|
|
Post by mikegarrison on May 27, 2024 14:00:32 GMT -5
Maybe, but even if they are paying athletes, I don’t see how they won’t also be on scholarship. You think they’ll pay the football players then separately make them pay tuition? While attending class is a requirement for their employment? Yes, but; employee’s at universities regularly get tuition discounts to free tuition as part of employment contract: but you are still employee: and as employee my key point (opinion) is it relieves an athletic department from their Title IX legislated responsibilities. Not student employees. Like, if an undergrad works in the cafeteria or the library or a lab or something like that, they get paid, but they don't get a tuition discount. Grad students are an entirely different system, at least at a lot of research universities. |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on May 27, 2024 14:16:49 GMT -5
Maybe. But I see the solution to that will be allowing fewer walkons in men's sports while keeping female roster sizes about the same. I don't know that for certain, but the conversation about football roster sizes has been public. And if they're willing to significantly trim football roster sizes, then they'll definitely be willing to do it in sports like baseball, soccer and track. Football alone cutting 30 walkons will be pretty significant to Title IX implications. And it's always worthwhile to mention that Title IX is irrelevant unless somebody gets sued. We'll see how much of that happens. Participation (or more specifically opportunities) and expenditures are two different things. The suggestion that Title IX is irrelevant unless somebody gets sued is intellectually lazy. It's going to be a significant point of attack. But it’s where we are very few power conference athletic departments have participation proportional to the student body. Very few are expanding opportunities for women. So if threatened with a lawsuit, they’re relying on a subjective prong that they are fully fulfilling the interests and abilities of female athletes on campus. The scholarship piece is ALREADY supposed to be proportional. So if 47% of the athletes are female, 47% of the scholarship dollars SHOULD be going to women. That would follow that there are not more male walkons, right? But once again, many departments are out of compliance but it doesn’t really matter because the only enforcement mechanism is a lawsuit. And it would be tough to have standing for lack of female participation opportunities. As we saw at FSU, one of the few people that can win are a women’s club team when the school doesn’t have a varsity team. |
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on May 27, 2024 14:26:40 GMT -5
if 100-150 schools just give up of competing (which is a real question mark) that's towards 1000 less schollies available, but maybe who cares, those are not going to likely be pro or AA Olympic athletes anyway for the most part. just don't know how that will shake out. Which schools would do that? don't know. depends on if their funding model gets worse with changes. I guess if someone could explain how the new rules improve the funding model for non P4, I'm all ears. it doesen't make sense that becoming more of a minor league entity with less continuity and losing better players would help. but who knows? |
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on May 27, 2024 14:32:25 GMT -5
Participation (or more specifically opportunities) and expenditures are two different things. The suggestion that Title IX is irrelevant unless somebody gets sued is intellectually lazy. It's going to be a significant point of attack. But it’s where we are very few power conference athletic departments have participation proportional to the student body. Very few are expanding opportunities for women. So if threatened with a lawsuit, they’re relying on a subjective prong that they are fully fulfilling the interests and abilities of female athletes on campus. The scholarship piece is ALREADY supposed to be proportional. So if 47% of the athletes are female, 47% of the scholarship dollars SHOULD be going to women. That would follow that there are not more male walkons, right? But once again, many departments are out of compliance but it doesn’t really matter because the only enforcement mechanism is a lawsuit. And it would be tough to have standing for lack of female participation opportunities. As we saw at FSU, one of the few people that can win are a women’s club team when the school doesn’t have a varsity team. The three prong approach isn't a methodology for compliance in its entirety--it applies only to the opportunity requirement and two of the three prongs are fairly limited in scope or application. In terms of expenditures and non-discrimination, the analysis is fairly straight forward. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on May 27, 2024 14:33:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on May 27, 2024 14:39:43 GMT -5
