# Athletes vs NCAA



## espola (Jun 21, 2021)

Has anyone figured out yet what the impact of the 9-0 (!!!) SCOTUS ruling will be?  

Will we return to the days of unlimited auctions for players that brought about the formation of the NCAA in the first place?

How much beyond the current "cost of attendance" will be allowed?

Looking in a different direction, will this mean the end of scholarship-count limits for sports like soccer?


----------



## Dubs (Jun 21, 2021)

espola said:


> Has anyone figured out yet what the impact of the 9-0 (!!!) SCOTUS ruling will be?
> 
> Will we return to the days of unlimited auctions for players that brought about the formation of the NCAA in the first place?
> 
> ...


All unknown.  From what I read, it just looks like the payments (whatever they may be) are supposed to be directed to "Education" related costs.  I'm sure that can be twisted and turned anyway you like.


----------



## MacDre (Jun 21, 2021)

Top college athletes should get a sexy internship that pays between 350-500k annually.

Plus tuition and living expenses for undergrad and grad school.

Maybe top athletes could get some endorsement money too.

I think sports like soccer will see less scholarships under the new rules because there’s going to be less funding because more money will go to top athletes in revenue generating sports.


----------



## outside! (Jun 21, 2021)

MacDre said:


> Top college athletes should get a sexy internship that pays between 350-500k annually.
> 
> Plus tuition and living expenses for undergrad and grad school.
> 
> ...


What about Title IX?


----------



## espola (Jun 21, 2021)

Dubs said:


> All unknown.  From what I read, it just looks like the payments (whatever they may be) are supposed to be directed to "Education" related costs.  I'm sure that can be twisted and turned anyway you like.


I haven't read the actual SCOTUS text yet, but the news reports mentioned adding "computers" to the allowed educational expenses.  Maybe that can be twisted into the latest i-phone every year.


----------



## MacDre (Jun 21, 2021)

outside! said:


> What about Title IX?


Competing social policies.  Equal access to sports by women vs what appears to be the exploitation of black athletes primarily, and some antitrust stuff.

I only skimmed a few articles, but I think expert testimony supported the value of services for all D1 football at 350 k average per player  and 500k average per player for basketball.  To me this suggest it would be easy to challenge anything less than the above as unreasonable based on the strength of the Supreme Court ruling.

This is a clear redistribution of resources.


----------



## espola (Jun 21, 2021)

OPinion text here --



			https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-512_gfbh.pdf


----------



## espola (Jun 21, 2021)

outside! said:


> What about Title IX?


Title IX is not just about sports, but sports seems to be the only facet that gets any public attention.


----------



## MacDre (Jun 21, 2021)

I also think it would be reasonable to give a top 10% quality athlete a 2 million dollar per year internship as a coach since some coaches make more than 10 million annually.


----------



## dad4 (Jun 21, 2021)

MacDre said:


> Top college athletes should get a sexy internship that pays between 350-500k annually.
> 
> Plus tuition and living expenses for undergrad and grad school.
> 
> ...


How does that work with title IX?

When schools start offering half million dollar "educational" packages, do they have to match it dollar for dollar on the women's side?

If so, men's soccer will get hammered, but women's may do just fine.


----------



## MacDre (Jun 21, 2021)

Great 


dad4 said:


> How does that work with title IX?
> 
> When schools start offering half million dollar "educational" packages, do they have to match it dollar for dollar on the women's side?
> 
> If so, men's soccer will get hammered, but women's may do just fine.


Great question.  We are in new territory here.  Lawyers always talk about the objective reasonble person standard so I don’t think female athletes will get what football and basketball players get dollar for dollar because their services have a lower market value.  but I think the female soccer players will get equal in a sense that they will be entitled to and internship  similar to football and basketball players where they can earn what is determined to be fair market value for their services.

we know that there’s a strong social policy to support women in sports and to stop the exploitation of collegiate athletes.

I think coaches and administrators are gonna be the biggest losers here because there’s no social policy to protect their astronomical salaries.

Boys have MLS academies so maybe they’ll be okay.


