|
|
Post by beavervball23 on May 20, 2024 13:34:01 GMT -5
There is still a ton of gray area that comes with them not being considered employees right? I'm just starting to read about these new settlements and everything that's happening with the NCAA and it seems once or if they pass something like this, it's going to get crazy because there won't be a lot of black and white scenarios right?
|
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on May 20, 2024 14:23:16 GMT -5
The current Title IX directive is that participation and scholarship money must be proportional. Of course, this came in a world where payments to athletes didn’t exist. But I agree. I suspect the courts would say “if you want equal pay for male and female college athletes, make a law”. I was thinking more along the lines of SCOTUS scrapping Title IX's applicability to sports, or severely neutering it at least. The more likely finding would be that male volleyballers, beach volleyballers, rowers, gymnasts, lacrosse players, water poloists, wrestlers, etc., are being unfairly discriminated against in the allocation of participation opportunities. If providing x-number of participation opportunities to female volleyballers, for instance, then equivalent opportunities would need to be provided to male volleyballers. How equivalence is determined would be an open question - currently it is based on college enrollment ratios (60% female/40% male), but could be based on high school participation percentages. Also, whether baseball/softball, ice hockey/field hockey, or wrestling/judo should count as separate or equivalent sports. This could force schools to add sports that only, or a disproportionate number of, women tend to participate in, such as field hockey, cheerleading, rhythmic gymnastics, artistic swimming, etc., or cut sports that only, or a disproportionate number of, men, tend to participate in, primarily football. |
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on May 20, 2024 14:37:54 GMT -5
Probably not much, assuming full scholarship. This will be a bigger deal for walk-ons and with non-headcount sports where kids are on partials - (you probably couldn't force employees to pay tuition as a condition of employment to effectively work for negative pay). All of the settlement deals seem to agree that athletes will not be considered employees. I’m sure walkons will still be allowed. But yes, I would anticipate a roster cap and no scholarship cap. Well, all of the deals for the past century agreed that athletes are student-athletes and not employees, yet here we are. |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on May 20, 2024 14:47:37 GMT -5
The current Title IX directive is that participation and scholarship money must be proportional. Of course, this came in a world where payments to athletes didn’t exist. But I agree. I suspect the courts would say “if you want equal pay for male and female college athletes, make a law”. The letter of the Title IX law doesn't actually require equal scholarship (money), right? How did that interpretation come to be? I'm sure a good and reasonable argument can be made that a scholarship enables participation. I'm just wondering if a similar line of reasoning could be attempted for the pay part.
It requires that scholarship dollars be awarded in the same proportion as participation rates. So if 55% of the school's participants are female, then 55% of the scholarship dollars must go to women. I don't know about all of the provisions, but this one seems to be spelled out in the text. " (c) Athletic scholarships.
(1) To the extent that a recipient awards athletic scholarships or grants-in-aid, it must provide reasonable opportunities for such awards for members of each sex in proportion to the number of students of each sex participating in interscholastic or intercollegiate athletics." www.ecfr.gov/current/title-34/subtitle-B/chapter-I/part-106/subpart-D/section-106.37#p-106.37(c) |
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on May 20, 2024 15:12:51 GMT -5
The letter of the Title IX law doesn't actually require equal scholarship (money), right? How did that interpretation come to be? I'm sure a good and reasonable argument can be made that a scholarship enables participation. I'm just wondering if a similar line of reasoning could be attempted for the pay part.
It requires that scholarship dollars be awarded in the same proportion as participation rates. So if 55% of the school's participants are female, then 55% of the scholarship dollars must go to women. I don't know about all of the provisions, but this one seems to be spelled out in the text. " (c) Athletic scholarships.
(1) To the extent that a recipient awards athletic scholarships or grants-in-aid, it must provide reasonable opportunities for such awards for members of each sex in proportion to the number of students of each sex participating in interscholastic or intercollegiate athletics." www.ecfr.gov/current/title-34/subtitle-B/chapter-I/part-106/subpart-D/section-106.37#p-106.37(c)Just to be clear, that isn't Title IX, that's department of education regulations. |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on May 20, 2024 16:19:59 GMT -5
It requires that scholarship dollars be awarded in the same proportion as participation rates. So if 55% of the school's participants are female, then 55% of the scholarship dollars must go to women. I don't know about all of the provisions, but this one seems to be spelled out in the text. " (c) Athletic scholarships.
