Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="Consigliere, post: 5321608, member: 559"]
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,
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?