Oso planning to go pro
TAMUI do know, Newsie is right on you knowing ball.
Thank you. Universities adapted to many factors that have created the system as it now exists. And Title IX dictates that you must have an equal number of scholarships by gender. Women's sports do not pay for themselves so they must be subsidized. Who pays for that?
CBB:If boosters/alumni/schools are willing to throw money at these kids, and if you fear the rules are being set up to allow it to happen legally, then it tells you a scholarship is not enough to "compensate" these recruits. So why do insist on keeping those kids at an unfair advantage? Change the rules to allow them to get their worth. Again this will only be the case for a handful of recruits for the entire sport.I think at the end of the day, little changes. If you're a blue chip recruit, you go to Kentucky because Calipari has a proven track record of getting you ready and drafted high into the NBA. Ditto Cocah K at Duke.The arms race will be like it is now, between Duke and Kentucky boosters so what changes? Jabari Parker is not going to pick Northwestern because JB Pritzker (billionaire benefactor and NU Trustee) is willing to dump a ton of money in his lap. Jabari will take the long view and understand Duke puts him in the best position for the next level, just like it is now. And speaking of billionaire benefactors ... Phil Knight (Nike Founder) donates zillions to Oregon so they have the best facilities in the world to attract recruits and coaches. Ditto Boone Pickens at OSU or, to a lesser but still significant extent, Dick Strong with MU. Why is this moral but giving the kids a couple of bucks the Pandora's box from hell?It won't corrupt the system, it is now. The Pandora's box from hell is the current system (which is why I keep saying the NCAA is a broken clusterf**k now). The changes and potential payment (again potential because no one is arguing for it now) will make things more moral and fair. And MU will come out a winner in this process. The M Club can compete with those other schools when it comes to paying recruits.
It's relevant because if you start paying athletes in revenue generating sports and you have to make up that cost somewhere else, cutting non-revenue sports is going to be a way to do that. Then we run into Title IX issues.
Close. Actually you have to have a proportional amount of athletic opportunities based upon your schools enrollment, so both genders should have the same ratios of the athletes to the enrollment. If your school is 60/40 female, you should probably have an athletic department of 60/40 female to male sports. Courts actually found one school guilty of a Title IX violation when they were 3% off. Truthfully you are supposed to spend the same amount on both genders too, including facilities. Finally most athletic departments in the country get subsidized. Only about 30 run at a profit.
If you truly believe this, then you would have to believe a bench player is worth less, a qb worth more, so on and so forth. Why do you think school teachers "deserve" to make about four times more? Cuz it makes you feel good? Should school teachers salaries be pegged to results...wouldn't that be interesting. That's how much of the other world works (I say this as the son of a school teacher).And since we are talking about worth, how much is the TOTAL VALUE of a college education, not just the tuition avoidance? According to many studies, someone with a college degree earns nearly double a person without it. Over the course of their life, it means earning power of about $2.4M over a 40 year career, vs $1.3M without a degree. More than $1M.Plus they didn't have to pay for the parchment. They are getting what they are "worth", and then some.
ThisYou would never work for an organization that freely admitted they underpaid you so they have the funds to allow people in unprofitable divisions continue to earn a paycheck. If a school wants to have a gymnastics program, they need to decide it on its merits, just like they do a chemistry program.
True. We could see schools that have men's football, men's basketball, and like 15 women's sports. All the non-revenue men's sports could have to be cut to save money.
If you truly believe this, then you would have to believe a bench player is worth less, a qb worth more, so on and so forth. Why do you think school teachers "deserve" to make about four times more? Cuz it makes you feel good? Should school teachers salaries be pegged to results...wouldn't that be interesting. That's how much of the other world works (I say this as the son of a school teacher).
And since we are talking about worth, how much is the TOTAL VALUE of a college education, not just the tuition avoidance? According to many studies, someone with a college degree earns nearly double a person without it. Over the course of their life, it means earning power of about $2.4M over a 40 year career, vs $1.3M without a degree. More than $1M.Plus they didn't have to pay for the parchment. They are getting what they are "worth", and then some.
but as someone else posted, many of these players wouldn't go to college except as an avenue to a pro gigIMO there no future earnings applicable in cases like that - if the player wasn't forced to go to a college to get to the pro ranks they never would go to college and instead would be working at the carwash etc.
Can't do that under the current rules. Minimum of 14 squads, 7 men's and 7 women's, or you can go 6 men's and 8 women's. If such a thing were to happen, you would probably just see those schools try to break away or they would lower the minimum sports requirements.Nevertheless, for schools to save money, because their costs would go up, they have to cut elsewhere. I read some stuff here (not from you TAMU) and I'm convinced more than ever that all MU students should be forced to take a business class or two. Seriously.
I think people tend to overlook that the ruling by the regional director of the NLRB is going to be appealed and it will be heard by the full panel in D.C. Then if Northwestern officials still don't get the answer they're looking for, the case will end up in federal courts where it will likely be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court given the potential ramifications. Point being, there is still a LONG way to go before we can definitively say that college athletes are "employees" legally speaking. I'm not holding my breath that the regional diretor's decision will make it through the appeals. That being said, it's kind of interesting that NU players are already voting on whether to unionize when the employee determination is far from settled.
Would the NCAA have grounds to challenge Title IX if the employee determination by the NLRB is upheld?
Law vs. policy
Challenging it on what grounds? Trying to get it to not apply to revenue sports? Or that Title IX shouldn't apply to college athletics in general? If you're the NCAA challenging Title IX would not be a good idea.
Both can be challenged
The Bush Administration tried to challenge Title IX and it went nowhere. Title IX is here to stay.