@mwsportsfan to be fair. A lot of schools were opt outs until recently. ISU was in that camp until about a week ago. I also had conflicting sources for Valpo opting in or out. Evansville is doing 50/50 raffles to bring in cash. There are certainly ways for the small mid majors to survive. I too was skeptical about how small mid majors would work out the house settlement. But since things have become more clear after the ruling as to what opting in means, and the example some Valley members have done to work their end of the settlement, I don't see a reason why, having a new forward thinking AD, Valpo couldnt also survive with opting in
From the more recent information that has been shared here, I am probably more indifferent about opting in versus opting out and, if there is no significant initial or annual cost associated with opting in, I can see opting in. But Valpo should not opt in if it commits Valpo to any sort of significant annual cost (over $50K to $100K?) that would have to come from the general budget.
@vu84v2 only the P4 conferences need to commit any sort of annual cost from what ive read. Apart from the NCAA play of out 60%. The 40% damage pay is split between a penalty from the power 4( now called the autonomous 4). The mid majors are only paying out what gets deducted from your tournament shares. That back pay was going to be deducted regardless of whether schools opted in or opted out. What was seeming the issue with small university's was that roster limit. Lots of schools are in the realm of Valpos where sports is a major contributor in the enrollment sphere
https://twitter.com/valpoathletics/status/1942678135679639572
Officially Official you can read all about it on the FAQ link and ion the twitter article
Good things I can think of right off the bat: enrollment won’t drop due to grandfathering rules (and only applies for some sports), multi-year contracts, the university isn’t fronting the costs, we remain competitive in recruitment, and everything is in house. If you were donating to the Victory Bell Club, it’s now time to donate to the Excellence Fund.
The university essentially gains nothing by opting in, and it raises many questions.
VU has stated it will not pay students revenue sharing from its University budget. It will only offer benefits from "external funding" sources, which is already done and are always minimal at Valparaiso. However, as with all other mid-major programs (opt-in or opt-out), the university will be compelled to contribute to the settlement from its share of NCAA payments each of the next ten years. This will mean less tournament money and reduced income to Athletics for the next decade.
Since the university says no additional funds will be received from the institutional budget or compromise the financial health of the institution, does this mean VU will not compensate Athletics for the lost NCAA income? Will this diminish financial support to the sports? Does it negatively influence minor non-revenue sports? How will even the external benefits be apportioned fairly to athletes, "aligned with our institutional and departmental values"? Will some team members receive greater amounts? Will some sports overshadow others in funding? Will women's sports be disadvantaged?
As for recruitment: Valparaiso will be further disadvantaged against all those universities that can offer revenue sharing to their athletes, especially conference competitors. Will other universities also be able to offer more scholarships with the new roster sizes?
The school will probably move a lot of the external factors in house. I assume by external you were thinkin NIL collective and whatnot, which VU has not made a statement on the collective in the FAQ, but has eluded to support of the new Excellence Fund and the Victory Fund. My assumption is this is taking over for the collective and VU will direct donors to these options and not the collective. The Rev Foundation is also probably going to be more closely related to the school. Other than that, I think directing questions to the ambassadors listed in the FAQ will be beneficial.
From what I have seen, a lot of the private schools and a handful of the public schools are not going to be allocating a portion of their budget to the "pay for play".
valpopal - Universities contribute to the $2.8B settlement regardless of whether they opt in or opt out.
On the whole, this ultimately seems slightly negative for opting in. Not sure what is gained by bringing NIL licensing internal and I strongly doubt Valpo is going to increase the number of scholarships (unless they choose to focus on excelling in a single sport where there are currently few scholarships). Valpo can revenue share (pay to play), but it seems very doubtful they will. Thus, the only real positive for opting in seems to be perception (in the conference) as legitimate - but that will no longer be positive when Valpo does not pay players. The potential negative is roster sizes, which could (in the long term) hurt enrollment slightly due to roster limits in football (and maybe other sports).
A few other comments:
-I am always amused when a single organization has money that it treats differently. If someone donates to the athletic department, that is "green" money that cannot be used to pay players. But if someone donates to the internal NIL collective, that is "blue" money and it can be used to pay players.
-I strongly doubt that the university will fully make up the budget loss from the annual payments (withheld NCAA tournament prize money) that go towards the $2.8B settlement.
valpopal - Universities contribute to the $2.8B settlement regardless of whether they opt in or opt out.
Um, that is exactly what I said: "as with all other mid-major programs (opt-in or opt-out), the university will be compelled to contribute to the settlement from its share of NCAA payments each of the next ten years." I believe the rest of your analysis also mirrors my comments.
I guess pal and 84 think Laurel Hosmer and staff, in conjunction with Valpo's legal team, are all idiots. Or maybe, just maybe, they might rather think that this is a complicated matter better left to those who actually do this sort of work for a living.
I guess pal and 84 think Laurel Hosmer and staff, in conjunction with Valpo's legal team, are all idiots. Or maybe, just maybe, they might rather think that this is a complicated matter better left to those who actually do this sort of work for a living.
Jeff Bidwell seems to agree with '84 and me, as well. He says you might as well opt-in but there is no advantage for a school like Valpo to opt-in except to not be stigmatized or ostracized by the other MVC programs and to have an option of paying players, which Valpo cannot competitively do.
