part of the Pac12 and couldn't find a good situation.  Notre Dame is of course highly profitable as well.  

[1032004]

14 hours ago, billyhoyle said:

I guarantee you almost every football program in power 5 conferences is profitable with the TV deals that have been made in the past decade. This of course is going to change for the schools that were part of the Pac12 and couldn't find a good situation.  Notre Dame is of course highly profitable as well.  

But @Idaho just said “football programs,” not Power 5.  Even if you stick to FBS, it’s more than just the Power 5 (for now at least).

[billyhoyle]

12 hours ago, 1032004 said:

But @Idaho just said “football programs,” not Power 5.  Even if you stick to FBS, it’s more than just the Power 5 (for now at least).

That's true-i'm sure some programs outside the power 5 are profitable as well-I'm just saying the entire power 5 is. So loss of football revenue would have a terrible outcome for most of the best D1 wrestling programs. 

If you factor in alumni donations and the impact of football on drawing interest from potential students, it is probably a net benefit to have a D1 football program even if it loses money from purely a net profit standpoint.