end of D1 world as we know it?

So if I understand this correctly:

If you are in a non revenue generating sport (i.e. A sport that nobody cares about and where it is, by definition, tougher to get a sponsor), you are free to find a sponsor, but will not receive a scholarship.

However, if you are in a revenue producing sport (i.e. A sport that people care about and where it would be easier to get a sponsor, even if you are only ranked 50th in the nation) you are not free to get a sponsor, but will be eligible for scholarships...

Makes sense to me...

I see how this is geared to help the student/athlete (not)...

Gbughhunhubhu wrote:

So if I understand this correctly:

If you are in a non revenue generating sport (i.e. A sport that nobody cares about and where it is, by definition, tougher to get a sponsor), you are free to find a sponsor, but will not receive a scholarship.

However, if you are in a revenue producing sport (i.e. A sport that people care about and where it would be easier to get a sponsor, even if you are only ranked 50th in the nation) you are not free to get a sponsor, but will be eligible for scholarships...

Makes sense to me...

I see how this is geared to help the student/athlete (not)...

Some of those sports that aren't money makers for their host institutions help develop US Olympic athletes in sports that are absolutely revenue generators for Nike, Speedo, Arena, Nissen...

Accordingly, some number of athletes in college sports such as T&F/XC, swimming, Men's gymnastics + probably some others would have a shot at getting endorsement money while in college if they could receive that money and remain eligible.

Also, those potential sponsors REALLY want there to be some number of top-tier US athletes competing at the Olympics in their respective sports and would almost certainly find it cheaper to help them develop in some form of college system than to have to fully fund a fully college independent post-HS club system.

Someone please post football teams that were in the black in 2013

The Power 5 will be a 64 team 'super-conference' with a 24 hr TV station to cover all of their sports. They will have a National Championship of their own in more sports than just the ones that supposedly make money. NCAA will manage the schools that want to continue with the Title IX silliness. The Power 5 interpretation of Title IX will be significantly different than the NCAAs version of Title IX. With any luck, it will go away completely. Even if it means zero scholarships for non-rev sports. That would be better than seeing a bunch of half-interested girls getting full rides.

This is a case of the NCAA bullying the money makers for too long and pushing Title IX crap and their other stupid rules around. I'm glad the change is happening. I look forward to a new set of athlete rules to live by. Hopefully without the oversight of overpaid NCAA Officials making self-serving decisions.

I don't necessarily disagree with anything you're saying, but I'm not sure I 100% agree with it either.

Related claim: there's a meaningful chance - something on the order of 10-20% - that within the next five years a successful class-action lawsuit will be brought against colleges/universities that offer football based on their knowingly endangering students who suffered irreversible harm from repeated head trauma. [I think colleges/universities are at greater immediate risk than high schools because they have deeper pockets as a group and at greater risk than then NFL because their are so many more potential plaintiffs.] If that happens, I think college football will die. And if college football dies, I think American football will die. [loss of only major feeder system to the NFL, significant increase in financial risk to high schools offering the sport, significant loss of incentive for HS athletes to play the sport.]

The above may reflect some wishful thinking on my part, but I wanted to put it out there.

p.s. I grew up in Columbus, OH in the late 60s + thru the 70s and have been a football fan in some sense since I was 6 years old,but I'm increasingly convinced that the sport has a bad effect on this great land of ours, and I'm finding it less and less enjoyable with each passing year. Of course, maybe I'd feel differently right now if Braxton Miller weren't done for the year and Ohio State had looked better against VA Tech...

SFH has pioneered the new sponsorship model.

dkny64 wrote:[/...

Accordingly, some number of athletes in college sports such as T&F/XC, swimming, Men\'s gymnastics + probably some others would have a shot at getting endorsement money while in college if they could receive that money and remain eligible.

....

I\'m not afraid for Cain and the likes (the very top).

Outside if the top 10 however, there will be very little. Not enough to pay for tuition...

You need the depth in track, swimming... Without that, there really isn\'t a sport...

This rule is not there to help the athletes, but to help the schools.

You surely realize that the NCAA is not the body in charge of title IX. It's called a federal law and is enforced by the federal govt.

1/10 for ridiculous trolling

akornfv897g wrote:

Once the box is truly open, it won't be long until the Pro sports teams decide to create minor leagues and take every cent away from the schools.

The schools are bad at getting money from their states, the pro teams are good at it. It will be like taking candy from a baby.

Dude you have that COMPLETELY backwards! They have a FREE minor league now. NO way the NBA or NFL attempt to do what baseball and hockey have always done.

If you have time; please read the Chronicle article and the readers' comments.

One comment discussed a woman swimmer that graduated from U. of Southern California in 2012.

She made $365,000 in prize money in her first year out of college.(you wonder if she even donated 5% back to USC)

She made this money as a member of the Hungary National team and she has won numerous medals at the World Cup level!

You have to wonder if it right; for USC to spend $200,000 on her scholarship, so they could further developed a World Class swimmer for Hungary.

Granted, she holds 5 USC records and obviously scored a tremendous amount of points at NCAA Nationals for USC over the years.

This is the type of situation that will help the power Football schools eliminate non-revenue scholarships !!!

all thanks to greedy football and basketball players who can barely read, and don't realize the value of their free "educashun"

Good points, Avid and Tyrone.