----------



## vegasguy (Jun 21, 2021)

MacDre said:


> Great
> 
> Great question.  We are in new territory here.  Lawyers always talk about the objective reasonble person standard so I don’t think female athletes will get what football and basketball players get dollar for dollar because their services have a lower market value.  but I think the female soccer players will get equal in a sense that they will be entitled to and internship  similar to football and basketball players where they can earn what is determined to be fair market value for their services.
> 
> ...


Title IX swings both ways a bit so this will hurt smaller programs at D1 and D2 levels for sure.   Especially, those that do not generate revenue.  Expect a D1 program whose football team pays for the men's soccer program and the women's soccer program to not pay those athletes as the reduce other revenues.  This decision will mostly have an affect on Men's Basketball and Football players in D1.   The decision also address compensation for academics and not payment outside of that.  So you now may be talking about additional moneys toward laptops, food, off campus housing and transportation.  It does not address some of the other issues but does sit blindly on additional compensation challenges. 
Additionally, remember there is creative accounting to show losses so their now needs to be more audits.  Alabama charges a fee to the football program for usage of libraries for tutoring but does not charge that fee to the women's soccer team.  This does not end today but is just a notch to move forward.  
This does not address compensation for likeness (Ed O'Bannon rule) either I believe.


----------



## espola (Jun 21, 2021)

dad4 said:


> How does that work with title IX?
> 
> When schools start offering half million dollar "educational" packages, do they have to match it dollar for dollar on the women's side?
> 
> If so, men's soccer will get hammered, but women's may do just fine.


Soccer is a cheap sport, and it is easy to restore Title IX balance to it by increasing the scholarships on the men's side either by headcount or equivalency.  The ones at risk, to me, are the expensive sports like ice hockey.  

The elephant in the room is college football.  It is impossible to come up with a Title IX balance for that.  Some schools try with field hockey and the unbalance scholarship cunts in other sports such as soccer, but it's not really equal in any sense.


----------



## vegasguy (Jun 21, 2021)

espola said:


> Soccer is a cheap sport, and it is easy to restore Title IX balance to it by increasing the scholarships on the men's side either by headcount or equivalency.  The ones at risk, to me, are the expensive sports like ice hockey.
> 
> The elephant in the room is college football.  It is impossible to come up with a Title IX balance for that.  Some schools try with field hockey and the unbalance scholarship cunts in other sports such as soccer, but it's not really equal in any sense.
> [/QUO
> ...


----------



## espola (Jun 21, 2021)

What I think is the relevant clause in the opinion -- 

_This relief focuses on allowing schools to offer scholarships for “graduate degrees” or “vocational school” and to pay for things like “computers” and “tutoring.”
_
Nothing else changes.  Or did I get that wrong?


----------



## dad4 (Jun 21, 2021)

espola said:


> What I think is the relevant clause in the opinion --
> 
> _This relief focuses on allowing schools to offer scholarships for “graduate degrees” or “vocational school” and to pay for things like “computers” and “tutoring.”
> _
> Nothing else changes.  Or did I get that wrong?


The school can now offer scholarships which last beyond eligibility.  Play 4 years for us, take 6 to graduate.  

It is a better deal for a kid whose first 2 years really ought to be remedial.  It gives them a safety net if they don't get that pro deal.


----------



## espola (Jun 21, 2021)

dad4 said:


> The school can now offer scholarships which last beyond eligibility.  Play 4 years for us, take 6 to graduate.
> 
> It is a better deal for a kid whose first 2 years really ought to be remedial.  It gives them a safety net if they don't get that pro deal.


My son took 2 extra quarters to graduate.  During that time, he had a part-time hourly job in the athletic department that on average paid better than his scholarship.


----------



## Kante (Jun 21, 2021)

MacDre said:


> Great
> 
> Great question.  We are in new territory here.  Lawyers always talk about the objective reasonble person standard so I don’t think female athletes will get what football and basketball players get dollar for dollar because their services have a lower market value.  but I think the female soccer players will get equal in a sense that they will be entitled to and internship  similar to football and basketball players where they can earn what is determined to be fair market value for their services.
> 
> ...


would think the Scotus ruling is a windfall for women's sports due to Title IX and that the ruling opens the door (and rightly so) to paying college athletes a bit closer to their market worth, which is way more than just tuition, books and living expenses.


