hacklink hack forum hacklink film izle hacklink marsbahisizmir escortsahabetpornJojobetcasibompadişahbetjojobet

Tag: Studentathletes

  • Town Talk: KU still trying to figure out how it will pay student-athletes, but chancellor says cutting sports programs is not part of the plan

    Town Talk: KU still trying to figure out how it will pay student-athletes, but chancellor says cutting sports programs is not part of the plan








    The University of Kansas doesn’t have plans to eliminate any of its money-losing Olympic sports despite great uncertainty about whether the athletic department can afford to pay student-athletes in the future, KU’s chancellor said.

    The future of those programs — which range from big ones like track and field to smaller ones like golf and tennis — has been the focus of speculation across the country as a federal court in April is expected to finalize a lawsuit settlement that will allow universities to start paying student-athletes. Initially, programs like KU could spend slightly more than $20 million a year to pay student-athletes, over and above the scholarships they often receive. That amount would grow through the years as athletic department revenues grow.

    But KU is like many other athletic department programs across the country: It doesn’t know where it would find $20 million a year in its current budget to pay student-athletes. But it also knows that if it doesn’t find the money — the lawsuit settlement will allow but not require schools to pay student-athletes — that remaining competitive in the top tier of college athletics will be very difficult.

    Chancellor Douglas Girod has been blunt in saying he doesn’t know how KU is going to solve that problem. He knows it is not a satisfying answer — but it does have the benefit of being an honest one.

    “If anyone tells you they have it figured out, they are lying,” Girod said during a brief interview recently. “I have talked to dozens of chancellors and presidents, and they are all scratching their heads.”

    At this point, Girod is more comfortable in saying what KU isn’t considering: Cutting sports.

    “To be honest, you don’t save a whole bunch of money doing that. It is not really a priority for us,” Girod said of using sports cuts to solve the pending budget crunch.

    There may be another reason KU isn’t considering such cuts: The university would face a big loss in status if it cut any sport. Currently, NCAA rules require any university that wants to compete in the highest level of Division I athletics to field 16 sports programs. That is exactly how many KU has currently.

    Student-athletes and coaches of KU Olympic sports may still have reason to be wary, though. While cutting entire programs may not be the question floating through the halls of athletic departments, the numbers suggest another question will soon emerge:

    Are we in it to win it?

    Roster changes

    An analysis of the pending legal settlement shows KU will have some decisions to make on whether to invest new money in the Olympic sports. If it doesn’t, those sports may have a hard time competing in the future.

    The reason is because major roster changes will come to college athletics as part of the legal settlement. No longer will individual sports have limits on the number of scholarships they can offer. Instead, they will have limits on how large their overall rosters can be.

    The change is expected to create two impacts. The most certain one is that some students will see their college athletic careers end because there will no longer be a roster spot for them. Walk-on student-athletes — the term for student-athletes who don’t receive a scholarship — are the most likely to lose spots.

    An analysis by the Journal-World found that, compared to 2023 totals, there will be 49 fewer scholarship spots for student-athletes across KU’s 16 sports when the new rules are expected to take effect in 2025-2026. That would be an almost 10% reduction in student-athletes at KU.

    But the other impact might be the one that creates havoc in the competitive landscape. Schools now will be allowed to give every student-athlete who is on a roster a scholarship. That is not how the system works today.

    Take, for instance, baseball. In 2023, there were 40 players on the roster. However, NCAA rules limit the number of scholarships that can be offered to 11.7, meaning most players are receiving partial scholarships, and all those partial scholarships add up to the equivalent of just less than 12 full-ride scholarships.

    In the 2025-2026 school year, the size of the baseball team will shrink to 34 players. Six students will no longer have the chance to be a Jayhawk baseball player. However, all 34 remaining players can receive a full scholarship — if the university invests the money to make it happen.

    How much money would that take? I haven’t seen any official numbers from KU, and to be clear, Girod and I did not dive into any of these scholarship issues during our interview. Instead, I looked at the 2023 NCAA financial filings for KU and found that the athletic department provided $15.2 million in student aid to 432 athletes. That’s an average of $35,185 per student-athlete.

    If you simply use that average, it would cost about $785,000 per year to fund the approximately 22 new scholarship positions that would be available on the baseball team. That would be about a 20% increase in the total operating expenses of the baseball program. The baseball program in 2023 operated at an approximately $4 million loss.

    The story is much the same for every sport other than football and men’s basketball. In total, KU, using the average above, is looking at $6.7 million in additional scholarship money that is needed to bring all its teams — minus football and men’s basketball — to the full scholarship levels. Those programs posted a $28.4 million operating loss in 2023. Only football and men’s basketball in 2023 posted an operating profit. The two sports combined had operating revenues that were $20 million over operating expenses, according to the NCAA filings.

