Ok, so numbers of players would need to match up. But NIL could be used to pay men while not offering the same to women, correct? My understanding is that local boosters fund a substantial fraction of NIL payments to athletes.
Yes, I think the best-guess application of the settlement and Title IX law would be, as I see it:
There will be participation numbers by gender that reflect the full-time undergraduate population (substantial proportionality will apply).
There will be scholarship allocation (dollars) that mirror those participation numbers.
NIL, presuming it continues to be outside the athletic department (a contractual deal between businesses and student-athletes, without university control or coordination) would not meet any Title IX requirement.
LESS KNOWN: Would additional revenue share from the athletic department need to be divided to reflect gender equity, or would it be divided to reflect each team's contribution to total revenue generated? My guess is that if there are direct payments to players, football would pay better than women's golf. But that is a "fairness model" and how that squares with Title IX is a bit of a mystery to me.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
Ok, so numbers of players would need to match up. But NIL could be used to pay men while not offering the same to women, correct? My understanding is that local boosters fund a substantial fraction of NIL payments to athletes.
Yes, I think the best-guess application of the settlement and Title IX law would be, as I see it:
There will be participation numbers by gender that reflect the full-time undergraduate population (substantial proportionality will apply).
There will be scholarship allocation (dollars) that mirror those participation numbers.
NIL, presuming it continues to be outside the athletic department (a contractual deal between businesses and student-athletes, without university control or coordination) would not meet any Title IX requirement.
LESS KNOWN: Would additional revenue share from the athletic department need to be divided to reflect gender equity, or would it be divided to reflect each team's contribution to total revenue generated? My guess is that if there are direct payments to players, football would pay better than women's golf. But that is a "fairness model" and how that squares with Title IX is a bit of a mystery to me.
Typically participation numbers is how most schools choose to show they are in compliance with Title IX. Even with those being within the allowable variance (I can't remember what they deem ok) scholarship dollars don't typically mimic that - simply because there isn't a women's sport with 85 scholarships. But yes - that requirement isn't going to change. It's why you'll likely see separate men and women's roster limits for XC and track.
Nothing NIL is required to meet Title IX requirements for the simple fact that - the private organizations doing it are not an educational institution receiving federal funds. That's what dictates if you are required to comply with Title IX.
So my understanding of at least part of the settlement is that each athlete is going to receive a portion of the settlement - and I would imagine it would be equal. I forget how far back it goes - maybe 2017-18? I'm not sure. Any NCAA athlete during those years until now would receive a piece. Now going forward - is the gray area. If you're revenue sharing (which is what it is) you'd share more with those who are generating more of it. Which being truthful is only football and men's basketball. I would think to try and not cause drama - you do it evenly. I mean does number 85 on your football roster deserve what your staring QB does? Of course he doesn't, but the level of entitlement these days - you just know there are those who will complain. Now does doing it that way run afoul of Title IX? I don't know. It's about resources and if you're providing equal resources to the genders I could argue this isn't a resource as much as an earned reward?
NIL, presuming it continues to be outside the athletic department (a contractual deal between businesses and student-athletes, without university control or coordination) would not meet any Title IX requirement. Correct, it would not meet Title IX nor would it need to.
Title IX is about equalizing opportunities the university provides - and that comes in two varieties: (1) # of Roster spots; and (2) Scholarship Funding (again, from the University, NOT NIL, etc...).
If (1) and (2) provide the same opportunity then Title IX is met. Anything outside the purview of university offerings does not need to meet Title IX thresholds.
And before someone adds - Title IX expects all support mechanisms to be fair as well (i.e. facility resources, access to academic support, gear, etc......).
Currently in grad school for sports management and we’re all predicting the ncaa is going to be done in the next 7-10 years. they went from screwing athletes to not wanting to get screwed by athletes. What a concept
You guys are deluded if you think our current collegiate system stays even 20% similar to how it functions now.
A kid with a VR set in the next year will be able to be tutored by Aristotle, walk around ancient civilizations, and be taught specifically to his or her needs. Useful stem will persist for a few more years—but for the most part, that's gone too. What then does college offer? Merely a hang-out club of the upper and upper-middle kids. This won't be enough.
