Jim Delany: If O'Bannon plaintiffs win, Big Ten could "de-emphasize" athletics

Well, don't forget, Michigan isn't obligated to stay in the big ten either. Michigan and OSU have some extreme power to throw around in college athletics. Theoretically all big ten schools could choose to dump Delany as well.

If they did away with athletics, what are they going to do with all of those stadiums and bills they still owe on the stadiums? Not to mention they'd be in breach of all of their TV contracts. The amount of money they'd lose from fallout lawsuits, a severe drop in donations, etc would dwarf whatever they'd have to pay athletes.

He better alert Northwestern now that they shouldn't be spending $220 million and Michigan not to spend $250 million on non-revenue sports, etc. Also: he should inform Maryland that all that money they thought they had coming: no go.

Ask David Brandon, Mark Hollis, Gordon Gee, etc how that will all work out with a D-III model.

Man, I hope O'Bannon wins. It's time for hypocrites & blowhards like Delany to be taken down.

I bet the teams drop the B10 first

be sponsoring a Michigan athlete!  Your donation will be $24,000 a year, and you will receive weekly updates on your athlete from the University...

That's the general thought around Twitter right now, Delany isn't just talking out of his ass, and he's planning something (that wouldn't be the Big Ten going DIII)

You can say a lot of things about Delany, but stupid is not one of them

Why else would he even make a public comment on the matter? That's the only thing that makes sense, it's the only obvious gain.

O'Bannon plaintiffs win (or get settled with)? Absolutely. B1G goes DIII? Hard to believe. RT @j_gross31: Any chance this actually happens?

— Andy Staples (@Andy_Staples) March 19, 2013

It's why I think the Olympic model makes sense, at least more than just straight up paying the players. They're still amateurs, but they would be open for Endorsements and such

If all athletes big or small felt that a full ride was this amazing gift then we wouldnt be having this conversation. We aren't talking about someone on the track team, field hockey, or even lacrosse. These guys see their jerseys in the stands, see themselves in every year of NCAA videogames, and can read the prices of tickets. It's no secret how much money the sweat and blood of a few use to provide for the rest. I don't think paying the players is the right way. I also think the reason the olympic model works so well is because most of the sports no one cares about for 3.5 years.

        I've thought for a long time that a percentage of jersey sales should go directly to a tust account given to the player after graduation assuming they stayed out of trouble. If none of those things are met than it is given to a charity. The other option is create a semi pro league. Let those not interested in academics play for someone else.

Maryland and Rutgers bring in far more research $$$ than they do athletic $$$.  The B1G does not need sports to roll in dough.

You don't follow DIII close enough if you believe that. There may be more integrity than DI but some teams bend the rules to get advantages in DIII as well. That's why the same two teams have won the DIII National Championship in football for 9 years.

Intellectually I know you are correct.  D-I athletics is hopelessly broken, corrupt, and pretty much indefensible (if revenue sports didn't evolve the way they did, could anyone really justify creating the current system from scratch)? 

But damnit, I love being with a group of fellow alumni on a Saturday afternoon for three perfect hours that people who went to D-III schools will never understand or experience.  It keeps my friends and I connected to our university wherever we are in the world.

No you don't.

I'LL TURN THIS DAMN BUS AROUND! 

Lamp.

Fun fact:  When Chicago reintroduced football in the late 60s, the students staged a sit-in at the 50 yard line right before the kickoff of the opening game.  You've got to admire their tenacity.

Delaney has constructed a straw man, here. I don't see anyone advocating for player contracts and individual negotiations. Just an equal slice of the pie. TV revenue makes sense as a jumping off point.

Any tv revenue attributable to a sport during the time a player is on that team (commercials shown during games or licenced segments (Michigan Replay)), is divvied up, say 65% to schools, 35% to players. Each scholarship player recieves the same percentage of that 35%, whether they're a starter or 4th string.

Here's what I think he's getting at.

If the schools are able to give money to athletes as they please (or as determined by conference), the big name schools (or schools in the BCS conferences) will have all of the elite athletes gravitate toward them. Basically, athletes at all schools are going to have to be given the same amount or any illusion of fairness will be gone. You can accomplish that by taking half of all of the television contracts, putting that money into a single pool, then splitting that money evenly across all athletes listed on an official roster. If that actually happens, rough numbers put the amount per football player at $55,600/year. The only problem that I see with this is that you now have non-BCS schools leeching off big name schools and every FCS school will want to move up to the FBS. If no rule is made and each school's television revenue is split amongst its athletes, then B1G football players would make around $116k/year. The basketball tournament alone would allow for $76,500/year per player.

Maybe what Delaney is getting at is that the players would no longer pull scholarships from the university, but instead get paid directly and then have to pay their way through school. Even the $55k is enough to pay your way through the nicest of schools and still have spending money left over. If that's the case, the scholarship is redundant. The athletes still come out on top (even after paying taxes) and the schools take a lessened blow from the lost television money. When contracts are up for negotiation, they will factor in the new costs and the bill will be fronted by the television providers. This also allows for players to get academic scholarships and pocket the football money.

This of course brings up potential Title IX issues. Should male players be getting paid while female players aren't? Does this alleviate those issues since the burden of paying for the athlete's schooling is removed from the schools? Should the money just be spread across all athletes? What happens when you do that and the amount of money per athlete drops below the cost of schooling?

Whatever happens, I think it will be very interesting to see. After working through this, I'm kind of leaning toward paying players directly and removing the athletic scholarships. I think it would end up being better for the students and the universities would make it work in the long run.