|
|
Post by kozy on Jun 21, 2021 10:59:18 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Jun 21, 2021 11:16:20 GMT -8
Seems to me they simply codified what has been occurring for many years. But excluded--of note---is that salary or cash payments are strictly proscribed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Jun 21, 2021 11:43:27 GMT -8
Seems to me they simply codified what has been occurring for many years. But excluded--of note---is that salary or cash payments are strictly proscribed. I read that as trying to lure a recruit. This is what Gorsuch wrote: Kavanaugh brings up a "fair market rate:" So, what is the fair market value as is applies to non-revenue generating sports. Can they pay a men's BB player more than a women's? Can you pay a player minimum wage for time spent at practice and at meets/games and be in compliance? Can you figure in the value of room, board and the value a subsidized if not free education? |
|
|
|
Post by fisher1fan on Jun 21, 2021 12:33:40 GMT -8
Overdue
|
|
|
|
Post by FULL_MONTY on Jun 21, 2021 13:04:10 GMT -8
If it turns out that some or all of the NCAA’s remaining compensation rules violate the antitrust laws, some difficult policy and practical questions would undoubtedly en sue. Among them: How would paying greater compensation to student athletes affect non-revenue-raising sports? Could student athletes in some sports but not others receive, concurring compensation?
How would any compensation regime comply with Title IX? If paying student athletes requires some- thing like a salary cap in some sports in order to preserve competitive balance, how would that cap be administered? And given that there are now about 180,000 Division I student athletes, what is a financially sustainable way of fairly compensating some or all of those student athletes?
Of course, those difficult questions could be resolved in ways other than litigation. Legislation would be one option. Or colleges and student athletes could potentially engage in collective bargaining (or seek some other negotiated agreement) to provide student athletes a fairer share of the revenues that they generate for their colleges, akin to how professional football and basketball players have negotiated for a share of league revenues. Cf. Brown v. Pro Football, Inc., 518 U. S. 231, 235–237 (1996); Wood v. National Basketball Assn., 809 F. 2d 954, 958–963 (CA2 1987) (R. Win- ter, J.). Regardless of how those issues ultimately would be resolved, however, the NCAA’s current compensation regime raises serious questions under the antitrust laws.
In other words, the fallout was and is not contemplated. Get ready for college sports to be Unionized as Kavanaugh outlines above as a path for collective bargaining. The impact of collective bargaining will not be beneficial to the top players. In fact, it will peanut butter the revenues across all of the student athletes. And if it was unseemly for the NCAA Admins to receive high salaries, wait until everyone sees the Union that the players will form. What is most amusing is that Kavanaugh appears to be saying that the colleges and the players can resolve Title IX issues. I think the Feds would have different ideas about that. How college athletics is not akin to unpaid internships with benefits is mind-blowing. But in the end, it's really going to be the problem of the top 20 Universities who will need to hand over their profits.
|
|
|
|
Post by Frantic on Jun 21, 2021 20:47:51 GMT -8
It's a 9-0 opinion.
And Kavanaugh's concurring opinion lays out what's coming in the future.
|
|
|
|
Post by standiego on Jun 22, 2021 9:23:20 GMT -8
what was the opinion of the State of CA - was it last year or the year before ?
|
|
|
|
Post by TruAztec on Jun 22, 2021 10:22:11 GMT -8
I think the ruling is fair. The problem is it does not give a working model of what the future holds. I fear this will destroy schools like SDSU and if we do hold on, we will need to get rid of many non-revenue teams. It will just be football and basketball. The challenge is revenue is not just limited to a team, it goes to all of athletics. Football pays for soccer/softball/track/etc. If the revenue only goes to football, schools will need to get rid of other teams. Then what becomes of Title IX.
Again, it is a fair ruling but this is not a business in the simplest of terms because we carry lots of teams that lose money. No regular business would do this. They would get rid of the areas that did not generate revenue. Not sure colleges can do this.
