|
|
Post by n00b on Jul 18, 2024 8:25:21 GMT -5
It doesn’t say “money”. It says “financial aid”. And that article says absolutely nothing about if university issued NIL money counts as financial aid. So basically that article says absolutely nothing. Well, what the person said is: "Schools must provide equal athletic opportunities based on sex, including with respect to benefits, opportunities, publicity, and recruitment, and must not discriminate in the provision of financial aid," Catherine Lhamon, the assistant secretary for the department's Office for Civil Rights, said in a written statement to ESPN. "In the new NIL environment, these same principles apply."
Benefits could have quite a general meaning. That said, the following two things, as far as I know, have never been challenged using Title IX as the legal basis: - female professor who makes lower salary than a male professor in the same department/college - (head) coach of women's team makes lower salary than (head) coach of men's team There have certainly been Title IX lawsuits filed by women's team coaches based on lack of resources for the team, and that would seem a proper application of Title IX. But Title IX as far as I know never had anything to do with salaries. Salaries should be solely based on merit. And a big part of merit is how much revenue a particular sport generates due to its popularity, which is ostensibly due to how exciting, fun, interesting, etc. that sport and its coaches/players are.
Generally I agree. My point is that we have no idea if “benefits” will include NIL payments. But in the pre-NIL world, “benefits” had been pretty explicitly spelled out: Other benefits: Title IX requires the equal treatment of female and male student-athletes in the provisions of: (a) equipment and supplies; (b) scheduling of games and practice times; (c) travel and daily allowance/per diem; (d) access to tutoring; (e) coaching, (f) locker rooms, practice and competitive facilities; (g) medical and training facilities and services; (h) housing and dining facilities and services; (i) publicity and promotions; (j) support services and (k) recruitment of student-athletes. |
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Jul 18, 2024 17:29:37 GMT -5
Well, what the person said is: "Schools must provide equal athletic opportunities based on sex, including with respect to benefits, opportunities, publicity, and recruitment, and must not discriminate in the provision of financial aid," Catherine Lhamon, the assistant secretary for the department's Office for Civil Rights, said in a written statement to ESPN. "In the new NIL environment, these same principles apply."
Benefits could have quite a general meaning. That said, the following two things, as far as I know, have never been challenged using Title IX as the legal basis: - female professor who makes lower salary than a male professor in the same department/college - (head) coach of women's team makes lower salary than (head) coach of men's team There have certainly been Title IX lawsuits filed by women's team coaches based on lack of resources for the team, and that would seem a proper application of Title IX. But Title IX as far as I know never had anything to do with salaries. Salaries should be solely based on merit. And a big part of merit is how much revenue a particular sport generates due to its popularity, which is ostensibly due to how exciting, fun, interesting, etc. that sport and its coaches/players are.
Generally I agree. My point is that we have no idea if “benefits” will include NIL payments. But in the pre-NIL world, “benefits” had been pretty explicitly spelled out: Other benefits: Title IX requires the equal treatment of female and male student-athletes in the provisions of: (a) equipment and supplies; (b) scheduling of games and practice times; (c) travel and daily allowance/per diem; (d) access to tutoring; (e) coaching, (f) locker rooms, practice and competitive facilities; (g) medical and training facilities and services; (h) housing and dining facilities and services; (i) publicity and promotions; (j) support services and (k) recruitment of student-athletes. As spelled out there is perfectly good and appropriate for the spirit of what Title IX was always about: opportunity.
Salaries and NIL have absolutely nothing to do with opportunity.
|
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Jul 18, 2024 23:04:53 GMT -5
There is an answer that serves both ends - stop assuming there is no market for women's sports and build your fan base for those sports. Nebraska can put 90,000 people in a football stadium for volleyball, and I believe Iowa put 50,000 people in a football stadium for an exhibition women's basketball game.
