NIL ruling Title IX

[Sudano]

Would they be private? Would the States of Kansas, Kentucky or Lousiana let go of these arms? Split from academics, fine. But would they just let go of these huge brands?

Good point, gets really tricky. Could Public Universities somehow start up a private company benefitting the state gov't?

 

[FloridaCuse]

This has to be leading to a collective bargaining agreement. I can see athletes in all sports bring lawsuits against the school and the leagues and the NCAA. Nothing I'm seeing here is sustainable.

Allowing a collective bargaining agreement apparently is part of the discussions being considered in possible Federal legislation.

 

[kcsu]

Allowing a collective bargaining agreement apparently is part of the discussions being considered in possible Federal legislation.

It is the inevitable end of the madness. Lets hope that this happens soon

 

[All4SU]

Allowing a collective bargaining agreement apparently is part of the discussions being considered in possible Federal legislation.

How can fans get in on this collective bargaining deal? Seems like we have a big investment, and a vested interest in how it is executed. You know, supporting programs financially through years of mediocrity, accepting substandard performances on the field of play, accepting players who fail to meet minimum education requirements and forfeit eligibility. We want our fair share.

 

[FloridaCuse]

How can fans get in on this collective bargaining deal? Seems like we have a big investment, and a vested interest in how it is executed. You know, supporting programs financially through years of mediocrity, accepting substandard performances on the field of play, accepting players who fail to meet minimum education requirements and forfeit eligibility. We want our fair share.

Call or write your Congressman.

 

[SU68]

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,

You are aware that the Ballentines pledged $2M to support club sports?

 

[Consigliere]

You are aware that the Ballentines pledged $2M to support club sports?

I am and that is wonderful. Frankly that may be where all non revenue sports are headed and that may not be a completely bad outcome. As long as that gift funds facilities, supplies, administration and coaching I don’t believe there are Title IX implications.

Love supporting our Olympic sports athletes through our SyraCRUZ initiative, but honestly think it is a very small audience that would get much value for SU to fund an NCAA fencing team. A club team funded by private donations and fundraising initiatives executed by the SU fencing club seems to be a more logical approach.?

 

[SUFan44]

There are a few things I'll add to this conversation:

- A lot of schools have already started to shut down their collectives. If this ruling comes to be (and to be clear, I don't think it will), there will be a lot of schools opening them back up.
- Revenue sharing can only take place through the schools, but can also include (I believe) scholarships to a point. I would anticipate the majority of the sharing for women's sports to take the place of the scholarship subsidies many women's sports already receive.
- This would then diminish the opportunities women's sports are given - currently, many women's sports that are fully funded -- tennis, golf, softball -- are allotted scholarship numbers that create full ride opportunities for the majority of the team. With no scholarship limits in place, but roster limits instead, I could see scenarios where the vast majority of the revenue split (if Title IX laws need to be abided) will be scholarships, and that's all the scholarships each program would receive.
- All of these conversations are likely moot. No way this administration will allow this to pass.

Last thing I'll say, and please don't take this as anti-women's sports because that's not what I am or who I am. But if I'm a part of women's sports or advocacy groups, I would think very long and hard if they want to move forward with this revenue split based on Title IX. The opportunities that female student-athletes have received through scholarships, for sports that generate negative balance sheets for Universities, is a crazy amount. If they push this Title IX ruling, the unintended consequences for future decisions by school officials who are more and more cognizant of the bottom line could be massive.

 

[Sudano]

There are a few things I'll add to this conversation:

- A lot of schools have already started to shut down their collectives. If this ruling comes to be (and to be clear, I don't think it will), there will be a lot of schools opening them back up.
- Revenue sharing can only take place through the schools, but can also include (I believe) scholarships to a point. I would anticipate the majority of the sharing for women's sports to take the place of the scholarship subsidies many women's sports already receive.
- This would then diminish the opportunities women's sports are given - currently, many women's sports that are fully funded -- tennis, golf, softball -- are allotted scholarship numbers that create full ride opportunities for the majority of the team. With no scholarship limits in place, but roster limits instead, I could see scenarios where the vast majority of the revenue split (if Title IX laws need to be abided) will be scholarships, and that's all the scholarships each program would receive.
- All of these conversations are likely moot. No way this administration will allow this to pass.

Last thing I'll say, and please don't take this as anti-women's sports because that's not what I am or who I am. But if I'm a part of women's sports or advocacy groups, I would think very long and hard if they want to move forward with this revenue split based on Title IX. The opportunities that female student-athletes have received through scholarships, for sports that generate negative balance sheets for Universities, is a crazy amount. If they push this Title IX ruling, the unintended consequences for future decisions by school officials who are more and more cognizant of the bottom line could be massive.

I think Title IX is one of the most important foundational educational laws in history. With that said I also think too many people incorrectly confuse fairness in education and incorrectly apply it to private business. University Athletic funding have nothing to do with private business investment. Your last point not only applies for non-revenue women's sports but also men's. It's a Title IX issue and also It's a revenue question. Not just a man vs women's sports issue. If fairness prevails non-revenue athletes will not only retain scholarships but also receive some sort of supplemental payment commensurate with it's non-revenue status. I would think women or non-revenue sports would not demand 50% or a high percentage but rather would just fairly want a thousand or two a month to ensure University payments to athletes adhere to all the appropriate legal cases of NIL, payments, and title IX in relation to their revenue status.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

No politics.

Hang on, are you trying to say politics can't be part of the discussion related to something determined and defined by the government?

 

[SUFan44]

I think Title IX is one of the most important foundational educational laws in history. With that said I also think too many people incorrectly confuse fairness in education and incorrectly apply it to private business. University Athletic funding have nothing to do with private business investment. Your last point not only applies for non-revenue women's sports but also men's. It's a Title IX issue and also It's a revenue question. Not just a man vs women's sports issue. If fairness prevails non-revenue athletes will not only retain scholarships but also receive some sort of supplemental payment commensurate with it's non-revenue status. I would think women or non-revenue sports would not demand 50% or a high percentage but rather would just fairly want a thousand or two a month to ensure University payments to athletes adhere to all the appropriate legal cases of NIL, payments, and title IX in relation to their revenue status.

It's complicated, but I'll be honest - I don't see any school that is fiscally responsible giving any non-revenue generating sport much NIL money just for the sake of it, if the have to.

 

[Sudano]

It's complicated, but I'll be honest - I don't see any school that is fiscally responsible giving any non-revenue generating sport much NIL money just for the sake of it, if the have to.

I didn't think any fiscally responsible school would pay mediocre QB's $4M.

 

[SUFan44]

I didn't think any fiscally responsible school would pay mediocre QB's $4M.

Well that’s besides the point… but the model is off its rocker.