• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Conference Expansion: Stanford, California and SMU Join the ACC

PhDeac said:
Meaning around 25-30% of the entire athletic budget goes to salary and buyouts for the football and men’s basketball coach.
Click to expand...
But you do know that those same two sports probably bring in 85% of the total revenue and pay for the rest of them to exist.
 
PhDeac said:
Completely disagree. Wake is different which means there’s some angle Wake could exploit that others can’t.
Click to expand...
Not really. College cornhole or darts are already taken. Football is what drives the bus & the NCAA tourney keeps that part together for all the small schools because of the $8.8 billion March Madness contract.
 
Deacfreak07 said:
Like what?
Click to expand...
Wake could go all-in on soccer. It's by far the most popular sport in the world, it doesn't have nearly the rate of head trauma and CTE of football, and we're already pretty good at it.

Wake could also go all-in on the "pitching lab" approach. Use our knowledge of what has worked with the lab to create similar advanced biomechanics labs for other sports, and advertise them as ways for athletes to maximize their abilities and get them into the pros. There is one thing that most elite athletes want the most - money. You can get them NIL or get them to the pros, both options are intriguing to top-level athletes, and attracting those with the highest pro aspirations through super advanced labs seems like a great approach.
 
Can college athletes bargain collectively without being deemed employees? Maybe but allowing it would need help from Congress and that’s not likely (for reasons).

www.sportico.com

Union-Free NCAA Collective Bargaining Idea Gains Backers

As House v. NCAA moves toward a settlement, the lack of players' union could give rise to antitrust problem for the NCAA. The CFBPA has an idea.
www.sportico.com

…There’s a not-so-tiny problem: Any restrictions on how much revenue college athletes receive going forward would be subject to antitrust challenge.

As Sportico explained, those restrictions are tantamount to price-fixing in that the NCAA, conferences and schools are competing businesses joining hands to set limits on athlete pay. Unless borne through collective bargaining—more on that below—caps and barriers are fair game for lawsuits. There’s no shortage of plaintiff-side antitrust litigators who could, and almost certainly would, challenge them. Maybe the limits would withstand litigation, maybe they wouldn’t. It would take years to find out.

But if revenue caps and other laborrestraints—such as on transferring, NIL collectives or athlete discipline—are bargained with a college players’ union, antitrust concerns will greatly diminish. Under the non-statutory labor exemption, wages, hours and other working conditions are generally exempt from antitrust scrutiny when negotiated by management and labor.

That raises another conundrum. It could be years before there’s a wide-scale college players’ union. Under labor law, unions must be composed of employees…
Click to expand...
 
Rafi said:
Wake could go all-in on soccer...create similar advanced biomechanics labs for other sports...
Click to expand...
If the House antitrust case reaches a settlement before its scheduled trial date of January, 2025, then it's possible that Wake will need to find an additional $20M or more per year to support revenue sharing with its athletes. That's about half of what Wake receives in revenue each year from the ACC.

Wake already spends a lot of money on soccer, a sport which brings in a minimal amount of revenue; and Wake's sports facilities are already extensive and expensive for a school supporting the minimum number of NCAA sports (8 for both men and women).

Spending more money on something like "biomechanics labs" is not a wise course of action. Instead, finding ways to cut $20M from the sports budget is the more likely course of action.
 
CaptRenault said:
If the House antitrust case reaches a settlement before its scheduled trial date of January, 2025, then it's possible that Wake will need to find an additional $20M or more per year to support revenue sharing with its athletes. That's about half of what Wake receives in revenue each year from the ACC.

Wake already spends a lot of money on soccer, a sport which brings in a minimal amount of revenue; and Wake's sports facilities are already extensive and expensive for a school supporting the minimum number of NCAA sports (8 for both men and women).

Spending more money on something like "biomechanics labs" is not a wise course of action. Instead, finding ways to cut $20M from the sports budget is the more likely course of action.
Click to expand...
It seemed pretty clear that the pitching lab, not NIL, is what recruited Chase Burns to Wake Forest. And that has worked out quite well for Burns and Wake. Creating this model for other sports could be a huge win for student athletes, undergrads interested in kinesiology/stats/modeling, medical students and residents, faculty, etc.
 
PhDeac said:
OK. If it's a gimmick that works, great.
Click to expand...
Completely agree. Chase Burns just won his 4th ACC pitcher of the week award, the most ever in the history of the program. But, let's play a game and assume the lab is completely a gimmick and Burns greatly improved compared to last year because of luck - others are still going to see the success of Burns, Lowder, etc. and attribute it to the lab. Just do a quick search of "Chase Burns pitching lab" and there are a ton of articles from different baseball writers and websites writing about his improvement and the relation to Wake Forest's "state of the art pitching lab."
 