And you guys are hung up on little things like athletic programs—this is all gone very soon.
Yes, I think the best-guess application of the settlement and Title IX law would be, as I see it:
There will be participation numbers by gender that reflect the full-time undergraduate population (substantial proportionality will apply).
There will be scholarship allocation (dollars) that mirror those participation numbers.
NIL, presuming it continues to be outside the athletic department (a contractual deal between businesses and student-athletes, without university control or coordination) would not meet any Title IX requirement.
LESS KNOWN: Would additional revenue share from the athletic department need to be divided to reflect gender equity, or would it be divided to reflect each team's contribution to total revenue generated? My guess is that if there are direct payments to players, football would pay better than women's golf. But that is a "fairness model" and how that squares with Title IX is a bit of a mystery to me.
Typically participation numbers is how most schools choose to show they are in compliance with Title IX. Even with those being within the allowable variance (I can't remember what they deem ok) scholarship dollars don't typically mimic that - simply because there isn't a women's sport with 85 scholarships. But yes - that requirement isn't going to change. It's why you'll likely see separate men and women's roster limits for XC and track.
Nothing NIL is required to meet Title IX requirements for the simple fact that - the private organizations doing it are not an educational institution receiving federal funds. That's what dictates if you are required to comply with Title IX.
So my understanding of at least part of the settlement is that each athlete is going to receive a portion of the settlement - and I would imagine it would be equal. I forget how far back it goes - maybe 2017-18? I'm not sure. Any NCAA athlete during those years until now would receive a piece. Now going forward - is the gray area. If you're revenue sharing (which is what it is) you'd share more with those who are generating more of it. Which being truthful is only football and men's basketball. I would think to try and not cause drama - you do it evenly. I mean does number 85 on your football roster deserve what your staring QB does? Of course he doesn't, but the level of entitlement these days - you just know there are those who will complain. Now does doing it that way run afoul of Title IX? I don't know. It's about resources and if you're providing equal resources to the genders I could argue this isn't a resource as much as an earned reward?
Yeah, sounds like we are seeing this the same way, except I'd like your thought on this...
You wrote that scholarship dollars don't generally mimic participation numbers. That is 100% correct. Women still come up short. It is also correct that many institutions still do not quite make proportionality of participants (even within the allowance of +/- 5%), having slightly too few females.
With that in mind, do you see a "grand reset" on that? Meaning, as schools decide what to cut, what the roster caps will be, how many student-athletes to scholarship in each sport, and so on, do you think that an outcome will be a closed gap (women's participation numbers and scholarships will finally be in line with the % in the full-time undergrad population)?
I think that WILL be an outcome, but at the expense of men's Olympic sports.
Yes, I think the best-guess application of the settlement and Title IX law would be, as I see it:
There will be participation numbers by gender that reflect the full-time undergraduate population (substantial proportionality will apply).
There will be scholarship allocation (dollars) that mirror those participation numbers.
NIL, presuming it continues to be outside the athletic department (a contractual deal between businesses and student-athletes, without university control or coordination) would not meet any Title IX requirement.
LESS KNOWN: Would additional revenue share from the athletic department need to be divided to reflect gender equity, or would it be divided to reflect each team's contribution to total revenue generated? My guess is that if there are direct payments to players, football would pay better than women's golf. But that is a "fairness model" and how that squares with Title IX is a bit of a mystery to me.
Typically participation numbers is how most schools choose to show they are in compliance with Title IX. Even with those being within the allowable variance (I can't remember what they deem ok) scholarship dollars don't typically mimic that - simply because there isn't a women's sport with 85 scholarships. But yes - that requirement isn't going to change. It's why you'll likely see separate men and women's roster limits for XC and track.
Nothing NIL is required to meet Title IX requirements for the simple fact that - the private organizations doing it are not an educational institution receiving federal funds. That's what dictates if you are required to comply with Title IX.
