NCAA President, Charlie Baker, is proposing the development of a DI super-subdivision that would allow the wealthiest athletic programs, a mix of the current/new Big 10, Big XII, ACC and SEC members, to directly compensate athletes through the use of “educational trust funds,” manage and fund NIL payments & revenue sharing, and allow for a separate set of governance rules for the super-subdivision. All this from Baker while trying to maintain the current NCAA national championship model across all existing Division I sports, except FBS football, which runs and manages the College Football Playoff.

While this is a trial balloon and not formal legislation yet, Baker’s proposals are a long way from being hashed out in detail, much less agreed to by member schools.

If adopted, this proposal would effectively be the orchestrated end of DI athletics under the current structure – further widening the gulf between the now Power Four conference members and mid-major athletic programs. We outlined this exact scenario in our two-part series  The End of DI Athletics as We Know it is Coming.

Under this proposal, Baker suggests a $30,000 athlete trust fund for half of the DI athletes at each super-subdivision school, creating revenue sharing and moving Name, Image & Likeness (NIL) in-house, and allowing the larger DI members to form their own set of rules and guidelines. Essentially, DI will no longer be a unified division with common guidelines. DI would become a two-tiered division with a more uneven playing field than exists today.

According to an article in Sports Illustrated by Pat Forde, Baker’s proposal would have universities ‘invest’ $30,000 per year, per athlete on at least half of their student-athletes via an ‘enhanced educational trust fund’. An example of the total cost was applied by Forde to show the per-school cost. “With…more than 700 scholarship athletes at the University of Texas, the baseline cost would be roughly $10.5 million per year—except it would run much higher than that, given what football and men’s basketball players, and a select few others, could command in NIL opportunities.”

Baker proposes building an in-house revenue-sharing mechanism with athletes that would lessen—if not eliminate—the role of (NIL) third-party collectives. It also would force money into the  Title IX framework—thus opening  revenue streams to some women athletes. However, you can bet smaller athletic departments will be cutting back on non-revenue sports which will end up punishing female student-athletes as well.

Baker argues that Universities should be able to participate in the NIL game as well – placing educational institutions in the uncomfortable position of bidding for athletes and picking winners and losers. The Title IX  argument, splitting NIL monies evenly between men’s and women’s student-athletes may sound good to college administrators but NIL funds are market-driven and targeted. Furthermore, NIL monies distributed to non-revenue sports defeats the argument that athletes should be compensated fairly based on their true ‘market value’. Add to this the widening financial privilege afforded student-athletes compared to other university students who see more of their funds diverted to bolster their fellow student-athletes at a greater level, well above other departments and students, this will only create chaos and likely more court battles.

Allowing a group of super-subdivision members to create their own set of rules, different than their current Division I peers, is also problematic. (I.e., increasing scholarship limits, manipulating portal guidelines, cost-of-attendance (CoA) stipends, etc.). The reality is that a ‘division’ must operate under a common set of rules and principals. Rules which favor one group of institutions are bound to create an ever-widening gap. Ultimately, this will damage student-athletes with an actual reduction in opportunities as institutions slash programs and seek alternatives to an increasingly out of control NCAA Division I.

Baker may merely be the messenger, delivering the power conference members’ message while hoping to keep the fading NCAA stitched together by getting his organization involved in the management and compensation of student-athletes by member institutions. That, or he is orchestrating the end of NCAA DI as we know it and transitioning to a two-tiered system.

Once there is a two-tiered system in place within DI, it makes no sense to compete for titles in non-football sports because DI members will be operating under their own set of rules. At that point, it is just a matter of time until there is a DI-A and DI-B; midmajors drop to the current D2 level; or, a subset of mid-majors form their own new division entity. As we have suggested before, a private school division might make sense as ‘like schools’ that operate with similar funding sources and values can compete on a more even footing.

The original intent of NCAA reform was couched under the guise of helping student-athletes generate outside revenue commensurate with their institutional value and skills. Now, it is becoming more clear that it is all about the largest institutions’ interest, control and, of course, money. Eventually, the money tap will run dry and they will start to eat their own. In the meantime, mid-majors are the appetizer.