----------



## vegasguy (Jun 22, 2021)

Kante said:


> would think the Scotus ruling is a windfall for women's sports due to Title IX and that the ruling opens the door (and rightly so) to paying college athletes a bit closer to their market worth, which is way more than just tuition, books and living expenses.


 It will reduce many programs on the mens side.  It will also cut certain the outlier women's programs so the football and mens basketball programs can support the additional scholarship offerings.  It will help certain women's programs like basketball softball and volleyball and most likely soccer but the yang are programs like tennis, water polo,, and cross country could be cut depending on the numbers.  Who could thrive from this is D3 schools and their programs because it may be the only alternative for some men's sports.  That is my take on this.


----------



## MacDre (Jun 22, 2021)

Kante said:


> would think the Scotus ruling is a windfall for women's sports due to Title IX and that the ruling opens the door (and rightly so) to paying college athletes a bit closer to their market worth, which is way more than just tuition, books and living expenses.


This is also very STRONG law if you look at the evolution of the case.  The District Court, Appellate, and SCOTUS were all on the same page on this one.  I don’t think I have ever read a case where the SCOTUS unanimously agreed with the liberal 9th circuit.

I saw in the NCAA press release how they were trying to talk tuff about still having discretion without acknowledging that the exercise of their discretion has to be objectively reasonable.

Looks like the NCAA will need to get “molywopped” in court a few more times before they get the message.


----------



## eastbaysoccer (Jun 22, 2021)

1) athletes should have the right to transfer at any time just like these millionaire coaches can leave any damn time they want.
2) health insurance for every D1 student post graduation.  1 year post for non revenue generating sports.  2 years for revenue generating sports.


----------



## outside! (Jun 22, 2021)

eastbaysoccer said:


> 1) athletes should have the right to transfer at any time just like these millionaire coaches can leave any damn time they want.
> 2) health insurance for every D1 student post graduation.  1 year post for non revenue generating sports.  2 years for revenue generating sports.


I agree, but why should non-revenue generating sports get less health care? That would also violate Title IX.


----------



## vegasguy (Jun 22, 2021)

MacDre said:


> This is also very STRONG law if you look at the evolution of the case.  The District Court, Appellate, and SCOTUS were all on the same page on this one.  I don’t think I have ever read a case where the SCOTUS unanimously agreed with the liberal 9th circuit.
> 
> I saw in the NCAA press release how they were trying to talk tuff about still having discretion without acknowledging that the exercise of their discretion has to be objectively reasonable.
> 
> Looks like the NCAA will need to get “molywopped” in court a few more times before they get the message.


First, NCAA is almost a monopoly.  They do need to be reigned in.   I agree that athletes in revenue generating sports are undercompensated for their skills but, there is going to be issues if universities are allowed to pay players. What does the five star athlete get v a three star athlete.  What is five star is a flame out and the three star is a stud.   Is there in inclining and declining scale?   What about women's sports and Title IX.  What about the non revenue mens sports.  I agree with SCOTUS that laptops, grad school, food, possible transportation could be included but there has to be a limit or cap set somewhere.  College athletics should still be based on education.  The term student athlete should still exist.  

@MacDre I thought your daughter was straight to Pros?  Isn't US Soccer v NWSL more important?   just a look back.  Still have respect for Richmond but Oakland is still cooler..


----------



## eastbaysoccer (Jun 22, 2021)

outside! said:


> I agree, but why should non-revenue generating sports get less health care? That would also violate Title IX.


would it be a violation if the payments were after graduation?  While in school yes for sure.  

it's ridiculous these coaches make 5 million a year.  4 million of that could pay a student 333 students 1000 per month for a year!  600+ students 500 per month and so on.


----------



## espola (Jun 22, 2021)

eastbaysoccer said:


> 1) athletes should have the right to transfer at any time just like these millionaire coaches can leave any damn time they want.
> 2) health insurance for every D1 student post graduation.  1 year post for non revenue generating sports.  2 years for revenue generating sports.