not really a counter argument, it's schollies that are most important. I seriously doubt there's much extra added cost beyond 12-13, since it's now walk-ons. the issue isn't the Big 10 the 'issue' will really be the non P4 funding in terms of schollies available going forward, and if that can be maintained. if 100-150 schools just give up of competing (which is a real question mark) that's towards 1000 less schollies available, but maybe who cares, those are not going to likely be pro or AA Olympic athletes anyway for the most part. just don't know how that will shake out. I still want to know what kind of school might make that decision and why they would do it. An autonomy school? A Group of 5 FBS school? FCS? State school? Private? Non-basketball D1? D2? D3? I think Centenary (Louisiana), Birmingham Southern and most recently Hartford have transitioned from D1 to D3. So private but not academically elite, smaller schools. Think the NEC, MAAC, the some of the SoCon schools, Abilene Christian, Oral Roberts... Lindenwood just cut 10 sports and could still cut 8-10 more sports and have enough sports to stay D1, or they could decide to keep the teams and just drop out of D1. Once the new landscape is better defined and the future is more apparent, I would expect that every college in the country is going to have a conversation about what they want out of their athletics program and how to get it. That said, 150 schools dropping sports or leaving D1 would SHOCK me. A dozen or two? Ok, but for 1 in 3 schools, or really 60% of non-Power 5 schools to decide to take their ball and go home would be very surprising to me. We'll see. |
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on May 27, 2024 14:47:40 GMT -5
Maybe. With all of the new expenses, I think school will be hesitant to add sports unless it's to avoid a Title IX lawsuit (which is very possible). And with a roster max, will you really want to use up a roster spot on an athlete who will only be with you for half of the year? Maybe indoor programs will want to go the route of Nebraska and have a joke beach team so that you can double count the female athletes without increasing costs. But the reality is that the number of athletes who are good enough to be on both an indoor and beach team that are trying to be nationally competitive is still pretty small. This is in part where I am probably missing the potential Title IX implications. I have the assumption that there are many more male non scholarship athletes than female non scholarships? If this is true - then either male participation is higher than female participation or female scholarships are more than male? I have assumed the former? If the p4 conferences go to basically no walk-ons with the same participation - then we end up with more male scholarships than female and we are looking for males sports to eliminate or women sports to add. And this would make beach a cost effective women's sport to add. But I agree - if the roster limit (which becomes the scholarship limit) is still restrictive and beach scholarship players cannot play indoor, then there probably wouldn't be much change. But we are talking about what seems like a minimum of 4 more scholarships for women's VB - and being able to double up with beach would get you more options in the gym and for your legal roster (would it be possible to have 18 scholarship players on your team - 2 of them being beach scholarships - then be able to designate your 16 player roster each match? - or does a hypothetical 16 max roster mean that only 16 players are eligible for the entire year and not a per match limit?). If it is a per match limit - then teams will want to leverage depth with beach players. Another consequence I forgot to mention - going back to cost cutting matchups for the NCAA tournament. Instead of seeding through 32 - go back to maximizing drive in matches. This would be a disappointment for the sport if it happens. Teams can carry 20+ players now, but for NCAA tournament play they only allow you to dress 16, and will only pay travel for 24 people including staff, trainers, admin, etc. If they allow you to scholarship 20, ok, but then is the NCAA and their new austerity budget going to pay for 4 more people per team to travel? Are they going to make you leave scholarship/revenue sharing players home? Would that be inviting a lawsuit? IDK, and honestly at this point I'm not sure they know either. We'll see. |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on May 27, 2024 14:55:15 GMT -5
I still want to know what kind of school might make that decision and why they would do it. An autonomy school? A Group of 5 FBS school? FCS? State school? Private? Non-basketball D1? D2? D3? I think Centenary (Louisiana), Birmingham Southern and most recently Hartford have transitioned from D1 to D3. So private but not academically elite, smaller schools. Think the NEC, MAAC, the some of the SoCon schools, Abilene Christian, Oral Roberts... Lindenwood just cut 10 sports and could still cut 8-10 more sports and have enough sports to stay D1, or they could decide to keep the teams and just drop out of D1. Once the new landscape is better defined and the future is more apparent, I would expect that every college in the country is going to have a conversation about what they want out of their athletics program and how to get it. That said, 150 schools dropping sports or leaving D1 would SHOCK me. A dozen or two? Ok, but for 1 in 3 schools, or really 60% of non-Power 5 schools to decide to take their ball and go home would be very surprising to me. We'll see. Birmingham Southern is (a) D2 and (b) entirely shutting down the university. The other two are true. So two this decade. And there are CURRENTLY 13 schools in the process of moving UP to D1. I have yet to see anything that makes me think that life in the bottom half of D1 will be all that different. |
