NIL ruling Title IX

[upperdeck]

How big a deal is it really?

Say a school has 30 mil in NIL and 20 mil in revenue money
another school has 10 mil in NIL and 20 mil in revenue money

NIL is still going to go where they want it and since everyone is in the same revenue money boat whether the fb/bb get 80% of it or 10% of it its the same for everyone,

The process is messed up in title ix anyway. You want force schools to run programs that lose money but even then its still not equal because the cost of running fb is higher no matter what you try to do.

The field/stadiums are bigger, the travel budget is more because its more people, the uniform cost is higher, cosaches cost more

 

[oldpinepoint]

My guess is that this will spin off football and hoops to be classified as professional sports thereby getting out from under title 9. It will speed up the process.

 

[JackBauer44]

I can tell you working as someone who works in college athletics, there are a lot of administrations that are hoping once the new government gets in place - there are changes made. Yesterdays ruling was something coaches and admins honestly weren't hoping for. Many schools have been gearing up for direct NIL payment within their department and the school being in power or allocating. Not taking the collectives out completely, but within the recent lawsuits going around via student athletes and being employees - the hope would be the more the schools can control the better.

I coach a female sport. I've coached this female sport at the D1 level. If this stays, it is bad news for olympic sports across the board. No way D-1 schools want to give their tennis/XC/T& players anywhere near the same amount as the revenue producing sports.

 

[baggerbob]

I can tell you working as someone who works in college athletics, there are a lot of administrations that are hoping once the new government gets in place - there are changes made. Yesterdays ruling was something coaches and admins honestly weren't hoping for. Many schools have been gearing up for direct NIL payment within their department and the school being in power or allocating. Not taking the collectives out completely, but within the recent lawsuits going around via student athletes and being employees - the hope would be the more the schools can control the better.

I coach a female sport. I've coached this female sport at the D1 level. If this stays, it is bad news for olympic sports across the board. No way D-1 schools want to give their tennis/XC/T& players anywhere near the same amount as the revenue producing sports.

There might not be a Dept of Education.
Not meant to be political on this board, sorry.

 

[AZOrange]

I can tell you working as someone who works in college athletics, there are a lot of administrations that are hoping once the new government gets in place - there are changes made. Yesterdays ruling was something coaches and admins honestly weren't hoping for. Many schools have been gearing up for direct NIL payment within their department and the school being in power or allocating. Not taking the collectives out completely, but within the recent lawsuits going around via student athletes and being employees - the hope would be the more the schools can control the better.

I coach a female sport. I've coached this female sport at the D1 level. If this stays, it is bad news for olympic sports across the board. No way D-1 schools want to give their tennis/XC/T& players anywhere near the same amount as the revenue producing sports.

I hear you. I think a lot of this won’t come down to equality of payment…remember male/female sports are not the “same” today but I think a lot of this is going to hang on the promotional activities the school does for all sports. A women’s field hockey check will never be the starting QBs check but the argument will be whether the school is fairly promoting the women sports on the same balance as men. Its gonna be wild (and maybe all gone soon)

 

[All4SU]

I think the main point we all intentionally ignore is the collective donor based 'NIL' isn't really NIL, it's a pay to play model that has nothing to do with name, image, likeness and everything to do with yearly contract negotiation shopping their on field talent under a big lie everyone ignores.

Agree. And that is exactly why I think people (fans, media) have to call it out for what it is. The biggest complaint - okay, second behind revenue sharing - was always that cheating was always going on. It was just behind the scenes. If we want to preserve any kind of integrity for amateur sports, we have to shine a light - lots and lots of lights - on the corruption a unethical behavior of schools, boosters, and yes, players.

 

[richmondcuse03]

I can tell you working as someone who works in college athletics, there are a lot of administrations that are hoping once the new government gets in place - there are changes made. Yesterdays ruling was something coaches and admins honestly weren't hoping for. Many schools have been gearing up for direct NIL payment within their department and the school being in power or allocating. Not taking the collectives out completely, but within the recent lawsuits going around via student athletes and being employees - the hope would be the more the schools can control the better.

I coach a female sport. I've coached this female sport at the D1 level. If this stays, it is bad news for olympic sports across the board. No way D-1 schools want to give their tennis/XC/T& players anywhere near the same amount as the revenue producing sports.

precisely. I think someone will make a legal argument that the top sports aren't really college programs compared to the rest and title ix shouldnt apply.

 

[EnviroSciGuy]

precisely. I think someone will make a legal argument that the top sports aren't really college programs compared to the rest and title ix shouldnt apply.