[quote]Goodbye to Title IX wrote:

The Power 5 will be a 64 team 'super-conference' with a 24 hr TV station to cover all of their sports. They will have a National Championship of their own in more sports than just the ones that supposedly make money. NCAA will manage the schools that want to continue with the Title IX silliness. The Power 5 interpretation of Title IX will be significantly different than the NCAAs version of Title IX. With any luck, it will go away completely. Even if it means zero scholarships for non-rev sports. That would be better than seeing a bunch of half-interested girls getting full rides.]

Title IX is a federal law, it's not an NCAA rule, so the only way the big schools can avoid Title IX is to not offer grants in aid to men. Even then it would be sketchy whether they could go to court and "win" the ability to cut women's sports.

Title IX is a federal law, it's not an NCAA rule, so the only way the big schools can avoid Title IX is to not offer grants in aid to men. Even then it would be sketchy whether they could go to court and "win" the ability to cut women's sports.[/quote]

Does Title IX still apply if schools drop the amateur act, and rightly claim that football and basketball (as well as some non revenue) athletes are minor league professionals?

I don't think the Big 5 are that far away from trying to break away from educational scholarships, and move towards performance based minor league contracts.

I'm not saying this is right, just that Title IX is an educational law. If we cease to view college sports as an educational, but rather as a professional venture, then institutions will pay players based on demand and earning potential, like other sports leagues, and not because of federal law. If this were the case schools would pay players only so much as is profitable for them.

Big Sky wrote:

Title IX is a federal law, it's not an NCAA rule, so the only way the big schools can avoid Title IX is to not offer grants in aid to men. Even then it would be sketchy whether they could go to court and "win" the ability to cut women's sports.

Does Title IX still apply if schools drop the amateur act, and rightly claim that football and basketball (as well as some non revenue) athletes are minor league professionals?

I don't think the Big 5 are that far away from trying to break away from educational scholarships, and move towards performance based minor league contracts.

I'm not saying this is right, just that Title IX is an educational law. If we cease to view college sports as an educational, but rather as a professional venture, then institutions will pay players based on demand and earning potential, like other sports leagues, and not because of federal law. If this were the case schools would pay players only so much as is profitable for them.[/quote]

The question will be whether the college is allowing male athletes greater opportunity to market themselves by being associated with the school.

I think it's a stretch, but that's what the title ix attorneys would argue, even if the schools dont give fball scholarships and allow the guys to market themselves.

The answer will depend on how much of an advocate they find in the courts.

Tyrone Jenkins de la Compton wrote:

all thanks to greedy football and basketball players who can barely read, and don't realize the value of their free "educashun"

A foolish post on soooo many levels.

1. Their college is not free. They work for what they get. They spend all summer, every break, and all season performing, traveling, etc.. for no pay other than tuition. To make it easier for you to understand: I'll give you a FREE dinner at my house..... but you have to mow my grass first.

2. The schools are signing TV deals worth BILLIONS and doing nothing more but allowing these kids to attend their schools. They are out NOTHING. The classes, professors, etc.. are a sunk cost. The players are free easily replaceable labor.

3. It's not greedy to want to get paid what your skills demand in the market place.

DenaliLama wrote:

Tyrone Jenkins de la Compton wrote:

all thanks to greedy football and basketball players who can barely read, and don't realize the value of their free "educashun"

A foolish post on soooo many levels.

1. Their college is not free. They work for what they get. They spend all summer, every break, and all season performing, traveling, etc.. for no pay other than tuition. To make it easier for you to understand: I'll give you a FREE dinner at my house..... but you have to mow my grass first.

2. The schools are signing TV deals worth BILLIONS and doing nothing more but allowing these kids to attend their schools. They are out NOTHING. The classes, professors, etc.. are a sunk cost. The players are free easily replaceable labor.

3. It's not greedy to want to get paid what your skills demand in the market place.

well put.

Meanwhile, for a bit more on that potential class-action-law-suit freight train headed toward the D1 football treasure chest, see

.

I believe that if CTE can be diagnosed in living former football players, then the death of college football will follow in short order [3-5 years] because the potential liability will be massive.

Interesting that this research is going on at BU, which doesn't compete in football. Then again, they do compete in ice hockey...

Does anybody REALLY think you are getting meaningful information about athletics in the Chronicle of Higher Education?

My understanding of the plans for cash grants replacing scholarships is that these are how they plan to get rid of Title IX restrictions. Title IX applies only to programs at institutions receiving Federal funds, meaning every college and high school, including private schools like USC receiving research grants. Teams expect to avoid this by cutting the financial cord with educational institutions. Teams become independent, using only facilities at the institutions (and paying for use of them like an NFL team would), and scholarships and stipends become cash grants that can be used to pay for education...or not.

NCAA institutions get (or will get) $billions from TV rights and can afford some really sharp lawyers to set everything up right. They know that they will be forced to share the pot with athletes now and administrators won't be able to keep all the money for themsleves, so they are going to look for ways to cut costs.

I don't think they're really trying to shoot themselves in the foot or kill the golden egg (football).

You're on a faulty premise. The vast majority of schools' football teams do not net money. Ditto basketball and every other sport. So by the "free market" reasoning, the only kids who deserve to get paid are those at the very biggest schools that make money, all but 5-10 football programs should charge tuition from the players.

Heck in most cases nonrevenue sports are far less costly to the school, so they should be getting paid more.

As for point 3: If you look at average salaries in the minor leagues, and the value of a free education, housing, food, tutors, and the college experience, the vast majority of (say) D1 football players on a scholarship are getting paid more than their market value.

How can this be? Because the university adds lots of value too. Loyal fans, donors, etc. So the university does deserve a big slice of the pie.