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on May 27, 2024 15:01:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by n00b on May 27, 2024 15:25:31 GMT -5
For sure. And I think it's why some of the most dramatic doomsday scenarios have no chance of happening. Like "no more scholarships, all salaries, so no Title IX requirement to give women scholarships." Legally, that might be a plausible theory but the PR on that route would be terrible. The tough part about relying on public pressure is that the things that pick up steam often have no correlation to their significance. For example, the situation you linked went viral because of the imagery of the side by side photos. But ultimately, the issue at hand - makeshift weight rooms in makeshift gyms for a hastily thrown together once-in-a-lifetime COVID bubble tournament - is about as inconsequential as you can possibly get. |
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on May 27, 2024 21:24:16 GMT -5
I think Centenary (Louisiana), Birmingham Southern and most recently Hartford have transitioned from D1 to D3. So private but not academically elite, smaller schools. Think the NEC, MAAC, the some of the SoCon schools, Abilene Christian, Oral Roberts... Lindenwood just cut 10 sports and could still cut 8-10 more sports and have enough sports to stay D1, or they could decide to keep the teams and just drop out of D1. Once the new landscape is better defined and the future is more apparent, I would expect that every college in the country is going to have a conversation about what they want out of their athletics program and how to get it. That said, 150 schools dropping sports or leaving D1 would SHOCK me. A dozen or two? Ok, but for 1 in 3 schools, or really 60% of non-Power 5 schools to decide to take their ball and go home would be very surprising to me. We'll see. Birmingham Southern is (a) D2 and (b) entirely shutting down the university. The other two are true. So two this decade. And there are CURRENTLY 13 schools in the process of moving UP to D1. I have yet to see anything that makes me think that life in the bottom half of D1 will be all that different. Birmingham Southern was NAIA, then in the early 2000's turned D1 for about 15 minutes before the board realized they were spending double what had been budgeted on athletics and the faculty realized that the 200+ athletic scholarships greatly exceeded the 3 full academic scholarships the school offered at the time. So they have been D3 for around 15 years. So with that as an example will the 13 schools moving up, keep moving up? Yeah, probably, none of this is that big of a surprise. And I don't know that anyone will drop out or down, but if you want to know who are the likely candidates, it's small, private, not elite schools. How many (if any) will move? No idea, but thats who you watch. |
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on May 28, 2024 6:12:12 GMT -5
There are serious financial and structural issues at dozens of DI schools which are a much greater threat to their participation in athletics (and their survival overall) than having to split their paltry revenues with athletes.
|
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on May 28, 2024 7:22:17 GMT -5
There are serious financial and structural issues at dozens of DI schools which are a much greater threat to their participation in athletics (and their survival overall) than having to split their paltry revenues with athletes. Declining college age population, rising pension and benefits costs, federal government playing games with financial aid, the crime and chaos on campus narrative (true or not, this is not a political thread)... what else am I missing here? |
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on May 28, 2024 7:54:34 GMT -5
There are serious financial and structural issues at dozens of DI schools which are a much greater threat to their participation in athletics (and their survival overall) than having to split their paltry revenues with athletes. Declining college age population, rising pension and benefits costs, federal government playing games with financial aid, the crime and chaos on campus narrative (true or not, this is not a political thread)... what else am I missing here? The broad defunding of public higher education has made most public institutions tuition dependent. Throw that in with the fact the vast majority of private schools are also tuition dependent, and you have an ecosystem particularly sensitive to reductions in enrollment. Normally I would say flagship public schools would be largely resistant, but we have seen how badly some of them are managed (looking at you, Gordon Gee). |
|
|
|
Post by hanmertime on May 28, 2024 8:40:26 GMT -5
The NCAA agreed to a cap of $21 million a school. And they think this will keep them from being sued for a while.
But I think the reality is, this eliminates most of D1 schools outside the P4. And the P4 schools will have to shrink their sports to 7. 3 men and 4 women sports.
And because of this settlement they won’t be able to turn back.
All this, and I would bet most athletes had a better experience in the original amateur system, and had better futures.
|
|
