The landscape of college football has changed rapidly and will continue to do so just about every day in the age of the transfer portal and NIL, but what the new NCAA President plans to propose would dramatically alter the history of the sport.
NCAA President Charlie Baker, who took over for former President Mark Emmert in March, is planning to propose a subdivision in Division I football that would allow schools to implement new, separate policies and enable NIL money to be used more broadly, according to a report from Yahoo!’s Ross Dellenger.
It wasn’t explicitly stated in the letter that Baker sent to Division I universities, but it’s the formation of a super conference still under the umbrella of the NCAA.
The NIL aspect is important. Schools currently are unable to provide prospective student-athletes directly with NIL opportunities, and there are NIL collectives like Pitt’s Alliance 412 that work closely with both the school and the student-athletes, but under the rules of the subdivision, schools would be able work NIL deals directly — and to directly compensate student-athletes through a trust fund.
But there’s a catch. A member school must provide at least $30,000 a year per student-athlete — for at least half of that school’s student-athletes. And schools must continue to abide by Title IX regulations, with 50% of that money going toward female student-athletes. So, that’s a $30,000 minimum, but there is no maximum. $120,000, at least, for four-year students.
Schools will be able to opt in or out of the subdivision, but any school that opts to join must hit that financial requirement each season. And it doesn’t end there.
The member schools would continue to take part in NCAA championships in all sports except for FBS football, with the College Football Playoff currently deciding the national champion. Power Four — sorry, Pac-12 — schools are what the subdivision would cater to, but there’s no rule excluding Group of Five schools. But as there’s been just one Group of Five Playoff team, it kind of speaks for itself.
Additionally, member schools would be given increased autonomy, outside of direct NCAA control. The decisions surrounding scholarship limits and countable coaches would be on the table — with the ability to add or subtract as desired.
“The model ‘gives the educational institutions with the most visibility, the most financial resources and the biggest brands an opportunity to choose to operate with a different set of rules that more accurately reflect their scale and their operating model,’ (Baker) writes,” Dellenger reported.
Dellenger reported that the proposal, which has only been emailed to Division I programs at this point, isn’t set in stone. It’s, reportedly, a conversation starter as the NCAA convention beginnings next month.
It’s groundbreaking legislation, unlike anything the college football landscape has ever seen before, but as television deals rise into the billions of dollars and the blue blood universities continue to accumulate power, it’s not surprising.
Pitt, which appears somewhat secure in the ACC (although, who knows anymore with Florida State being snubbed by the CFP committee over the weekend), will have a decision to make.
Pitt, according to the Knight Commission, had 550 student-athletes across 19 varsity sports in 2022. That number will be pretty consistent going forward, and if half of those 550 student-athletes receive $30,000 a year, it adds up to around $8,250,000.
The Knight Commission does not have access to Pitt’s athletic revenue and expenses, but just over $8 million a season to be able to join a potential subdivision feels like a substantial commitment. The additions of Cal, Stanford and SMU will bring a windfall of cash into the ACC in the coming seasons, with ACC schools expected to receive between $50-60 million each season.
For reference, via data from the Knight Commission, Pitt spent well over $2 billion on academics in 2022. While the Commission Pitt’s athletic revenue and expenses are unavailable, it lists the FBS’s medians for total athletic revenue ($80,716,057) and expenses ($71,452,847) in 2022.
The ACC median for total athletic revenue in 2022 was up to $134,414,766 while the media for total athletic expenses was also up to $130,146,947. It was the first year since 2018 that the ACC as a whole was not listed in a deficit.
The subdivision proposal bears watching as athletic administrators continue to meet throughout the offseason.
will have to reread the actual proposal but i’m a little confused …. doesn’t change the playoff system (per se) … but allowing those “brands” to operate at “scale” should mean those with the $ will dominate and potentially fill the playoff slots. do these schools only play other schools in the subdivision or is there still a conference structure ?