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jun 22, 2021 10:47:06 GMT -8
I think the ruling is fair. The problem is it does not give a working model of what the future holds. I fear this will destroy schools like SDSU and if we do hold on, we will need to get rid of many non-revenue teams. It will just be football and basketball. The challenge is revenue is not just limited to a team, it goes to all of athletics. Football pays for soccer/softball/track/etc. If the revenue only goes to football, schools will need to get rid of other teams. Then what becomes of Title IX. Again, it is a fair ruling but this is not a business in the simplest of terms because we carry lots of teams that lose money. No regular business would do this. They would get rid of the areas that did not generate revenue. Not sure colleges can do this. Can't have just football and basketball. What about women's sports? More likely, football in 80% of DivI schools will disappear eventually. (Either that or schools such as Akron, UTEP, Eastern Michigan, etc. will drop down to DivIII) the meantime, G5 schools will be losing 70-3 when playing P5 schools. The gap between recruiting at P5 and G5 schools will increase beyond belief. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by Village Aztec on Jun 22, 2021 11:02:26 GMT -8
I would think we may have to drop some sports. Some win others lose. We have no idea what income we will get in 2 to 5 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Jun 22, 2021 12:40:42 GMT -8
I would think we may have to drop some sports. Some win others lose. We have no idea what income we will get in 2 to 5 years. We are already at the minimum number of men's teams for a Div 1 program. The way Title IX works we have to have scholarships for both mens' and women's sport proportionate to the makeup of the student body. Women number around 56% and men 44% at SDSU. So, for the 85 scholarships offered in football we have to offer 108 to women's sports. That is why we have a full complement of women's sports and just 8 men's. Schools have tried to get football taken out of the formula but have gotten nowhere. |
|
|
|
Post by FULL_MONTY on Jun 22, 2021 13:40:40 GMT -8
I would think we may have to drop some sports. Some win others lose. We have no idea what income we will get in 2 to 5 years. We are already at the minimum number of men's teams for a Div 1 program. The way Title IX works we have to have scholarships for both mens' and women's sport proportionate to the makeup of the student body. Women number around 56% and men 44% at SDSU. So, for the 85 scholarships offered in football we have to offer 108 to women's sports. That is why we have a full complement of women's sports and just 8 men's. Schools have tried to get football taken out of the formula but have gotten nowhere. The min number will be reduced. Men's and women's sports will be reduced accordingly. |
|
|
|
Post by Frantic on Jun 22, 2021 15:59:13 GMT -8
The way Title IX works we have to have scholarships for both mens' and women's sport proportionate to the makeup of the student body. Women number around 56% and men 44% at SDSU. So, for the 85 scholarships offered in football we have to offer 108 to women's sports. That is why we have a full complement of women's sports and just 8 men's. Schools have tried to get football taken out of the formula but have gotten nowhere. I get confused between requirements imposed by Title IX versus those imposed by the CalNOW settlement. I thought Title IX requires a school to meet one of three requirements; and one is that scholarships be allocated among men's and women's sports depending on athletic participation rates for each sex. I thought the CalNOW settlement requires the money spent on scholarships reflect the ratio of men to women enrolled at a campus. |
|
|
|
Post by fisher1fan on Jun 22, 2021 20:23:03 GMT -8
I would think we may have to drop some sports. Some win others lose. We have no idea what income we will get in 2 to 5 years. We are already at the minimum number of men's teams for a Div 1 program. The way Title IX works we have to have scholarships for both mens' and women's sport proportionate to the makeup of the student body. Women number around 56% and men 44% at SDSU. So, for the 85 scholarships offered in football we have to offer 108 to women's sports. That is why we have a full complement of women's sports and just 8 men's. Schools have tried to get football taken out of the formula but have gotten nowhere. Sdsu doesn’t HAVE to have 85 scholarships for a sport that starts 22 players and special teams. How many backup quarterbacks does a team need on the bench each year? How many never play 10 snaps a year? Is that really worth a scholarship? |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jun 22, 2021 21:21:57 GMT -8
We are already at the minimum number of men's teams for a Div 1 program. The way Title IX works we have to have scholarships for both mens' and women's sport proportionate to the makeup of the student body. Women number around 56% and men 44% at SDSU. So, for the 85 scholarships offered in football we have to offer 108 to women's sports. That is why we have a full complement of women's sports and just 8 men's. Schools have tried to get football taken out of the formula but have gotten nowhere. Sdsu doesn’t HAVE to have 85 scholarships for a sport that starts 22 players and special teams. How many backup quarterbacks does a team need on the bench each year? How many never play 10 snaps a year? Is that really worth a scholarship? As things stand now, you have to have a minimum number of scholarship players. I think that means an average of about 75. I may be a bit off on that number. Anyway, no coach is going to want to have 50-60 scholarship players when his opponents have 85, even if that is allowed by the NCAA. Of course, the NCAA may become almost completely irrelevant soon. And along those lines, at what point does a star athlete tell the coach what he will and won't do in a game. "Hey, coach, tell the QB to throw more passes to me. Or else." The "or else" will come when any athlete can transfer to any school whenever he wants to, even in the middle of the season. And what happens if the players unionize and demand more benefits or they will not play next Saturday? Well, the school could say " fine. We will forfeit the game, and by the way, you are all off the team." This whole thing is the biggest can of worms ever. It won't be long before the public gets so disgusted that no one shows up for games. I remember when boxing was pretty popular (1950s). Not much interest in boxing nowadays. Could happen to football as well. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jun 22, 2021 21:41:38 GMT -8
I will add that right now most schools would not have intercollegiate sports if it were up to their faculties. What happens when sports teams become actual minor league professional operations? How long do you think it will be before athletes openly refuse to go to class? At that point the schools' stakeholders are going to hit the roof.