In a limited way, they do.  NCAA has a post-concussion program in which any student-athlete who suffered a concussion in his/her sport can et a free checkup and some sort of support up to 50 years after graduation.

I may have some of the details wrong.  I heard about this from an email to my son who graduated way back in 2015.


----------



## MacDre (Jun 22, 2021)

vegasguy said:


> First, NCAA is almost a monopoly.  They do need to be reigned in.   I agree that athletes in revenue generating sports are undercompensated for their skills but, there is going to be issues if universities are allowed to pay players. What does the five star athlete get v a three star athlete.  What is five star is a flame out and the three star is a stud.   Is there in inclining and declining scale?   What about women's sports and Title IX.  What about the non revenue mens sports.  I agree with SCOTUS that laptops, grad school, food, possible transportation could be included but there has to be a limit or cap set somewhere.  College athletics should still be based on education.  The term student athlete should still exist.
> 
> @MacDre I thought your daughter was straight to Pros?  Isn't US Soccer v NWSL more important?   just a look back.  Still have respect for Richmond but Oakland is still cooler..


The SCOTUS finessed this decision because athletes can now get paid through educational on the job training type internships.  When I was in law school BIGLAW paid law clerks the same as their junior associates which was about $2,500 per week.  
So, if I had a son that was an all star football recruit, I’d argue that a 2 million dollar per year coaching apprenticeship is reasonable because assistant coaches at Alabama are making more than 2 million annually and the head coach is making more than 10 million annually.

I’d imagine it would be reasonable to negotiate the length of the internships.  Maybe even create some type of free agency for athletes where “ you know what talks and you know what walks.”

All of my cousins live in Oakland and Berkeley.  All of those sissies were too scared to come to Richmond and hang out with me so I spent most of my time at my aunts house in deep East Oakland or my other aunts house on the N Oakland/Berkeley border.  I have agree, the Town is cooler.   Town Bizz!

I have no idea what my kid is gonna do because the options keep changing.


----------



## oh canada (Jun 23, 2021)

Love the optimism on this thread, but since we are soccer parents primarily, this ruling is not good for our crew.

Biggest beneficiaries will be top level football players.  To a lesser extent, top men's basketball players.  Everyone else, more negative than positive.

NCAA will lose its stronghold.  Top football schools will opt out of the NCAA league and form their own.  No NCAA rules, no Title 9 requirements.  A lot of $ to be made that can go to paying football players.  Schools not in the Top 30 football teams will remain in NCAA but eliminate football programs.  Too costly.  Eliminate football's 80 scholarships and don't need those for Title 9 compliance.  All olympic sports will take a huge cut - track, volleyball, and yes, soccer.  If programs are not cut, scholarships for olympic sports will be reduced.

EVERY sport on campus is funded by football (and to a lesser extent basketball).  If football players are going to take a much bigger share of their pie, either the federal government will need to fund the difference at all schools across the country (not happening) or BIG cuts will need to be made.  There's just no other option.


----------



## dad4 (Jun 23, 2021)

oh canada said:


> Love the optimism on this thread, but since we are soccer parents primarily, this ruling is not good for our crew.
> 
> Biggest beneficiaries will be top level football players.  To a lesser extent, top men's basketball players.  Everyone else, more negative than positive.
> 
> ...


How does opting out of NCAA mean no Title IX?  Title 9 is a federal law, not an NCAA rule.  You don’t get out that easy.

As long as they are educational institutions which receive federal funding, title IX applies.  What school is going to give up student loan support, Pell Grants, and NSF funding?  You’d lose your entire science division in 3 years.


----------



## SoccerFan4Life (Jun 23, 2021)

Here’s my take.  Colleges will not be happy to give up profits to athletes. 
1. Top athletes will get paid more but they will end up deducting tuition/room fees of $200k for a D1 school
2. Top athletes  will make tons of money with commercial endorsements
3. This will kill scholarships to most of the smaller sports
4. Expect smaller rosters for most sports
5. Another lawsuit will come out where 97% of the student population (publicly funded universities) will complain that schools are creating a special tier of students (elite  paid athletes)  and public funds shouldn’t be used to benefit them.