But somehow those sports only have a handful of teams averaging 5,000 fans or more? The fans are out there. Tail gate lots, bands, giveaways - figure it out because you are going to need to engage students and fans to be able to pay the women. If the Big 10 schools averaging 2k-3k fans can get 8k when Caitlin Clark shows up, then the fans are there - you need to get them back.
|
|
|
|
Post by jackson5vb on Jul 18, 2024 23:55:38 GMT -5
33 pages into this thread and still no info on #of players on a roster, or # of scholarships? is this an ncaa decision or a conference or individual college?
|
|
|
|
Post by dizzydean on Jul 19, 2024 9:32:56 GMT -5
33 pages into this thread and still no info on #of players on a roster, or # of scholarships? is this an ncaa decision or a conference or individual college? NCAA will set the initial limits, then each school will decide how many of the allowable scholarships each sport will offer. |
|
|
|
Post by TimTheEnchanter on Jul 19, 2024 9:46:58 GMT -5
33 pages into this thread and still no info on #of players on a roster, or # of scholarships? is this an ncaa decision or a conference or individual college? NCAA will set the initial limits, then each school will decide how many of the allowable scholarships each sport will offer. But still no time frame for an expected decision? Just ‘any day’? |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jul 19, 2024 10:45:42 GMT -5
NCAA will set the initial limits, then each school will decide how many of the allowable scholarships each sport will offer. But still no time frame for an expected decision? Just ‘any day’? Courts operate on their own timeline. It wouldn't surprise me if the NCAA has a tentative plan, but they aren't going to release that until they know for sure what they've proposed will be approved by the courts. |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jul 19, 2024 10:47:12 GMT -5
Salaries and NIL have absolutely nothing to do with opportunity. Couldn't you say the same thing about scholarship dollars? Yet financial aid is required to be proportional to participation. |
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Jul 19, 2024 10:58:43 GMT -5
Some people want the roster limits in the long form of the settlement. The plaintiffs said publicly that they don't care if it is in there or not. That won't be approved for months, so it may be an NCAA vote in January to finally approve it - though if we get to signing day without knowing what the caps are that seems less than ideal.
Sankey said at SEC football media day that baseball is looking at mid-30's, and while football has estimates from 95-110 out there, Yahoo's Dan Wetzel reported that it sounds like 110, ESPN's Pete Thamel is reporting they are at 105. So that is 140-145 men's scholarships that need to be offset. Swimswam reported last month that the SEC was planning on 21 scholarships for men's swimming and 35 for women. Softball is looking at 22-25 and it's been suggested that volleyball is thinking 20... but even without men's swimming, that's 80 women vs 145 men. They need to come up with 60+ women's scholarships before they can add a men's scholarship - and that is just to get to 50/50, nationally colleges are 57% female.
Now, the NCAA's numbers don't have to add up, the school's numbers do and what sports they offer and support will vary from campus to campus. But unless they want to offer 65 full rides for women's rowing they are going to have to figure something out. Softball has smaller rosters than baseball. Women's Lacrosse doesn't hit so they have smaller rosters than men's lacrosse. Adding 20 each to football and baseball is going to mean inflated women's rosters, or a whole new sport on many campuses.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jul 19, 2024 11:10:18 GMT -5
I have a harder time buying (a). What service are Dartmouth basketball players providing for the university? And how is it different from somebody in the jazz ensemble or engineering club? I also think that (b) fails because the athletes are benefitting from the experience more than the university. Otherwise, why did these athletes choose Dartmouth over basketball programs that could've provided more financial aid? Because of the benefit they are getting from being members of the Dartmouth basketball program. Each Big10 school is probably bringing in about $100 million / year from college sports -- TV money, radio money, bowl payouts, basketball tournament payouts, ticket sales, etc. Is there any dount the athletes are "providing a service" for them? In the case of Dartmouth is perhaps less profitable, but the athletes are still providing the same service. |
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Jul 19, 2024 14:07:30 GMT -5
