If shutting down the women's tennis program gets their overall scholarship numbers out of wack, they may face a Title IX lawsuit. The House settlement does not overturn decades of precedents related to Title IX and scholarship numbers...IMO.
-
You do not need to register if you are not going to pay the yearly fee to post. If you register please click here or log in go to "settings" then "my account" then "User Upgrades" and you can renew.
House settlement finally released….
- Thread starter johnrr6
- Start date
If shutting down the women's tennis program gets their overall scholarship numbers out of wack, they may face a Title IX lawsuit. The House settlement does not overturn decades of precedents related to Title IX and scholarship numbers...IMO.
Agreed. That's going to be interesting to watch. UNC increased scholarships across the board. My guess, that's used to negate the rev share going mostly to men.
I think the strategy is to increase the number of overall female scholarships with the rooster number increases in certain sports. Even when those sports do not get rev share. The universities hope this will offset rev share disparities and prevent Title IX issues.
Trev breaks down how aTm is going to do it.
Texas A&M AD Trev Alberts breaks down NIL revenue Sharing after House Settlement
Texas A&M’s Trev Alberts outlines post-settlement revenue sharing, calling for bold modernization and leadership to reshape college sports.
aggieswire.usatoday.com
Yeah, this is what I guessed at the other day. The problem, IMO, is that more scholarships do not equal more actual cash in terms of rev. share dollars to existing female athletes on scholarship.I think the strategy is to increase the number of overall female scholarships with the rooster number increases in certain sports. Even when those sports do not get rev share. The universities hope this will offset rev share disparities and prevent Title IX issues.
Trev breaks down how aTm is going to do it.
Texas A&M AD Trev Alberts breaks down NIL revenue Sharing after House Settlement
Texas A&M’s Trev Alberts outlines post-settlement revenue sharing, calling for bold modernization and leadership to reshape college sports.
You end up with still more men on scholarship (or close to even) but the men are making more from rev. share. My point being, I'm not sure it's a winning argument.
There was no way the whole legitimate business purpose/clearinghouse thing was going to pass muster.
Restraint on free trade. It's also likely to be arbitrary. Why does one private entity get to decide what a legitimate business purpose is for another private entity?
Likely anti-trust as well, but I think the free trade is the stronger argument.
If Congress gets involved, then we could see a Free Speech issue as well. Lest we forget, where/how you spend money has been deemed speech in the past. Would it here? Not sure, I would need a little more digging, but the argument is there and probably compelling.
But if money is just given to players under the guise of NIL without any legitimate business purpose, and separate from revenue sharing, then that's essentially a bribe, right?
If we're talking common sense wise, yes, it's essentially buying a player for your favorite team.
If we're talking legally, why does a private entity get to decide if another company's spending relates to a legitimate business purpose of that business? If ABC, LLC wants to pay Johnny $5M, who is to say that ABC doesn't benefit from that spend? It could easily be determined to be an investment in marketing or publicity.
If it was allowed to continue, what you'd see if ABC, LLC can't spend $5M on a player because it's entire annual budget was typically $10M but Google can spend $5M because they can better market their spend on the player?
Or, if you want to somehow tie it to market value (as the settlement attempted), how do you determine market value exactly? Isn't it what one person is willing to pay and another person is willing to accept for a good/service? If you try and cap that and create an artificial limit on market value, you're running into restraint of trade issues.
Once this box was opened, there was no way to limit it going forward without Congressional intervention and as I mentioned earlier, Congress brings in potential 1A issues.
A CBO would likely fix these issues, but would open up another insane box otherwise known as employee/employer issues.
Then based on that rationale, the athletes need to be made employees with contracts. Because if this type of stuff can't be enforced, then college football just became a worse situation than it's ever been.
Employment opens an even worse situation IMO.
How do you enforce going to class? Can you imagine the CBO language related to what classes you have to take and what grades you need.
Would the number of years be limited? I think a CBO might be able to limit the years employed, but damn does that get tricky.
Mandatory breaks, lunches, workmen's comp, unemployment, insurance, taxes, goodbye Title IX in terms of equal "hiring", playing time (especially if it's tied to pay...would starters demand to play in the 4Q when a team is up by 50 just to earn more? What happens when a player is close to earning a bonus and the coach/school decide to bench them?), strikes, non-competes, no trade provisions, and no doubt more things.
Ok, but if we aren't going to enforce bribes, then this is worse than the old SWC days. Because the money is bigger and boosters now know the NCAA can't do a thing about it. What's to stop a school from offering a player $10 million before a season starts to transfer and come to their school?
There has to be a way to enforce NIL being what NIL was intended, which is allowing a player to make money off themselves through service agreements and endorsements.
There are intentional interference causes of action that might stop some of these things. We're seeing Wisky try it now against Miami (I think it's Miami). You can't interfere with an existing contract (you can, but there are limits/issues) and intentionally cause a breach of that contract. If a player is under an NIL contract to play for Nebraska for 4 years (or whatever the contract says exactly as it won't say play for Nebraska), Texas can't come in, offer more, and force the kid to breach his contract (well, they will and they'll end up paying Nebraska for the breach but they may not care).
It's a disaster right now. It will settle down IMO. The market isn't set and you have some people that will go crazy. We saw A&M try and buy a NC in football a few years back and it failed miserably. One player really can't make a team in football. Plus, the failure rate is nearly 50% for high school kids; that is a horrible investment/ROI risk.
Basketball could be a bit wonkier as 1 player really can turn a team around. Buy 2 players and you could win a NC.
Unless you are Rutgers and have the #2 and #5 picks of the last NBA Draft and they didn’t even make the NCAA Tournament.
So true.Unless you are Rutgers and have the #2 and #5 picks of the last NBA Draft and they didn’t even make the NCAA Tournament.