----------



## espola (Jun 23, 2021)

oh canada said:


> Love the optimism on this thread, but since we are soccer parents primarily, this ruling is not good for our crew.
> 
> Biggest beneficiaries will be top level football players.  To a lesser extent, top men's basketball players.  Everyone else, more negative than positive.
> 
> ...


The Power 5 and FBS members have already broken away from NCAA restrictions to a degree, but I don't know why they would want to leave.  The uneven voting system puts them pretty much in charge of the NCAA anyway.

As for Title IX, it's not the NCAA that enforces that, and there is nothing in this SCOTUS opinion that has any impact on it.


----------



## espola (Jun 23, 2021)

SoccerFan4Life said:


> Here’s my take.  Colleges will not be happy to give up profits to athletes.
> 1. Top athletes will get paid more but they will end up deducting tuition/room fees of $200k for a D1 school
> 2. Top athletes  will make tons of money with commercial endorsements
> 3. This will kill scholarships to most of the smaller sports
> ...


Commercial endorsements paid to individual student-athletes should have no impact on any school, since the money is coming from outside advertisers.


----------



## vegasguy (Jun 23, 2021)

MacDre said:


> The SCOTUS finessed this decision because athletes can now get paid through educational on the job training type internships.  When I was in law school BIGLAW paid law clerks the same as their junior associates which was about $2,500 per week.
> So, if I had a son that was an all star football recruit, I’d argue that a 2 million dollar per year coaching apprenticeship is reasonable because assistant coaches at Alabama are making more than 2 million annually and the head coach is making more than 10 million annually.
> 
> I’d imagine it would be reasonable to negotiate the length of the internships.  Maybe even create some type of free agency for athletes where “ you know what talks and you know what walks.”
> ...





MacDre said:


> The SCOTUS finessed this decision because athletes can now get paid through educational on the job training type internships.  When I was in law school BIGLAW paid law clerks the same as their junior associates which was about $2,500 per week.
> So, if I had a son that was an all star football recruit, I’d argue that a 2 million dollar per year coaching apprenticeship is reasonable because assistant coaches at Alabama are making more than 2 million annually and the head coach is making more than 10 million annually.
> 
> I’d imagine it would be reasonable to negotiate the length of the internships.  Maybe even create some type of free agency for athletes where “ you know what talks and you know what walks.”
> ...


Coaching is not a degree you can get at many colleges..  you could stretch Sports Management but really most elite athletes are General Studies, Criminal Justice or Communications but how do you stretch those into a coaching internship.  Second, how do you intern while you are playing?  Are you getting paid $100K to coach flag football.   Grad Assistants get their schooling so you could argue that.  Maybe you force redshirt for internships but even then you have an issue.     Now if you have external internships from boosters are you now outside the bounds of education and how do you justify that against Title IX.     There is no way a player will make 6figures in internships as a player.   NO WAY.   

Glad to see you have seen the light for your daughter and have adjusted your periphery.   

Roscoe's Chicken and Waffles will always be the best.   I have walked the Richmond Mall and have walked around Lake Merritt after midnight.  Not sure which was less smart.


----------



## vegasguy (Jun 23, 2021)

espola said:


> Commercial endorsements paid to individual student-athletes should have no impact on any school, since the money is coming from outside advertisers.


This is only allowed in certain states and not at all institutions within those states.


----------



## espola (Jun 23, 2021)

vegasguy said:


> This is only allowed in certain states and not at all institutions within those states.


That, too.


----------



## Simisoccerfan (Jun 23, 2021)

You can look up what college soccer coaches get paid at public universities.  Most make under $100k.  AC at UCLA is likely at the top with $200k. Some other UC head coaches make well less than $100k.  Many assistants make $40k or less.  With a max of 14 D1 scholarships and the coaches pay scale there is not a lot of money for women's soccer to start.  Even less for men.  Anything that gives more money to top football or basketball players will ultimately mean less money for soccer coaches and players.  The money has to come from somewhere.