Rafi said:
Completely agree. Chase Burns just won his 4th ACC pitcher of the week award, the most ever in the history of the program. But, let's play a game and assume the lab is completely a gimmick and Burns greatly improved compared to last year because of luck - others are still going to see the success of Burns, Lowder, etc. and attribute it to the lab. Just do a quick search of "Chase Burns pitching lab" and there are a ton of articles from different baseball writers and websites writing about his improvement and the relation to Wake Forest's "state of the art pitching lab."
Click to expand...

Wake's pitching is good, but it's not blowing everyone else away. In the ACC, Wake is:

#6 in ERA
#2 in BAA
Last in BB allowed (most)
Tied for Last in HR allowed
Hit more batters than any pitching staff in the league
 
Biff Tannen said:
Wake's pitching is good, but it's not blowing everyone else away. In the ACC, Wake is:

#6 in ERA
#2 in BAA
Last in BB allowed (most)
Tied for Last in HR allowed
Hit more batters than any pitching staff in the league
Click to expand...
Yep, and last year we had the best staff in the country, and 5 pitchers were drafted. The pitching lab doesn't mean we are going to have the best staff every year, but it can help players improve and make the pros, which is a huge selling point.
 
If only Mitch Griffis had had access to a bio-mechanics passing lab, Wake could have won the CFP playoff last season! 😄
 
According to this recent article from CBS Sports, the B1G and SEC are "...developing a revenue sharing plan with players that would redefine college athletics for the future..." That's what good leaders in the business of college sports should be doing in the face of a possible settlement of the House antitrust case.

Someone should ask ACC commissioner Jim Phillips and Wake AD Currie if they are talking about the same kind of plan.

www.cbssports.com

SEC, Big Ten developing plan to share revenue with players in potential landmark change to college athletics

The model being discussed by college sports' top conferences could go a long way toward settling outstanding lawsuits
www.cbssports.com www.cbssports.com

The SEC and Big Ten are at the center of developing a revenue sharing plan with players that would redefine college athletics for the future, CBS Sports has learned.

The still unrefined proposal -- currently utilizing the name "Modern Model" -- would not only share revenue with players but also perhaps help settle the House v. NCAA lawsuit that goes to trial in January 2025. The antitrust lawsuit is a class-action complaint alleging the NCAA and power conferences have conspired to suppress athletes' compensation.

The lawsuit continues to be the top hurdle for programs in planning college athletics' future. Settlement money alone could cost universities between $15 million and $20 million. Athletic directors have been frustrated trying to figure out how to rearrange their budgets or otherwise account for a payment of that size.

...The SEC and Big Ten have increasingly taken over the sport as not just leading stakeholders but leaders, period. This was further evidenced by their recent demand to receive a combined 58% of College Football Playoff media revenue rights beginning in 2026. The conferences' teams have combined to obtain 29 of 40 CFP slots across the first 10 years of the playoff.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Ross Dellenger (of Yahoo Sports), Dan Wetzel and Pat Forde, discuss different models of revenue sharing with college athletes in a podcast from today.

The link starts the video at about the 27 minute mark which is when they start discussing this topic.

A surprising part of the discussion is about how some schools in the SEC want to expand scholarships a lot in certain sports, e.g. baseball.

 
Last edited:
CaptRenault said:
Ross Dellenger (of Yahoo Sports), Dan Wetzel and Pat Forde, discuss different models of revenue sharing with college athletes in a podcast from today.

The link starts the video at about the 27 minute mark which is when they start discussing this topic.

A surprising part of the discussion is about how some schools in the SEC want to expand scholarships a lot in certain sports, e.g. baseball.

Click to expand...

I agree wholeheartedly with adding schollies in some sports. Having to subtract by 10% our mens numbers back in the 90’s was nuts and is what led to these weird numbers we have now—11.7 baseball, 9.9 soccer & 4.5 golf. Baseball by itself needs at least 20 I would think and you have to have 5 golfers playing for top 4 scores. Women get 6 so why not raise back to 6?
 
TheReff said:
I agree wholeheartedly with adding schollies in some sports. Having to subtract by 10% our mens numbers back in the 90’s was nuts and is what led to these weird numbers we have now—11.7 baseball, 9.9 soccer & 4.5 golf. Baseball by itself needs at least 20 I would think and you have to have 5 golfers playing for top 4 scores. Women get 6 so why not raise back to 6?
Click to expand...
According to what Dellenger suggests, schools could be free to give as many scholarships as they want up to whatever number is set as the new roster limits, though the roster limits for most sports would probably decrease. The idea behind such a change would be that the new scholarship dollars would count as part of the "revenue sharing" under an antitrust settlement.

B1G and SEC schools would be OK with such a change, since they can afford to spend lavishly on football and all the other sports too. But such a change is not so good for a school like Wake, because it has no obvious source of new money to spend on doubling the number of scholarships for baseball and soccer.

Also, there's the small mater of Title IX--as soon as you start providing more scholarships for men, you have to do the same for women. Where does the money come from? AD Currie hopes to raise $100M for women's teams, but that will be a much bigger challenge than raising money for football and basketball practice palaces.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top