I have a harder time buying (a). What service are Dartmouth basketball players providing for the university? And how is it different from somebody in the jazz ensemble or engineering club? I also think that (b) fails because the athletes are benefitting from the experience more than the university. Otherwise, why did these athletes choose Dartmouth over basketball programs that could've provided more financial aid? Because of the benefit they are getting from being members of the Dartmouth basketball program. Each Big10 school is probably bringing in about $100 million / year from college sports -- TV money, radio money, bowl payouts, basketball tournament payouts, ticket sales, etc. Is there any dount the athletes are "providing a service" for them? In the case of Dartmouth is perhaps less profitable, but the athletes are still providing the same service. Here's the doubt. You can just as easily say the school provides a service to the students in running the teams... because that is how every high school and junior high school has it set up. Nobody thinks their pimple faced 12 year old is providing a service to Jimmy Carter Middle School by playing on their team. College sports is set up the same way. Look, the cable company provides a service in delivering me channels. Then they sell ad time to companies and make money on that end too. Nobody thinks I provide my cable company with a service by watching the ads (I rarely watch the ads anyway) because they make money off of me. Just because colleges can sell tickets and ads on the scoreboard and program doesn't change the fact that college sports are run as a service to the student body that participate as players or cheerleaders or marching band members, and to those students that want to watch their classmates play. If players had value, if someone else wanted them, they'd have left, as evidence by so many athletes leaving when they were draft eligibile, or even like Matt Anderson leaving a year early. If they stayed, it's because they wanted to, or because a scholarship, room, board and training was the best deal they could get. The NFL saying we don't want you for 3 years isn't the colleges problem. The absence of a pro league for 19 year olds only goes to show, they don't have value without the colleges. The schools are the ones who provide the service and we've totally lost sight of that. |
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Jul 19, 2024 14:17:58 GMT -5
Each Big10 school is probably bringing in about $100 million / year from college sports -- TV money, radio money, bowl payouts, basketball tournament payouts, ticket sales, etc. Is there any dount the athletes are "providing a service" for them? In the case of Dartmouth is perhaps less profitable, but the athletes are still providing the same service. Here's the doubt. You can just as easily say the school provides a service to the students in running the teams... because that is how every high school and junior high school has it set up. Nobody thinks their pimple faced 12 year old is providing a service to Jimmy Carter Middle School by playing on their team. College sports is set up the same way. Look, the cable company provides a service in delivering me channels. Then they sell ad time to companies and make money on that end too. Nobody thinks I provide my cable company with a service by watching the ads (I rarely watch the ads anyway) because they make money off of me. Just because colleges can sell tickets and ads on the scoreboard and program doesn't change the fact that college sports are run as a service to the student body that participate as players or cheerleaders or marching band members, and to those students that want to watch their classmates play. If players had value, if someone else wanted them, they'd have left, as evidence by so many athletes leaving when they were draft eligibile, or even like Matt Anderson leaving a year early. If they stayed, it's because they wanted to, or because a scholarship, room, board and training was the best deal they could get. The NFL saying we don't want you for 3 years isn't the colleges problem. The absence of a pro league for 19 year olds only goes to show, they don't have value without the colleges. The schools are the ones who provide the service and we've totally lost sight of that. The top schools are generating hundreds of millions of dollars annually and paying their staffs millions. Are the high schools doing that? The people who are generating a huge chunk of that value should have a say in how that revenue is distributed. It's absurd to think the colleges, which have invested billions in their athletics programs as a marketing and entertainment operation, are providing a service to the players. If that means DI needs to be treated differently than the rest of college sports or the top 50 than the rest of DI, so be it. |
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Jul 19, 2024 20:01:55 GMT -5
Here's the doubt. You can just as easily say the school provides a service to the students in running the teams... because that is how every high school and junior high school has it set up. Nobody thinks their pimple faced 12 year old is providing a service to Jimmy Carter Middle School by playing on their team. College sports is set up the same way. Look, the cable company provides a service in delivering me channels. Then they sell ad time to companies and make money on that end too. Nobody thinks I provide my cable company with a service by watching the ads (I rarely watch the ads anyway) because they make money off of me. Just because colleges can sell tickets and ads on the scoreboard and program doesn't change the fact that college sports are run as a service to the student body that participate as players or cheerleaders or marching band members, and to those students that want to watch their classmates play. If players had value, if someone else wanted them, they'd have left, as evidence by so many athletes leaving when they were draft eligible, or even like Matt Anderson leaving a year early. If they stayed, it's because they wanted to, or because a scholarship, room, board and training was the best deal they could get. The NFL saying we don't want you for 3 years isn't the colleges problem. The absence of a pro league for 19 year olds only