So my understanding of at least part of the settlement is that each athlete is going to receive a portion of the settlement - and I would imagine it would be equal. I forget how far back it goes - maybe 2017-18? I'm not sure. Any NCAA athlete during those years until now would receive a piece. Now going forward - is the gray area. If you're revenue sharing (which is what it is) you'd share more with those who are generating more of it. Which being truthful is only football and men's basketball. I would think to try and not cause drama - you do it evenly. I mean does number 85 on your football roster deserve what your staring QB does? Of course he doesn't, but the level of entitlement these days - you just know there are those who will complain. Now does doing it that way run afoul of Title IX? I don't know. It's about resources and if you're providing equal resources to the genders I could argue this isn't a resource as much as an earned reward?
Title IX in the past has been interpreted that "discrimination" means "unequal proportion of athletic scholarships based on gender percentage of enrollment" (paraphrasing somewhat).
I personally believe that with revenue sharing coming up, the next president and the department of education will be the biggest cause for however it lies - Trump or whomever he appoints to be secretary of education (maybe DeVos again?) will almost have certainly different views on it than Harris or her admin. In particular, Trump / Reps would be much more inclined to allow revenue sharing to go to (almost) exclusively football / men's basketball than Kamala / Dems who might even call for it to be 50/50 or whatever the gender demographics of the college are. And this could create a precedent too which makes me think they wouldn't really go against it or try to change it in the future.
NIL is also the gray area that'll be tied into this - there's no way they (they being the NCAA, government, etc) can enforce title IX for national deals (think any of the shoe company NIL, Caleb Williams' national ad's like Dr. Pepper, etc) as they're private, but for the 'fake NIL' that's basically pay to play, we all know there's discussion between the coaches / school and the NIL collectives on who to pay and how much to pay them. Yes, there's technically the barrier, but it's pretty clear what's happening and that they're basically arms of the school. I think that if even one lawsuit were filed in the 9th circuit they'd almost certainly rule in favor of the women which could put an injunction on that.
That sucks. It only means the Legendary Olympics Four schools can fill B teams and C teams to attract 3 times the student-athletes and rack up more and more Olympic medals in the future.
Typically participation numbers is how most schools choose to show they are in compliance with Title IX. Even with those being within the allowable variance (I can't remember what they deem ok) scholarship dollars don't typically mimic that - simply because there isn't a women's sport with 85 scholarships. But yes - that requirement isn't going to change. It's why you'll likely see separate men and women's roster limits for XC and track.
Nothing NIL is required to meet Title IX requirements for the simple fact that - the private organizations doing it are not an educational institution receiving federal funds. That's what dictates if you are required to comply with Title IX.
So my understanding of at least part of the settlement is that each athlete is going to receive a portion of the settlement - and I would imagine it would be equal. I forget how far back it goes - maybe 2017-18? I'm not sure. Any NCAA athlete during those years until now would receive a piece. Now going forward - is the gray area. If you're revenue sharing (which is what it is) you'd share more with those who are generating more of it. Which being truthful is only football and men's basketball. I would think to try and not cause drama - you do it evenly. I mean does number 85 on your football roster deserve what your staring QB does? Of course he doesn't, but the level of entitlement these days - you just know there are those who will complain. Now does doing it that way run afoul of Title IX? I don't know. It's about resources and if you're providing equal resources to the genders I could argue this isn't a resource as much as an earned reward?
Yeah, sounds like we are seeing this the same way, except I'd like your thought on this...
You wrote that scholarship dollars don't generally mimic participation numbers. That is 100% correct. Women still come up short. It is also correct that many institutions still do not quite make proportionality of participants (even within the allowance of +/- 5%), having slightly too few females.
With that in mind, do you see a "grand reset" on that? Meaning, as schools decide what to cut, what the roster caps will be, how many student-athletes to scholarship in each sport, and so on, do you think that an outcome will be a closed gap (women's participation numbers and scholarships will finally be in line with the % in the full-time undergrad population)?
I think that WILL be an outcome, but at the expense of men's Olympic sports.
So it's a good question and honestly I'm not sure. I know every athletic department is going to do what's in the best interest monetarily. Since Title IX underpins everything then sure when shedding money pits - men's sports will go first.