    If this were only a money question, the answers would be pretty easy. But college athletics still have elements of education, opportunity and equity. At the end of the day, though, the concept of competition is paramount.

    That comes back to the growing question in college athletics: Are you in it to win it?

    Take baseball as the example again. KU may decide not to invest the more than $700,000 a year in additional scholarship money to field a team that is fully stocked with scholarship players. But certainly some schools will. That discrepancy is likely to have competitive implications.

    That’s the polite way to say it.

    Donors to the rescue?

    If you have been doing the math as we go, you realize we have a problem. The group of sports that are money-losers lost $28 million, while the two sports that are money-makers made $20 million. We are $8 million short.

    Donors, along with other revenue sources, make up the difference. The $8 million gap is deceiving, though. KU had about $52 million in other expenses in 2023 that weren’t tied to any one team. That’s everything from administrative salaries to debt payments to a host of other expenses required to run a $100 million-plus enterprise.

    Fortunately for KU, it had about $64 million in revenues that weren’t tied to any one team, with a little less than half that amount coming from donors. Add it all up, and Kansas Athletics ended 2023 with revenues being about $4 million greater than expenses. In the world of college athletics, that is not a given. There are many schools that end the year with a deficit and have to seek money from general university coffers to cover the shortfall. Girod has said multiple times that KU must avoid that situation at nearly all costs.

    But that brings us to the 2025-2026 school year. If the lawsuit settlement is approved, KU will need to find about $20 million to pay student-athletes and another $5 million to $7 million, perhaps, to fully stock teams with scholarship players.

    Maybe donors could be the answer. Maybe, but a little perspective might be helpful. Donors provided about $29 million to Kansas Athletics in 2023. That would mean donors would need to nearly double their contributions to also cover the $25 million to $27 million gap created by the lawsuit settlement. And, they might need to be prepared to do that year after year. Plus, the cost of the settlement will grow over the years. The settlement is structured such that the amount schools can pay athletes rises as the total revenue of athletic departments increases.

    Additionally, there’s a question of how much more donors at KU can give. This lawsuit settlement is hitting KU at a time when it already is tapping donors in a big way for facility improvements. Donors have pledged about $250 million for renovations to the west side of David Booth Kansas Memorial Stadium. It is very likely the university will ask for additional donor dollars to complete the east side of the stadium renovations in the near future. KU is betting the new stadium will create new revenues. It will need to because KU also plans to take out at least $115 million in new debt to help pay for the west side renovations. It is unclear whether it will have to take out additional debt for the east side improvements.

    Maybe donors can’t ride to the rescue. Cost-cutting might have to be part of the equation, and KU has hired one of the most renowned accounting firms in the country — Deloitte — to study athletic department finance.

    The common fan on the street may be screaming that they can save the firm the trouble — reduce coaches’ salaries. KU did pay $23.5 million in coaching salaries in 2023. That’s a lot, but it also is worth noting that every KU coach could agree to work for free, and you still wouldn’t quite cover the pending $25 million to $27 million shortfall.

    The payroll category that actually is larger at KU is the money paid to athletic administrators and support staff. That figure was $28.3 million in 2023. Of course, it is not realistic to simply eliminate that category, which includes everything from the athletic director to administrative assistants.

    If you cut 50% from both the coaching category and the administrative category, you would basically cover your projected shortfall. That’s not a recommendation, by the way, but rather an example of how deep the cuts would have to be if you chose to operate with blunt instruments.

    That’s an operation that would require a lot of anesthesia.

    Of course, you could do nothing. The pending settlement doesn’t require any university to pay student-athletes. It simply allows them to pay student-athletes, and places a cap on how much.

    “You don’t have to pay anything,” Jeff DeWitt, the university’s chief financial officer, noted in a recent interview. “It is a cap, not a requirement. But how do you remain the No. 1 ranked in basketball? How do you move up the Big 12 in football?”

    Another option is that maybe the Big 12 Conference comes together and creates its own, lower caps on payments and/or scholarships. That may maintain some competitive balance in the conference, but what would happen in postseason play when those Big 12 schools are competing against other schools that are operating with higher caps?

    That’s an operation that may require a bunker for university presidents to hide from angry fans and donors who become frustrated at early exits from NCAA tournaments or bowl blowouts.

    That seemingly brings us right back to where we began.

    “Nobody knows,” DeWitt said of how KU or other athletic departments are going to deal with the pending settlement. “If you want me to give you any certainty, I can’t.”