(1) To the extent that a recipient awards athletic scholarships or grants-in-aid, it must provide reasonable opportunities for such awards for members of each sex in proportion to the number of students of each sex participating in interscholastic or intercollegiate athletics." www.ecfr.gov/current/title-34/subtitle-B/chapter-I/part-106/subpart-D/section-106.37#p-106.37(c)Just to be clear, that isn't Title IX, that's department of education regulations. Ah, my mistake. That was footnoted in a Title IX infographic so I missed some context. |
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on May 20, 2024 17:07:50 GMT -5
Just to be clear, that isn't Title IX, that's department of education regulations. Ah, my mistake. That was footnoted in a Title IX infographic so I missed some context. They are the regs implementing Title IX. It's part of Title IX enforcement and carries the force of law. Title IX itself doesn't actually say much, so saying what Title IX requires is almost entirely from these regs or case law. |
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on May 20, 2024 18:00:02 GMT -5
I wonder: Did the DoEd just decide that's what the language should be? Or did a judge in some ruling?
Not the saying one is more or less valid than the other.
|
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on May 20, 2024 18:02:33 GMT -5
All of the settlement deals seem to agree that athletes will not be considered employees. I’m sure walkons will still be allowed. But yes, I would anticipate a roster cap and no scholarship cap. Well, all of the deals for the past century agreed that athletes are student-athletes and not employees, yet here we are. The here being that student-athletes are allowed to make money by selling their NIL.
Schools (or conferences, perhaps) are soon going to be purchasing those directly.
Some would like it to be that such arrangements force acknowledgement of a employer-employee relationship, but I hope a legal bypass to that can be worked out.
|
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on May 20, 2024 18:05:27 GMT -5
Probably not much, assuming full scholarship. This will be a bigger deal for walk-ons and with non-headcount sports where kids are on partials - (you probably couldn't force employees to pay tuition as a condition of employment to effectively work for negative pay). All of the settlement deals seem to agree that athletes will not be considered employees. I’m sure walkons will still be allowed. But yes, I would anticipate a roster cap and no scholarship cap.The bolded would seem to me to be the end of walk-ons, at the very least in the traditional sense (unrecruited students). The more specific form of a recruited player who doesn't have a scholarship would also seem to be an endangered category, at big schools. They should be awarding scholarships to every roster spot. (Don't know if they will, and of course Title IX to consider.)
|
|
|
|
Post by dunninla3 on May 20, 2024 18:58:19 GMT -5
If these were the only changes a school made, for title IX, you now can provide 35 fewer playing opportunities for women (assuming a 50-50 gender split for arguments sake), but you are going to have to come up with ~23 more scholarships for women to balance the increase in baseball. Beach volleyball wants some of those 23. |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on May 20, 2024 19:33:07 GMT -5
All of the settlement deals seem to agree that athletes will not be considered employees. I’m sure walkons will still be allowed. But yes, I would anticipate a roster cap and no scholarship cap.The bolded would seem to me to be the end of walk-ons, at the very least in the traditional sense (unrecruited students). The more specific form of a recruited player who doesn't have a scholarship would also seem to be an endangered category, at big schools. They should be awarding scholarships to every roster spot. (Don't know if they will, and of course Title IX to consider.)
"At big schools" is doing a lot of the lifting there. Yes, I agree. Big Ten teams won't have any walk-ons. But OVC teams still will. |
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on May 20, 2024 20:36:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on May 21, 2024 1:05:47 GMT -5
You could craft a fairly reasonable argument under the Major Questions Doctrine that Title IX was not intended to, and has never been intended to, to curtail investment in football. You can craft anything under the "Major Questions Doctrine", because that's just SCOTUS saying "we don't like this law and the regulations that enforce it, and even though there is nothing actually unconstitutional about it, we're going to nullify the law anyway because we don't think the current Congress would be able to pass it again". |
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on May 21, 2024 14:11:42 GMT -5
The bolded would seem to me to be the end of walk-ons, at the very least in the traditional sense (unrecruited students). The more specific form of a recruited player who doesn't have a scholarship would also seem to be an endangered category, at big schools. They should be awarding scholarships to every roster spot. (Don't know if they will, and of course Title IX to consider.)
"At big schools" is doing a lot of the lifting there. Yes, I agree. Big Ten teams won't have any walk-ons. But OVC teams still will. I agree that I think there are D1 schools who are going to want to have walk-on opportunities but I don't think we know enough about the new shape of things to know if or how that would work. Do walk-ons not share in revenue? No NIL? No athletic scholarship but what about academic? Training Table? Using Dartmouth BBs argument that training and gear are payment - would they have to pay extra (above tuition) for training and not get to keep their gear? This settlement and the coming changes are about defining who is in, and who is out. Where is the line drawn? Are whole teams sharing revenue while other whole teams are "walk-ons?" I don't think we know this yet. |
|
