forums

NCAAF Roster $

Advertisement
jmcanes22 said:
It's called a "Thicket"
Click to expand...
jeremy davies lawnmower GIF
 
Advertisement
HurricanePhilly said:
Failing to understand what those 2 sports generate and cost.
Click to expand...
Not disagreeing with you at all, but this is almost certainly going to be challenged using Title IX. Then the question will be does it require equal payments to go to men and women or just that there are equal scholarship spots.
 
Shogungts said:
Not disagreeing with you at all, but this is almost certainly going to be challenged using Title IX. Then the question will be does it require equal payments to go to men and women or just that there are equal scholarship spots.
Click to expand...
The percentages were based off the judge-approved settlement for $2.8B back pay to athletes so the allocation of money won't be a Title IX issue.

If you read the article it likely won't result in a huge increase in scholarships either (which would have to be offset under Title IX) b/c any additional scholarships would be used to reduce the $20.5M by as much as up to $2.5M ..... and considering football gets 75% of that they won't be adding womens softball scholarships at the expense of 75% of that allocation coming from money that could be spent on football.
 
Shogungts said:
Not disagreeing with you at all, but this is almost certainly going to be challenged using Title IX. Then the question will be does it require equal payments to go to men and women or just that there are equal scholarship spots.
Click to expand...
It would be challenged but it would not hold up. Because title IX Is educational opportunities (scholarships) in receiving financial aid federally this is revenue money it would not hold up as it would fail the title IX 3 prong test.
 
Advertisement
ssvir said:
The percentages were based off the judge-approved settlement for $2.8B back pay to athletes so the allocation of money won't be a Title IX issue.
Click to expand...
I'm going based on what I heard from listening to Ross Dellenger's reporting on this; he has been on top of this for a while. He didnt have a take either way, but said there were a lot of people (ADs, coaches, etc) that he talked to that thought Title IX would apply to the revenue and a lot that didn't, but they all pretty much agreed someone would try to challenge it with Title IX. I don't know enough about Title IX to say how likely they are to succeed.
ssvir said:
If you read the article it likely won't result in a huge increase in scholarships either (which would have to be offset under Title IX) b/c any additional scholarships would be used to reduce the $20.5M by as much as up to $2.5M ..... and considering football gets 75% of that they won't be adding womens softball scholarships at the expense of 75% of that allocation coming from money that could be spent on football.
Click to expand...
Legit question... what are we counting as "a lot"? Clemson is apparently adding 150 scholarships: https://www.espn.com/college-footba...lly-fund-ncaa-settlement-add-150-scholarships
 
Shogungts said:
I'm going based on what I heard from listening to Ross Dellenger's reporting on this; he has been on top of this for a while. He didnt have a take either way, but said there were a lot of people (ADs, coaches, etc) that he talked to that thought Title IX would apply to the revenue and a lot that didn't, but they all pretty much agreed someone would try to challenge it with Title IX. I don't know enough about Title IX to say how likely they are to succeed.

Legit question... what are we counting as "a lot"? Clemson is apparently adding 150 scholarships: https://www.espn.com/college-footba...lly-fund-ncaa-settlement-add-150-scholarships
Click to expand...
Clemson and Ohio State are both SUPPOSEDLY adding all of these scholarships but we shall see.

Both the SEC and B12 have already announced they are sticking with the 85 man rosters and my suspicion is that adding another 20 football, 2 basketball, and whatever baseball which has to then be offset by scholarships to women's sports is going to be a large financial burden that is going to be tough to overcome for all but maybe 5-10 athletic departments in the country.

What was also very telling was that additional scholarships up to $2.5M would come off the top from the $20.5M so if a school isn't going above the 85 football limit they certainly aren't going to add non revenue sports scholarships which then are funded 75% by the lost revenue share money football would have gotten ($2.5M x 75% = $1.875M).
 
Advertisement
ssvir said:
Clemson and Ohio State are both SUPPOSEDLY adding all of these scholarships but we shall see.

Both the SEC and B12 have already announced they are sticking with the 85 man rosters and my suspicion is that adding another 20 football, 2 basketball, and whatever baseball which has to then be offset by scholarships to women's sports is going to be a large financial burden that is going to be tough to overcome for all but maybe 5-10 athletic departments in the country.

What was also very telling was that additional scholarships up to $2.5M would come off the top from the $20.5M so if a school isn't going above the 85 football limit they certainly aren't going to add non revenue sports scholarships which then are funded 75% by the lost revenue share money football would have gotten ($2.5M x 75% = $1.875M).
Click to expand...
This is what I was alluding to, the Department of Education just released guidance saying that revenue must be shared proportionally between men and women:

The department issued long-awaited guidance related to Title IX: Revenue-sharing payments from schools to athletes must be “proportionately” distributed to men and women athletes, or institutions risk violating Title IX,​
​
Now there are a couple of caveats, namely that 1) this is guidance and 2) The new administration could issue different guidance (Linda McMahon is likely to be the next head of Dept of Ed).

Even aside from this guidance and whatever guidance the next administration may provide, there were already concerns about how this would all play with Title IX

Thursday’s guidance wasn’t terribly shocking for some.​
​
For months now, many Title IX experts have publicly voiced their concern over some schools’ lopsided distribution method. One of the nation’s leading Title IX lawyers, Arthur Bryant, told Yahoo Sports in the spring that he expected the distributions to immediately trigger Title IX lawsuits, even if schools used market value to justify the payments or a third-party agency.​
​
“Title IX is not based on the market. If the market discriminates, the schools cannot,” Bryant said. “The school can’t use a marketing agency to avoid Title IX.”​
​
Even one of the plaintiff attorneys in the case, Jeffrey Kessler, acknowledged last April that the Title IX issue will need to be resolved in the courtroom.​

With this much money involved and this many people impacted, I am sure we will see things continue to evolve.

sports.yahoo.com

New Title IX guidance from President Biden's administration threatens to upend school rev-share plans in college sports

The outgoing administration's Department of Education dropped an 11th-hour salvo saying any payments must be “proportionately” distributed to men and women athletes to satisfy Title IX.
sports.yahoo.com sports.yahoo.com
 
Advertisement
Advertisement
Back
Top