However, he points out there is a disadvantage for Valpo opting-in with the roster limit—once "grandfathered" athletes leave—at 105 for football, which supplies valuable non-scholarship tuition enrollment for the university. Even you wrote in a previous message about opting-out, noting a current roster of 118 in football : "football had 118.... Many of these kids wouldn't be at Valpo if it weren't for D1 athletics. If roster limits actually are a reality, then the decision for Valpo is an easy one." Have you changed your mind?
No pal. I'm sorry. No. That's not the point that Bidwell was making in the slightest. This isn't the first time you have misconstrued words like this. What he said was in reference to the point he was making that opting in was almost a "you have to do it" as opposed to doing it under the perjury of your conference. In fact, he even goes on to say that if you are a school who needed to opt out because those extra couple guys on your football roster are good for enrollment, that he couldn't even imagine the financial struggled you, as an institution, could be in. So he does not point out the roster limits as a disadvantage but rather a point that if you are so desperate for enrollment that you opt out BECAUSE of your football roster getting smaller. Your financials must be reeeeaaaallly bad.
To reiterate, Bidwells point was that you almost "have to opt in" because the negatives were going to be applied to you regardless, and if you are so strapped for cash that your football roster getting smaller is a big enough negative to get you to opt out, you had bigger fish to fry. He did not say that there wasn't an advantage to opting in. If anything he said there weren't enough disadvantages to opting out that wouldn't already be applied to you anyway. Valpo does have the option of paying players now. And you know how you can help them pay players? Show up to games. It's right there in the bottom of the FAQ
No pal. I'm sorry. No. That's not the point that Bidwell was making in the slightest. This isn't the first time you have misconstrued words like this. What he said was in reference to the point he was making that opting in was almost a "you have to do it" as opposed to doing it under the perjury of your conference. In fact, he even goes on to say that if you are a school who needed to opt out because those extra couple guys on your football roster are good for enrollment, that he couldn't even imagine the financial struggled you, as an institution, could be in. So he does not point out the roster limits as a disadvantage but rather a point that if you are so desperate for enrollment that you opt out BECAUSE of your football roster getting smaller. Your financials must be reeeeaaaallly bad.
To reiterate, Bidwells point was that you almost "have to opt in" because the negatives were going to be applied to you regardless, and if you are so strapped for cash that your football roster getting smaller is a big enough negative to get you to opt out, you had bigger fish to fry
Exactly. You (and Bidwell: "you have to do it") are saying precisely the same thing as '84 and I.
Valpo has to opt-in not for any appreciable advantages but because of negative connotations in the MVC associated with being the only program opting-out. Another negative connotation: A school that doesn't opt-in because of the roster limit impacting enrollment and tuition is a financially struggling institution. Valpo wants to avoid that impression, true or not. As you say, the feeling would be "if you are so desperate for enrollment that you opt out BECAUSE of your football roster getting smaller. Your financials must be reeeeaaaallly bad."
That is STILL not Bidwell's point. He never even mentions ONCE in his podcast today about the MVC shouting boohoo at Valpo if they were to opt out. He says that there is really no downside to opting out besides from the schools without scholarship football wanting it for the enrollment numbers.
He doesn't even mention it as a downside. He says that that was the only reason, in his eyes, that schools like Valpo would even decide to opt out.
It is not because of some negative perception from the MVC about opting out. In Bidwell's eyes, its because there is little to no downside to opting in besides the roster issue. He mentions nothing about there being no advantage to opting in. In fact, he says quite the opposite.
Your claims fundamentally contradict Bidwell's words.
That is STILL not Bidwell's point. He never even mentions ONCE in his podcast today about the MVC shouting boohoo at Valpo if they were to opt out. He says that there is really no downside to opting out besides from the schools without scholarship football wanting it for the enrollment numbers. (That would be Valpo.)
Bidwell's words: "we've reached the point where we're going to be 11 for 11 in the Missouri Conference" with Valpo opting in. As I mentioned, Valparaiso would be "stigmatized" as the lone conference member if not opting in. You have to be naive to think there would not be negative connotations associated with being the outlier.
He doesn't even mention it as a downside. He says that that was the only reason, in his eyes, that schools like Valpo would even decide to opt out.
If he believes it a "reason" to consider opting out, the roster limitation causing lower enrollment (and connected tuition, room, meal plans, etc) must be a disadvantage, as I stated.
It is not because of some negative perception from the MVC about opting out. In Bidwell's eyes, its because there is little to no downside to opting in besides the roster issue. He mentions nothing about there being no advantage to opting in. In fact, he says quite the opposite.
Bidwell points out that each team in the MVC (whether opting in or opting out) will lose $4 million in distributions from NCAA, $400,000 per year. Bidwell says that the loss of enrollment due to roster limits by opting-in obviously will cost Valpo even more. The only advantage he suggests is "an opportunity to pay your players, but you don't have to!" Clearly referencing VU since Valpo will not have the funds to competitively pay players. In fact, the VU official statement puts the word option in bold to emphasize this.
Your claims fundamentally contradict Bidwell's words.
I have watched again, and I see no contradiction: the "11 for 11" comment confirms my statement that VU would have been an outlier in the conference; his comments about the loss of roster spots for non-scholarship football teams affirm this will be a disadvantage of opting in; his declaration that schools like Valpo "don't have to" pay players, complements my opinion that VU will not be able to competitively pay players.
Valpo was between a rock and a hard place; neither opting in nor opting out would be advantageous. I will not put a smiley face on a situation that is going to be detrimental to VU athletics.