    2023 Profit and Loss by Sport

    — Baseball: $4.0 million loss

    — Women’s basketball: $4.7 million loss

    — Men’s golf: $1.2 million loss

    — Women’s golf: $1.0 million loss

    — Rowing: $2.2 million loss

    — Soccer: $2.4 million loss

    — Softball: $2.2 million loss

    — Swimming & diving: $1.7 million loss

    — Tennis: $1.6 million loss

    — Women’s track & field/cross-country: $2.8 million loss

    — Men’s track & field/cross-country: $2.8 million loss

    — Volleyball: $1.9 million loss

    — Men’s basketball: $3 million profit

    — Football: $17 million profit

    Changing Rosters

    Here’s a look at changing roster sizes for the 2025-2026 season compared to 2023 numbers:

    — Baseball: down 6

    — Men’s cross country: no change

    — Women’s cross country: down 2

    — Football: down 18

    — Men’s basketball: down 2

    — Women’s basketball: no change

    — Men’s golf: down 2

    — Women’s golf: down 3

    — Rowing: down 4

    — Soccer: down 3

    — Softball: up 2

    — Swimming: down 2

    — Tennis: down 1

    — Men’s track: down 5

    — Women’s track: down 2

    — Volleyball: down 1

    Scholarship changes

    While roster sizes generally are going down, the number of scholarships the university can offer on each team is generally going up.

    — Baseball: up 22.3 scholarships

    — Men’s cross-country: up 4.54

    — Women’s cross-country: down 1

    — Football: up 20

    — Men’s basketball: up 2

    — Women’s basketball: up 1.5

    — Men’s golf: up 4.5

    — Women’s golf: up 3

    — Rowing: up 48.44

    — Soccer: up 14.04

    — Softball: up 13

    — Swimming: up 16.5

    — Tennis: up 2.5

    — Men’s track: up 27

    — Women’s track: up 27

    — Volleyball: up 6






    PREV POST

    Preview: Colorado brings star power, national aspirations to town as KU continues late surge






    NEXT POST

    Town Talk: KU still trying to figure out how it will pay student-athletes, but chancellor says cutting sports programs is not part of the plan








    Author Photo

    Written By Chad Lawhorn







    Source link

  • Ohio State will maintain all 36 varsity sports while paying student-athletes under NIL

    Last month, the U.S. District Court issued a preliminary approval to a settlement agreement in three antitrust lawsuits.

    COLUMBUS, Ohio — The Ohio State University announced it will be maintaining all 36 of its varsity sports while paying student-athletes in men’s and women’s sports for their name, image and likeness rights.

    Ohio State said it will put in several changes, including paying student-athletes. Beginning next year, the university said it will pay student-athletes for their NIL rights, leading to direct payments that are expected to exceed $20 million each year.

    “The intercollegiate athletics landscape is undergoing a rapid transformation,” Ross Bjork, Senior Vice President and Wolfe Foundation-Eugene Smith Endowed Athletics Director, said. “And through this change, it is our goal to continue the tradition of supporting 36 teams, prioritizing academics, winning and maximizing the student-athlete experience on and off the playing fields.”  

    Last month, the U.S. District Court issued a preliminary approval to a settlement agreement in three antitrust lawsuits against the NCAA. One of the cases, spearheaded by former Arizona State swimmer Grant House, contends college athletes should receive a cut of the billions of dollars in media rights fees that go to the power conference and the NCAA. A final approval is expected in April 2025.

    The university’s department of athletics is expected to be financially stable while generating its own resources.

    “Private support from alumni, fans, corporate partners, foundations and individual donors has long been essential to the success of Ohio State Athletics as a self-sustaining department building toward and maintaining a standard of excellence,” Bjork said. “We are grateful and thankful to our donors for their support through the years and for their continued commitment to Buckeye sports.”  

    The NCAA is also implementing roster limits nationally rather than scholarship limits for each spot. As a result, the number of varsity student-athletes will decrease by 150, but the total number of Ohio State athletic scholarships available will increase by 91.

    The university said most student-athletes do not receive a full scholarship and 30% receive no athletic financial aid. The number of student-athletes provided full or partial scholarships is expected to increase for most sports.

    In an open letter to Buckeye Nation, Bjork said all Division I athletes who participated in college sports between 2016 and 2024 will be eligible for backpay for NIL earnings.

    The announcements from Ohio State come days after Gov. Mike DeWine signed an executive order allowing colleges and universities to pay student-athletes for their NIL rights.

    Source link

  • Student-athletes find more power in the changing legal landscape of college sports

    Student-athletes find more power in the changing legal landscape of college sports

    Ever since the NCAA permitted college athletes to get paid by companies that use their names, images and likenesses, athletes have tested the limits of their increasing power.