I really hope something like this happens with bball and fball (or maybe just fball) spinning off, and a new wave of more logical conference realignment ensues. Could be a chance to build a new Big East, the way it always should have been. A man can dream...

 

[Orangeman]

Where is this coming from? The Federal Government?

 

[Cuse1992]

I think Title 9 should only apply to public institutions! Take that Big10!/SEC!

 

[NJneer12]

precisely. I think someone will make a legal argument that the top sports aren't really college programs compared to the rest and title ix shouldnt apply.

Wouldn't the athletics and academics have to formally split financially? Idk how that works with land grant schools, different state constitutions, financial aid, etc..

Then say that works, then we essentially have state owned minor league sports franchises?

GL with all that.

 

[javadoc]

I think Title 9 should only apply to public institutions! Take that Big10!/SEC!

Money comes with strings.

 

[richmondcuse03]

Wouldn't the athletics and academics have to formally split financially? Idk how that works with land grant schools, different state constitutions, financial aid, etc..

Then say that works, then we essentially have state owned minor league sports franchises?

GL with all that.

I'm not saying it's a good one, but there have been recent legal challenges on Title IX and I expect there will be more. I'm sure a lot of these rules will be rolled back anyways. It's directly contradicting the pending house settlement. I don't see how you can share revenue that certain sports don't even generate. Most college sports lose money. Shouldn't the revenue sharing just go to the profitable ones?

If folks pay to see men's tennis or women's tennis, they can account for that against the costs and see what's left over. But we can't act like there's some miracle pot of money schools are stealing from them. They're subsidizing it. In fact right now, the non-rev sports are getting the biggest share of the revenue (since it doesnt even exist but they're getting perks and a free education).

 

[upperdeck]

in a normal big business, there are areas that create more profit than others. Those also tend to share more in the spoils.

 

[Consigliere]

Where is this coming from? The Federal Government?

Title IX is a concept instituted and monitored by the Department of Education. It does not have the weight of law, but violations would affect federal aid going to an institution. It is not an NCAA regulation.

Essentially the position paper released yesterday equates direct payment to student athletes by an educational institution to be financial assistance to a student, thus the relevance of Title IX. That, in and of itself, is absurd but is the premise the ruling is based on.

Financial compensation between third parties and student athletes, whether true NIL or de facto pay for play is not covered by this ruling or Title IX though there are several cases working their way through the courts that try to cite equal pay legislation to these types of deals.

Three possibilities exist:
1. Ruling will be vacated by the new administration. There are already public statements from members of the party taking power indicating that this is highly likely.

2. Schools that planned to distribute direct payments to athletes will funnel that money through collectives instead moving it outside the purview of the Department of Education. This would certainly lead to more court battles and keep the status quo in place until final resolution

3. Schools will demote non revenue sports to club status with no athletic financial aid offered. This would be problematic at a school like Syracuse with a very small portfolio of men's non revenue sports (I believe it is just soccer, track and cross country) since any cuts would have to be proportionately split between men's and women's,

 

[Consigliere]

I'm not saying it's a good one, but there have been recent legal challenges on Title IX and I expect there will be more. I'm sure a lot of these rules will be rolled back anyways. It's directly contradicting the pending house settlement. I don't see how you can share revenue that certain sports don't even generate. Most college sports lose money. Shouldn't the revenue sharing just go to the profitable ones?

If folks pay to see men's tennis or women's tennis, they can account for that against the costs and see what's left over. But we can't act like there's some miracle pot of money schools are stealing from them. They're subsidizing it. In fact right now, the non-rev sports are getting the biggest share of the revenue (since it doesnt even exist but they're getting perks and a free education).

That, to me, is the core issue here. House v NCAA is mandating revenue sharing, but the Department of Education Title IX ruling is predicated on payments being financial assistance to students, not athletics revenue sharing.

 

[tep624]

Title IX is quickly becoming Entitlement IX if this stands.

And it could very well be political posturing knowing the next administration will kill this quickly.

 

[Sudano]

Has to be just the school's bag. The Supreme Court ruling stressed that NIL as we know it is commerce between private parties, over which the NCAA has no jurisdiction. Interesting question - if the school is essentially funneling money from television contracts to the athletes, and that is open to regulation, then what if private individual donors' monies flow through that same channel? Expect to see schools keep that revenue stream strictly distinct.

At some point someone is going to make the argument that football is no longer within the educational ambit of a university, it's straight business, so Title IX doesn't apply anyway.

Title IX applies because it's based on equality in higher education with federal funding.. Reject federal funding and no longer educate then universities would separate out the private business of 'University Football'. With the kids being employees and not students would the getting an education not be a part of all this.