goes to show, they don't have value without the colleges. The schools are the ones who provide the service and we've totally lost sight of that. The top schools are generating hundreds of millions of dollars annually and paying their staffs millions. Are the high schools doing that? The people who are generating a huge chunk of that value should have a say in how that revenue is distributed. It's absurd to think the colleges, which have invested billions in their athletics programs as a marketing and entertainment operation, are providing a service to the players. If that means DI needs to be treated differently than the rest of college sports or the top 50 than the rest of DI, so be it. We've been through this before... but if mikegarrison wants to claim that Dartmouth athletes are providing the same service, then it isn't about money. If it is about money, Texas high school football athletes are then providing the same, or probably more of a service than all of D2 and D3 combined. When you, or they want to talk about money - lets say 100 football teams (8500 athletes), 150 basketball teams (1800 athletes), 25 or so other men's teams across all sports (I'll give you 1000 though it's undoubtedly less) and probably 30 women's teams across all sports (again, I'll give you 1000 students, but it's not). That's less than 12500 athletes out of 520,000 NCAA athletes who suit up each year. You can focus on the 3-4 athletes who's jerseys are sold in the bookstore - I'm going to tell you about the golf team who has greens fees and travel expenses covered all season and doesn't make a nickel for the school. Yes, the quarterback has to take classes online because of fame and the amount of film his coach wants him to watch - but how about the kid who gets a family altering shot at an education because of an athletic scholarship? We can't talk about him too? And I'm not saying one side of the argument is unquestionably right or wrong, and I'm not justifying some of the dumb things NCAA schools waste money on, but the post I replied to said "is there any doubt...?" and yes, there is doubt. Focusing on 2-3% of the athletes or 10-12% of Division I athletes leaves a lot of doubt to any fair minded observer. |
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Jul 20, 2024 10:48:58 GMT -5
Salaries and NIL have absolutely nothing to do with opportunity. Couldn't you say the same thing about scholarship dollars? Yet financial aid is required to be proportional to participation. I think there's a big difference:
- the opportunity can't exist without the athlete being a student at the school, and thus incurring the costs of going to school. Therefore, a scholarship enables the opportunity.
So perhaps you could equate a system that provides salary/school-funded NIL and no scholarships as equivalent, but only up to the dollar value of the (FCOA) scholarship. I'm OK with that.
But of course we're talking salary/school-funded NIL far in excess of that. AND everything I've read says the schools will continue providing FCOA scholarships as usual. So it's not an either/or in the first place.
So that last bit makes the salary/s-fNIL not equivalent, for me, even close to scholarships.
|
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Jul 20, 2024 10:53:10 GMT -5
Some people want the roster limits in the long form of the settlement. The plaintiffs said publicly that they don't care if it is in there or not. That won't be approved for months, so it may be an NCAA vote in January to finally approve it - though if we get to signing day without knowing what the caps are that seems less than ideal. Sankey said at SEC football media day that baseball is looking at mid-30's, and while football has estimates from 95-110 out there, Yahoo's Dan Wetzel reported that it sounds like 110, ESPN's Pete Thamel is reporting they are at 105. So that is 140-145 men's scholarships that need to be offset. Swimswam reported last month that the SEC was planning on 21 scholarships for men's swimming and 35 for women. Softball is looking at 22-25 and it's been suggested that volleyball is thinking 20... but even without men's swimming, that's 80 women vs 145 men. They need to come up with 60+ women's scholarships before they can add a men's scholarship - and that is just to get to 50/50, nationally colleges are 57% female. Now, the NCAA's numbers don't have to add up, the school's numbers do and what sports they offer and support will vary from campus to campus. But unless they want to offer 65 full rides for women's rowing they are going to have to figure something out. Softball has smaller rosters than baseball. Women's Lacrosse doesn't hit so they have smaller rosters than men's lacrosse. Adding 20 each to football and baseball is going to mean inflated women's rosters, or a whole new sport on many campuses. I think SEC schools will find a way, no problem.
It will be both things you suggest: inflated women's varsity sport rosters (swimming, rowing, etc.) and new sports that have no rightly business being played at public state schools where the high school activities association in that state doesn't even sponsor that sport! Women's field hockey/lacrosse ... in the south? Good lord.
Is what it is.
Scholarship limits for football are now 85, but roster limits will seem to be at the very least 100, and all major schools will max fund their rosters.
I was hoping scholarships would go down, and spread more of the top talent around. But of course we know the SEC and Big Ten don't want that. They want the opposite.
|
|