----------



## outside! (Jun 23, 2021)

Simisoccerfan said:


> You can look up what college soccer coaches get paid at public universities.  Most make under $100k.  AC at UCLA is likely at the top with $200k. Some other UC head coaches make well less than $100k.  Many assistants make $40k or less.  With a max of 14 D1 scholarships and the coaches pay scale there is not a lot of money for women's soccer to start.  Even less for men.  Anything that gives more money to top football or basketball players will ultimately mean less money for soccer coaches and players.  The money has to come from somewhere.


Once again, at a publicly funded university, I don't see how they can offer something to male athletes and not female athletes under Title IX.


----------



## SoccerFan4Life (Jun 23, 2021)

outside! said:


> Once again, at a publicly funded university, I don't see how they can offer something to male athletes and not female athletes under Title IX.


 My alma matter CSUF dropped football  back in 1990 because it was too expensive.  They focused on baseball and soccer to some extent.  

I could see private institutions benefiting from these changes. They will have enough loopholes to go after the top athletes without having to follow other rules.

Public institutions could easily cancel football programs if they cannot offer the same benefits to female athletes (Title IX) . 

At what point is it worth paying star athletes so much just to say they have a football program or basketball program.  
Someone is going to suffer for the consequences of lost income to the university.


----------



## crush (Jun 23, 2021)

SoccerFan4Life said:


> My alma matter CSUF dropped football  back in 1990 because it was too expensive.  They focused on baseball and soccer to some extent.
> 
> I could see private institutions benefiting from these changes. They will have enough loopholes to go after the top athletes without having to follow other rules.
> 
> ...


I remember when CSUF got ranked for the first time back in the day in football.  Coach Murphy was a Legend.  Leon Wood put on a show and upset UNLV   Go Titans!


----------



## oh canada (Jun 23, 2021)

dad4 said:


> How does opting out of NCAA mean no Title IX?  Title 9 is a federal law, not an NCAA rule.  You don’t get out that easy.
> 
> As long as they are educational institutions which receive federal funding, title IX applies.  What school is going to give up student loan support, Pell Grants, and NSF funding?  You’d lose your entire science division in 3 years.


If you don't provide 80 football scholarships any longer because your players are being paid outside the NCAA system, you no longer have to offer 80 scholarships on the women's side, so cut the programs.  Likewise, if Fresno State decides to cut football, that will eliminate 80 scholarships on the girls side too.  Men's soccer will take an even bigger hit.  See below...

Suddenly your $5-$10K annual payments to your soccer club is looking like a pipedream for a future payoff.


This is a good summary from the Washington Post:

_Alston _will change everything, slowly at first; but within three years, I fully expect a completely different American sports business landscape. Here are some of the changes I foresee:
The biggest football schools will immediately explore leaving the NCAA altogether and forming a new league that pays players. I believe these discussions have been happening for a long time, but now, they will accelerate. The NCAA FBS football (a.k.a. Division I) includes 130 schools, but the reality is that perhaps only 25 or 30 have the budget and resources to play at the absolute highest level; the rest are schedule-fillers, notwithstanding the rare upset now and then. Alabama, Auburn, Ohio State, Clemson, USC, Michigan, Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma and the like will explore a Super League similar to the effort made by Europe’s top professional soccer clubs this spring. This new Super League of College Football will explore direct salary compensation of players, but probably only if they can get other “special” legislation that no other industry gets, such as exemption from workers’ compensation liability.

Schools that don’t have major football programs will explore eliminating the sport. These schools know big programs don’t care about them, and they also know the majors are looking at programs that require more capital. Deploying a football team is enormously expensive, and the vast majority of non-majors simply shouldn’t be fielding one — if the players aren’t properly trained and equipped, it’s too dangerous. Many universities have ignored this, however, and gone ahead anyway. But _Alston_ is going to supercharge the recruiting wars for talent, and many schools won’t, and shouldn’t, keep up.
U.S. Olympic teams will wind up needing major support from the federal government. College football revenue has driven Olympic success for a long time. The popular U.S. women’s national soccer team? Nearly all of its players were trained by highly paid coaches at top-level facilities at major football-playing schools. Those coaches and facilities were largely paid for with money generated by the efforts of football players.
This dynamic plays out with the U.S. national volleyball team, many American track and field stars, and many other athletes in other disciplines. Football money largely pays for college coaches and top facilities, travel and resources. But if more of that cash goes to paying football players, the subsidies for Olympic sports will slow to a trickle. The federal government will have to make a choice about whether to use taxpayer dollars to fund Olympic sports, as many other countries do.