The new roster limits are out - or at least what Yahoo! sports has calculated it at and there is no university in the country who can fully fund their sports at these limits. Interestingly there is no differentiation (like you would think given Title IX) based on gender. I suspecgt it's because these are the absolute maximum and they know it's impossible for anyone school to do it. Schools will operate within the framework based on their monetary restraints and obviously be compliant with Title IX.
I mean how many schools can fully fund 17 XC runners and 45 track runners. Even assuming all 17 run track (because who is going to a school to ONLY run XC?). That's 45 per gender? I don't see it. Especially given we KNOW P4 schools will do everything to pay those extra 20 scholarships.
The few schools that care about track will become super programs. Most available scholarship money will go to football, basketball, and sports though (some in the northeast will have a full ride for every hockey player, LSU might fully scholarship gymnasts, etc.).
The real interesting thing will be the Ivies. They notoriously don't give scholarships. Now there are full rides available elsewhere for those athletes who would have competed at an ivy.
Also just as an aside - think of the (I hate to say it) brilliance of what they did here. The NCAA and the conference commissioners - both of whom are completely complicit in creating the scenarios that led to this (just let people make $, conf realignment, etc) have just made each school the bad guy. Look at the article - oh look how generous they are with these great new limits. So much opportunity. The reality is - very few of the sports sponsored by schools will be funded to these limits. Schools will be forced to tier their sports, ration their money. They're the bad guys here - not the NCAA.
When you have Professional women sports teams openly complaining about how they do not receive the same money as the immensely more popular and profitable professional ball sports, there is NO way the colleges will not give the women the same $$.
Those girls will go nuts and the media will go crazy talking about unfair it is that the 5th girl on the golf team isnt given the same money as the QB that fills a 100,000 seat stadium.
You guys are deluded if you think our current collegiate system stays even 20% similar to how it functions now.
A kid with a VR set in the next year will be able to be tutored by Aristotle, walk around ancient civilizations, and be taught specifically to his or her needs. Useful stem will persist for a few more years—but for the most part, that's gone too. What then does college offer? Merely a hang-out club of the upper and upper-middle kids. This won't be enough.
And you guys are hung up on little things like athletic programs—this is all gone very soon.
nobody about to be gettin tutored by the great Aristotle my guy
Also just as an aside - think of the (I hate to say it) brilliance of what they did here. The NCAA and the conference commissioners - both of whom are completely complicit in creating the scenarios that led to this (just let people make $, conf realignment, etc) have just made each school the bad guy. Look at the article - oh look how generous they are with these great new limits. So much opportunity. The reality is - very few of the sports sponsored by schools will be funded to these limits. Schools will be forced to tier their sports, ration their money. They're the bad guys here - not the NCAA.
You nailed it. Anything other than providing scholarships up to the cap will be blamed on the schools.
And the whole narrative that MORE scholarships will now be available... maybe. But also maybe there will be 20 more for football, the same for women, and 20 fewer for other men's teams.
As for tiered teams; We will see some schools run teams like club-level and others like semi-pro teams. Why put ten scholarships here and another ten there if you can put twenty in one sport and try to win an NCAA title?
Excellence in one sport will trump being decent in several, I bet.
I think part of the deal should be that every school must make public the number of scholarship equivalencies per sport, per gender.
This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted.
P5 programs are now capped at 17 distance runners. Unless there’s a provision for keeping current athletes until graduation, there’s going to be a purge of distance runners from top teams very soon.
I believe that scholarship athletes will be allowed to remain their 4 years. As far as distance, NAU could have 17 XC runners and a bunch more distance runners in track.
105 will be the new limit. 125 is the current limit.
85 is the current scholarship limit. It will be 105 roster cap, and the schools that can will scholarship all 105.
Larger roster men’s Olympic sports are in deep trouble, other than baseball. Soccer, lacrosse, swimming and track (and its natural companion cross country) are on the chopping block.
Yet you didn't mention golf. Why not?
Golf will never go away. School Presidents can brag about their top golfers being on TV EVERY weekend. Golf is the best advertising sport in NCAA.
I believe that scholarship athletes will be allowed to remain their 4 years. As far as distance, NAU could have 17 XC runners and a bunch more distance runners in track.
Funded by whom? Oh yeah, ur right NAU football makes such a surplus.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.
