Too many D1 schools?

[Anonymous]

With the changing college sports landscape(portals, paying players, NIL, etc) are there too many D1 schools? 365 D1 schools with a small percentage of schools/conferences pulling in 90% of the revenue. If you are not one of those schools and you luck in to a top player that player will transfer for a better opportunity. No blame there but it is the current system.

The talk within a few years it will go down to about 50 D1 schools. That sound about right but I could see it being a lot smaller maybe 25-30 schools. I just do not see the school making a lit of money giving it up willingly. SEC is not give up revenues to the ACC in football. What do you all think?

[Anonymous]

I think that would be fine. May lead to more D2 and D3 schools, also fine. It would be an added bonus if some of the tuition would stabilize because we weren’t funding sports at so many colleges.

[Anonymous]

Your numbers of D1 school shrinkage don’t make much sense because the Patriot and Ivy leagues don’t really play the games you mention. So that’s 20 schools right there.

The Power 4 conferences I think are probably close to 70 schools. My understanding is that even say Northwestern (which generally has weak teams), still gets a bunch of $$$s from its Big 10 membership. Perhaps they will be kicked out if they don’t agree to the settlement?

In any event…hard to see it dropping to under like 150 schools.

It’s the random conferences that contain the Fordhams or Farleigh Dickinsons that perhaps throw in the towel and just become D3s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Your numbers of D1 school shrinkage don’t make much sense because the Patriot and Ivy leagues don’t really play the games you mention. So that’s 20 schools right there.

The Power 4 conferences I think are probably close to 70 schools. My understanding is that even say Northwestern (which generally has weak teams), still gets a bunch of $$$s from its Big 10 membership. Perhaps they will be kicked out if they don’t agree to the settlement?

In any event…hard to see it dropping to under like 150 schools.

It’s the random conferences that contain the Fordhams or Farleigh Dickinsons that perhaps throw in the towel and just become D3s.

It will first happen in football. SEC and Big 10 merger. They would not need anyone else and they will leave or not share revenue with the NCAA. Once that happens I could see D1 schools decreasing to 50-75.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:With the changing college sports landscape(portals, paying players, NIL, etc) are there too many D1 schools? 365 D1 schools with a small percentage of schools/conferences pulling in 90% of the revenue. If you are not one of those schools and you luck in to a top player that player will transfer for a better opportunity. No blame there but it is the current system.

The talk within a few years it will go down to about 50 D1 schools. That sound about right but I could see it being a lot smaller maybe 25-30 schools. I just do not see the school making a lit of money giving it up willingly. SEC is not give up revenues to the ACC in football. What do you all think?

Would you give up 50% of your after tax income to strangers? There is your answer.

[Anonymous]

A few readers of my last post noticed my prediction: Many more schools will eventually drop from Division I to Division III non-scholarship athletics. Yes, I stand by that statement, and a lot of it has to do with the current climate of collegiate athletics.

Before diving into the House settlement, I love to remind athletic directors, student-athletes, fans, and others of a core truth: a collegiate athletics department is not the institution. And the institution is not the athletics department. In fact, your alma mater could cut sports tomorrow and continue operating without a hitch. Not to go too far down the rabbit hole, but one day, college athletics—namely football—might operate entirely outside the traditional university structure. That day isn’t here yet, but it may come.
…
With the proposed House settlement looming, the math behind college athletics is about to get a major rewrite. If Judge Claudia Wilken approves, the agreement will directly allow schools that opt-in to pay student-athletes starting July 1. Each school would be permitted to share up to $20.5 million in revenue with its athletes, with that cap increasing by 4% annually over the 10-year agreement.

The deal also includes $2.8 billion in retroactive payments to athletes who competed between 2016 and 2024 — a staggering yet still under-market value of student-athletes that have provided institutions over the past decade.

But opting in comes with strings, particularly around roster management.

Historically, NCAA sports operated with scholarship limits but no hard roster caps. Sports like men’s volleyball, which is allowed just 4.5 scholarships, could still carry 30 or more athletes—many of them walk-ons. That was a win for aspiring athletes, and even more so for institutions benefiting from full-paying students covering tuition, housing, and meals.

Now, that flexibility may disappear.

Under the settlement, scholarship limits would be replaced by formal roster caps. Schools could offer scholarships to every athlete on the roster—but they aren’t required to. At first glance, this sounds like a positive change: more scholarships for players. But in reality, the cap likely spells the end of the walk-on era.

Future roster construction will look very different, especially in non-revenue or Olympic sports. Some estimates suggest 9,000 to 10,000 roster spots could be eliminated across the NCAA.

https://herosports.com/fcs-fbs-cbb-d1-schools-moving-down-house-settlement-ksks/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

A few readers of my last post noticed my prediction: Many more schools will eventually drop from Division I to Division III non-scholarship athletics. Yes, I stand by that statement, and a lot of it has to do with the current climate of collegiate athletics.

Before diving into the House settlement, I love to remind athletic directors, student-athletes, fans, and others of a core truth: a collegiate athletics department is not the institution. And the institution is not the athletics department. In fact, your alma mater could cut sports tomorrow and continue operating without a hitch. Not to go too far down the rabbit hole, but one day, college athletics—namely football—might operate entirely outside the traditional university structure. That day isn’t here yet, but it may come.
…
With the proposed House settlement looming, the math behind college athletics is about to get a major rewrite. If Judge Claudia Wilken approves, the agreement will directly allow schools that opt-in to pay student-athletes starting July 1. Each school would be permitted to share up to $20.5 million in revenue with its athletes, with that cap increasing by 4% annually over the 10-year agreement.

The deal also includes $2.8 billion in retroactive payments to athletes who competed between 2016 and 2024 — a staggering yet still under-market value of student-athletes that have provided institutions over the past decade.

But opting in comes with strings, particularly around roster management.

Historically, NCAA sports operated with scholarship limits but no hard roster caps. Sports like men’s volleyball, which is allowed just 4.5 scholarships, could still carry 30 or more athletes—many of them walk-ons. That was a win for aspiring athletes, and even more so for institutions benefiting from full-paying students covering tuition, housing, and meals.

Now, that flexibility may disappear.

Under the settlement, scholarship limits would be replaced by formal roster caps. Schools could offer scholarships to every athlete on the roster—but they aren’t required to. At first glance, this sounds like a positive change: more scholarships for players. But in reality, the cap likely spells the end of the walk-on era.

Future roster construction will look very different, especially in non-revenue or Olympic sports. Some estimates suggest 9,000 to 10,000 roster spots could be eliminated across the NCAA.

https://herosports.com/fcs-fbs-cbb-d1-schools-moving-down-house-settlement-ksks/

Strangely enough, there is no mention of dramatically reducing coaching $$$s which seems like a simple solution.

Stop giving football coaches $10MM+ salaries (add in the staffs and you get closer to $20MM). I assume basketball coaches make a decent amount, etc.