In any event, the cost of giving athletes more and more benefits is going to be so expensive that only a handful of schools will be able to maintain sports teams in their current form. At that point, many schools will sponsor clubs instead of NCAA type teams. Actually, that might be such a bad thing.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by sancarlosaztec on Jun 23, 2021 7:23:22 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by DeeMoney on Jun 23, 2021 7:38:27 GMT -8
We are already at the minimum number of men's teams for a Div 1 program. The way Title IX works we have to have scholarships for both mens' and women's sport proportionate to the makeup of the student body. Women number around 56% and men 44% at SDSU. So, for the 85 scholarships offered in football we have to offer 108 to women's sports. That is why we have a full complement of women's sports and just 8 men's. Schools have tried to get football taken out of the formula but have gotten nowhere. Sdsu doesn’t HAVE to have 85 scholarships for a sport that starts 22 players and special teams. How many backup quarterbacks does a team need on the bench each year? How many never play 10 snaps a year? Is that really worth a scholarship? I think the reason you have so many scholarships is that you develop players when they are underclassmen (yet under scholarship) and have them play when they are older. Tom Brady attempted 5 passes his freshman year, 15 his sophomore, yet was still on scholarship while he developed. |
|
|
|
Post by FULL_MONTY on Jun 23, 2021 8:01:58 GMT -8
The biggest football schools will immediately explore leaving the NCAA altogether and forming a new league that pays players.There is no need to form another league, as throwing rocks at Universities trying to enter their club will not be their biggest problem anymore. Schools that don’t have major football programs will explore eliminating the sport.Possibly. U.S. Olympic teams will wind up needing major support from the federal government.Yes. Enormous battles over Title IX will come.There will be a lot of posturing, but Title IX is going nowhere. There are no real battles to be had, as the University will not sue to eliminate gender factored into collegiate sports. Others will file, most will not have standing, and the ones left standing will be of the rounding nature not enormous. As for the notion that the Colleges can form their own private leagues to avoid Title IX, it is form over function, the Feds and Judiciary are not going to give A for effort. Once they say Alabama Crimson Tide, it's done. It's why they haven't done this already and the fact that their stakeholders would never allow or be a part of avoiding gender equality. Sports investors will come up with new opportunities for college athletes.This will happen, but as we all know, these supplemental leagues fail as college sports is rooted in affinity largely for one's own University. I can see ancillary ventures that will run in parallels but not a replacement. The sports TV streaming wars will accelerate.The Economics remain the same and apart from any structural items the Universities deploys, I think the biggest shoe to fall will be Unions, the players will unionize. For me, this is where this will get interesting. Will there be one Union for all Student Athletes? Will there be one for each sport? Will there be one for men and one for women? Title IX will prevent a roadblock to forming niche unions, nor will the Unions want to leave money on the table, they will set the net as wide as possible. But once entrenched, the unions are going to use their power to peanut butter the revenues across their membership as much as possible. The Universities will act and eliminate the need for a set number of sports prior to any union being formed. Football, Basketball M, Basketball F, and whatever F Sports make up the gap. JMO, but the biggest loser in this will be the Olympic sports and then the large conferences.
|
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Jun 23, 2021 8:04:32 GMT -8
I think you're over-estimating how many 16-22 years olds really care that much about 'major sports' at their university. Sociologically, I think there's going to be decreasing interest across the board (while recognizing that there will be major geographic differences, eg. the midest & south vs northeast & west coast). I would be totally happy for revenue-producing "semi-pro" NCAA sports to totally break off and actually become true semi-pro entities completely separate from colleges and universities. Even just football... start up a semi-pro league of 64 teams to replace current division 1 football, and the NCAA can run a D2 or D3 league. Let true "student athletes" compete for their schools. |
|