    One of the latest examples is Matthew Sluka, the starting quarterback for UNLV’s first three games of the 2024 season. After helping lead UNLV to three wins and potential contention for a prestigious College Football Playoff bid, Sluka announced on Sept. 24, 2024, he would sit out the rest of the season. His decision is the result of a dispute over compensation for use of his name, image and likeness, commonly referred to as NIL.

    While the decision sent shock waves through college athletics, it also shines light on the changing balance of power that favors athletes over their coaches and universities.

    As a former lawyer and college athletics compliance administrator – and also as a current university faculty member who has authored several law review articles on legal issues related to NIL – I suggest that Sluka’s situation exemplifies how collegiate athletes can use recent NCAA rules changes to improve their financial situation in the NIL era of college athletics.

    Promises and denials

    Sluka’s NIL agent claims a UNLV assistant coach failed to fulfill a promise he made Sluka during the recruiting process. That promise, according to Sluka’s agent, was that Sluka would receive US$100,000 of NIL compensation from an NIL collective should he attend UNLV. NIL collectives are generally formed to pool individuals’ and businesses’ funds to provide NIL opportunities and compensation for athletes.

    Any such promise by a UNLV assistant coach would violate current NCAA policy. That’s because NCAA policy prohibits coaches from making NIL compensation offers contingent on whether a student enrolls. NIL collectives, on the other hand, may negotiate with athletes during the recruiting process as the result of a U.S. District Court ruling. That ruling prohibits the NCAA from penalizing collectives that negotiate NIL compensation with athletes during the recruiting process.

    In a forthcoming BYU Law Review article, however, I suggest that a university whose star athlete transfers because another school’s collective recruited the athlete possesses a viable legal claim against the collective. That claim would be for inducing the athlete to transfer and violate their athletics scholarship agreement.

    UNLV denies Sluka’s version of events. The university asserts that Sluka’s representative demanded more compensation from UNLV and its NIL collective in order for Sluka to continue playing. UNLV says it then refused, as such a “pay-for-play” agreement violates NCAA policy, which states that athletes may not accept NIL compensation based on “play” or on-field results.

    Perceptions and ‘pay-to-play’

    In Sluka’s case, further complicating things is the issue of whether Sluka’s NIL representative is properly registered with the state as an agent, as required by Nevada law. The state may be interested in pursuing enforcement, given the Nevada secretary of state’s relationship with UNLV’s NIL collective. More specifically, Nevada Secretary of State Francisco V. Aguilar co-founded Blueprint Sports, which operates the collective.

    NCAA rules allow a football player to retain a year of eligibility if they play in four or fewer games in a season. Sluka exercised this ability by leaving his team. There is little that UNLV can do about it beyond taking away Sluka’s athletic scholarship for leaving the team.

    Universities, however, must be increasingly sensitive to providing the necessary procedures, such as hearings and appeal opportunities, before disciplining athletes in the NIL era. As I explain in a forthcoming SMU Law Review article, a recent U.S. District Court decision involving then-University of Illinois men’s basketball player Terrence Shannon Jr. precluded the university from enforcing its suspension of Shannon without providing appropriate processes, lest he lose out on NIL compensation, which the court classified as a constitutionally protected interest.

    A referee makes a ruling on a football field.
    Issues of fairness linger in the era of NIL deals for college athletes.
    David Madison via Getty Images

    A slew of lawsuits

    Before it granted college athletes the ability to get paid through NIL deals, the NCAA faced long-standing criticism that its policies were unfair to athletes. The argument was that athletes benefited relatively little compared with the NCAA, conferences and universities, even though it was the athletes who provided the product. Along those lines, former college football stars Terrelle Pryor, Reggie Bush and Denard Robinson all recently filed separate lawsuits against the NCAA over denied NIL compensation opportunities.

    Some college football luminaries are now questioning whether the pendulum of power has swung too far in favor of athletes in the NIL era. Examples include former Alabama head coach Nick Saban and former Ohio State quarterback and longtime ESPN commentator Kirk Herbstreit. Saban has openly wondered whether the current college football model is sustainable. Herbstreit has lamented “the players having all the control” without any accountability to their coaches and universities.

    High-profile college football players, such as quarterbacks Kelly Bryant and D’Eriq King and receiver Gary Bryant Jr., previously exploited NCAA rules permitting them to play in four games and then transfer to another university without sacrificing a season of competition eligibility.

    At least publicly, their decisions were due to on-field considerations such as playing time. Sluka’s decision to forgo playing the rest of the season and transfer was different. It is the first time – but likely not the last – a college athlete has publicly based their decision to leave their team mid-season on an NIL dispute.

    Sluka’s departure from UNLV makes clear that collegiate athletes’ power to move freely between universities in pursuit of their best financial situation has greatly increased. Meanwhile, their coaches’ and universities’ power to keep them on the team and participating has significantly decreased.

    Source link