I am guessing this has to do with football numbers?
In the 2022-23 reporting year, New Mexico had in the fullt-time undergraduate population:
Men 5,034
Women 6,880 (57.7%)
Athletes:
Men 269
Women 276 (50.6%)
Yeah, that'l be tough. I've seen women's xc (as well as rowing - some schools put out tryouts "anyone interested in women's rowing come out; no experience needed") used as title IX padding, especially because a female distance athlete counts 3 times. It's also a cheap sport.
I think title IX should be reevaluated but there's no way around it, and I don't think even Trump would try to undo the proportionality aspect of it (and obviously Kamala wouldn't).
they were in fact being paid a fair price, and very likely they were being paid more than a fair price (since they would have done it for nothing... just like 99% of all mid-distance & distance runners do today)
Sounds like you may not understand some of fundamental economics at play here
Yeah, by that logic, nobody could ever be victimized by price fixing unless they opt out of the market entirely. That's not how antitrust works.
The market price is where supply and demand curves intersect, but most sellers would actually be willing to sell for less, and most buyers would actually be willing to pay more. What constrains each side of the market is the other participants; e.g., raising your price in a competitive market means you will lose all sales. But if you get together with all other sellers and agree to raise prices together, you sell a bit less--because some small number of people will no longer find it worth it to pay the higher price--but you make a lot more because the majority of people are still willing to pay the price. They may have engaged in a voluntary transaction that benefitted them, but they did so at an artificially inflated price that was only possible because of the sellers' illegal agreement.
It isn't a defense to price fixing to say that you fixed a fair price and that people were okay with it. It's always criminal because there is never a legitimate reason to do it.
Setting aside the misunderstanding of basic economics, the assertion that things were different 100 years ago (or 70 or whatever) is demonstrably false. The briefs in Alston cover a lot of this history. College sports was a big business with a lot of money at stake from the very beginning. One of the chief purposes of the NCAA was to ensure that athletes didn't get the money that they would easily have obtained if there had been a free market for their labor.
the point, entirely missed by you is that, back then, they were not victimized... they were in fact being paid a fair price, and very likely they were being paid more than a fair price (since they would have done it for nothing... just like 99% of all mid-distance & distance runners do today)
trying to put today's standards on something that happened a 100 of years ago makes little sense in this case. things change.
Sounds like you may not understand some of fundamental economics at play here but maybe you can convince me otherwise. What is your rationale for claiming that football players back then were being paid a fair price? Help me understand why you think that.
Someone isn't understanding, that's for sure. The rational is right there in front of you.
But I guess you are right. And by your rational Azusa Pacific University should be paying all of the runners who participate in Bryan Clay Invite because they are making so much money on that event and without the participants (who race for free because they want to) they wouldn't be making anything. (not only that but they make their student athletes work the meet for free)
Sounds like you may not understand some of fundamental economics at play here
Yeah, by that logic, nobody could ever be victimized by price fixing unless they opt out of the market entirely. That's not how antitrust works.
The market price is where supply and demand curves intersect, but most sellers would actually be willing to sell for less, and most buyers would actually be willing to pay more. What constrains each side of the market is the other participants; e.g., raising your price in a competitive market means you will lose all sales. But if you get together with all other sellers and agree to raise prices together, you sell a bit less--because some small number of people will no longer find it worth it to pay the higher price--but you make a lot more because the majority of people are still willing to pay the price. They may have engaged in a voluntary transaction that benefitted them, but they did so at an artificially inflated price that was only possible because of the sellers' illegal agreement.
It isn't a defense to price fixing to say that you fixed a fair price and that people were okay with it. It's always criminal because there is never a legitimate reason to do it.
Setting aside the misunderstanding of basic economics, the assertion that things were different 100 years ago (or 70 or whatever) is demonstrably false. The briefs in Alston cover a lot of this history. College sports was a big business with a lot of money at stake from the very beginning. One of the chief purposes of the NCAA was to ensure that athletes didn't get the money that they would easily have obtained if there had been a free market for their labor.
I guess you are right.
By your rational Azusa Pacific University should be paying all of the runners who participate in Bryan Clay Invite because they are making so much money on that event and without the participants (who race for free because they want to) they wouldn't be making anything. (not only that but they make their student athletes work the meet for free)
I wonder if the athletes fighting for this are aware of the effects it's going to have on college sports? I'm all for athletes getting paid and I think a lot of my coworkers are too but even at the top level of college sports we truly do not have the money to spend more. I work at a major school and we're swimming in debt with no end in sight.
I can't imagine they aren't acutely aware. I work with a guy who was a very competitive D1 swimmer. Grant House is the swimmer who is suing the NCAA. He stands to make 2% of the total settlement as a primary plaintiff which amounts to 92 million. Swimmers aren't really entitled to much money as they are a non-revenue generating sport and they won't garner much interest in their name and likeness. As this suit is likely to, at a minimum heavily alter, or more likely destroy Olympic sports much of the field of swimming is pretty pissed at Grant House.
I wonder if the athletes fighting for this are aware of the effects it's going to have on college sports? I'm all for athletes getting paid and I think a lot of my coworkers are too but even at the top level of college sports we truly do not have the money to spend more. I work at a major school and we're swimming in debt with no end in sight.
I can't imagine they aren't acutely aware. I work with a guy who was a very competitive D1 swimmer. Grant House is the swimmer who is suing the NCAA. He stands to make 2% of the total settlement as a primary plaintiff which amounts to 92 million. Swimmers aren't really entitled to much money as they are a non-revenue generating sport and they won't garner much interest in their name and likeness. As this suit is likely to, at a minimum heavily alter, or more likely destroy Olympic sports much of the field of swimming is pretty pissed at Grant House.
This is laughably wrong. You're off by a factor of 920. I'm guessing you can figure out which direction... It's a class action. All of this information is readily available online.
Sounds like you may not understand some of fundamental economics at play here but maybe you can convince me otherwise. What is your rationale for claiming that football players back then were being paid a fair price? Help me understand why you think that.
Someone isn't understanding, that's for sure. The rational is right there in front of you.
But I guess you are right. And by your rational Azusa Pacific University should be paying all of the runners who participate in Bryan Clay Invite because they are making so much money on that event and without the participants (who race for free because they want to) they wouldn't be making anything. (not only that but they make their student athletes work the meet for free)
Don't strawman me. I'm talking about power conference football and you're bringing up DII track? None of this applies outside DI, let alone outside the power conferences.
I'm still yet to see you make a convincing argument for anything...
Also making athletes staff meets for free is likely illegal but that's an entirely different conversation.
Someone isn't understanding, that's for sure. The rational is right there in front of you.
But I guess you are right. And by your rational Azusa Pacific University should be paying all of the runners who participate in Bryan Clay Invite because they are making so much money on that event and without the participants (who race for free because they want to) they wouldn't be making anything. (not only that but they make their student athletes work the meet for free)
Don't strawman me. I'm talking about power conference football and you're bringing up DII track? None of this applies outside DI, let alone outside the power conferences.
I'm still yet to see you make a convincing argument for anything...
Also making athletes staff meets for free is likely illegal but that's an entirely different conversation.
You just don't understand the discussion. 70/100 years ago there were no power conferences ... football was played for fun and the competition. none of the players were thinking 100 years from now we will all be being ripped off. (just like all the distance runners of today... it aint a strawman it's trying to get you to see the point... which you simple don't want to see)
And btw, Bryan Clay is a top D1/elite meet... just because a D2 school runs it has nothing to do with it.
these darn capitalists are making money off these poor student athletes who should be justly compensated... right? same same only bigger dollars makes you think you are right.
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.