The timeline of O'Bannon benefits

[Jim Johnson]

So... the NCAA had requested a clarification from the judge in the O'Bannon case on when the benefits would start.

 

1 - The "cost of attendance" will start with the 2015-2016 season. This means starting NEXT YEAR, every athlete in Division 1 will get a stipend.
(Yes, I know some people say the case only applied to FBS football and D-1 men's basketball, but cost of attendance is a scholarship function and Title IX requires that anything provided for men also be provided for women, moreover almost all conferences cover the rights to broadcast all sports in their contracts, so NIL for all athletes are included. Failure to provide for women opens up the possibility of lawsuits or for the federal government to withhold ALL federal financial aid to all students, not just athletes.)

 

2 - The "deferred compensation" will start with the 2016-2017 season, and covers all players... so any player who is currently a sophomore in school will get $5,000 for each year of academic eligibility (The case set the lower limit at $5,000 and I would expect that will be the limit given the impact across all of D-1). NOTE: This doesn't mean they played a game, just they were eligible to do so. This will also apply to every athlete in Division 1. (Again, I know some people argue that it's only FBS football and D-1 men's basketball, but since the TV contracts grant the right to broadcast all sports, every athlete has their NIL impacted... if schools don't pay all athletes, another lawsuit would likely be filed to force the issue.)

 

What does this mean for USF?

 

Starting next year, athletics will have to pay $1 to $2 million per year in "cost of attendance" scholarships (USF has around 500 student athletes, not sure how many of them are actually on scholarship.)

 

Starting in two years, USF will have to pay out $5,000 to anyone leaving school - not graduating, leaving - for each year they were eligible for a sport. If we assume the worse, that everyone stayed through eligibility in all sports, that means with more than 100 athletes are leaving school every year, USF will be paying out $2 to $2.5 milion in "deferred compensation" every year.

 

Might be difficult to find $3 to $4.5 million in a budget of around $47 million.

 

NOTE: This all assumes the NCAA appeal does not delay the enforcement. The judge in the O'Bannon trial refused to set an injunction on her decision -- but the appeals court could delay this (put an injunction on the injunction, in the strictest sense.)

 

[flsportsfan83]

just cut some of the sports that do not make a profit.

[flsportsfan83]

Tennis or Golf would be a start

[smazza]

really simple

[USFDan]

Tennis or Golf would be a start

So are we saying they should take away thousands of athletic scholarships across the country? These same athletic scholarships that give some kids their only opportunity to get a quality education? I think this is going to have some big unintended consequences.

[NewEnglandBull]

Tennis or Golf would be a start

So are we saying they should take away thousands of athletic scholarships across the country? These same athletic scholarships that give some kids their only opportunity to get a quality education? I think this is going to have some big unintended consequences.

For many schools (including USF?) that will be the case.

[flsportsfan83]

 

Tennis or Golf would be a start

So are we saying they should take away thousands of athletic scholarships across the country? These same athletic scholarships that give some kids their only opportunity to get a quality education? I think this is going to have some big unintended consequences.

 

 

any kid that keep their grades up can attend College. You may (like me) have to pay for it later when you make your student loan payments. Like it or not College Sports is now a business. Sometimes you have to make hard decisions and trim the fat. I would say cut both mens and womens but title 9 will prob require us to keep womens.

[Guest]

One interesting thing will be to see how much the "education" types push back on the "professionalization" of college sports... Yes, there is a lot of money... but these are (at least in name) schools of higher learning... will Duke or Stanford follow the University of Chicago model?  Will they move to the FCS following the Ivy League model without scholarships?

 

The "academic" types might agree with things like full cost of attendance or letting players have outside income or even four-year scholarships... but pay for play might be a bridge too far for some of them.

 

What would the ACC be like without Duke or UVA?  What will the Pac 12 be like without Stanford?  How will that effect the "Grant of rights" when these schools make changes?

 

 

Lots and lots of unanswered questions out there, folks.

[Bear]

 USF will be paying out $2 to $2.5 milion in "deferred compensation" every year.

 

Might be difficult to find $3 to $4.5 million in a budget of around $47 million.

 

 

 

 

 

USF can't afford to fire any more coaches

[GaUSFBull]

 

Tennis or Golf would be a start

So are we saying they should take away thousands of athletic scholarships across the country? These same athletic scholarships that give some kids their only opportunity to get a quality education? I think this is going to have some big unintended consequences.

 

 

I'm not saying that I'm on board with the idea of cutting sports, but do you really think that tennis and golf players are really in a hardship scenario?