Enormous battles over Title IX will come. Over the last generation, many men’s sports in college have been eliminated or drained of resources, and administrators often blamed Title IX compliance rules. At football-playing schools, the football team accounts for about 80 scholarships. That’s a lot for one sport. Title IX essentially mandates equal treatment and opportunity for female athletes, so many schools have founded and supported sports for women over the last generation to balance out football, while eliminating many men’s sports.
_Alston _could play out one of two ways with respect to Title IX.* If the major football schools opt out of the NCAA system completely, and their new model doesn’t rely on university funds or scholarships at all, they could eliminate many women’s sports because they won’t need to provide an equivalent number of women’s scholarships to match football scholarships.* If non-major football schools drop their football programs, they might also drop women’s sports, for the same reason.


----------



## SoccerFan4Life (Jun 23, 2021)

This is also going to impact high school sports.  Why play football high school and go to school?  Star athletes can do home school and spend more time training and playing football in some club league.  Parents will ruin these kids thinking they will get paid if they just focus on sports and not academics.   Say goodbye to ECNL as well.  What’s the point if scholarships will decrease significantly.


----------



## outside! (Jun 24, 2021)

oh canada said:


> If you don't provide 80 football scholarships any longer because your players are being paid outside the NCAA system, you no longer have to offer 80 scholarships on the women's side, so cut the programs.  Likewise, if Fresno State decides to cut football, that will eliminate 80 scholarships on the girls side too.  Men's soccer will take an even bigger hit.  See below...
> 
> Suddenly your $5-$10K annual payments to your soccer club is looking like a pipedream for a future payoff.
> 
> ...


An opportunity is an opportunity, NCAA or not. Title IX still applies. Schools that start offer their football players bigger opportunities will also need to offer those larger opportunities to female athletes. I agree that many schools will drop football, and consequently, other sports. As fewer schools offer football, fewer students will become football fans. College sports will slowly die, for better or worse.


----------



## crush (Jun 24, 2021)

SoccerFan4Life said:


> This is also going to impact high school sports.  Why play football high school and go to school?  Star athletes can do home school and spend more time training and playing football in some club league.  Parents will ruin these kids thinking they will get paid if they just focus on sports and not academics.   Say goodbye to ECNL as well.  What’s the point if scholarships will decrease significantly.


Play for the love of the game is my motto and not because you can go to college and maybe play.  The stats are the stats.  8 out 10 girls who verbally committed as 8th graders did not end of playing soccer at said college and finishing four years.  Why?  Well, some girls get burned out by senior year of HS and they quit.  Some girls quit full time soccer because they focus on track instead.  Some girls fall in love and quit for a boy.  Some girls start the season but quit because it is a full time job and takes up all your time.  Some girls find that it's too hard on the body and they quit.  Some girls thought they would play but they sat on the bench and the quit.  Some girls quit because the coach they signed with got fired and the new coach is not into the girl and actually brings his own recruits.  On top of all that, you best be 4.5 and take all AP classes when you show up if you want to be a unicorn ((taken from the great Maps)) and some girls can;t live up to Unicorn status because of math ((lol)) and also be the best soccer player and perfect little daddies girl, so they quit.  The pressure put on so many females was insane!!!  I know 5 players who all gave verbal in 8th grade.  All posted their appreciation on Instagram and thanked everyone.  The reward was the public pride that the club felt, mom and dad on social media got loves and likes and the kid felt great for all the hard work up to 8th grade.  Fact: Of the 5 players who committed at 14, only one is going to the school she chose because her mom and dad went to the same school and she was born to go to that school, if you know what I mean...lol!  The other four break down like this:  One tore ACL for second time and is done.  One quit soccer last year to focus on shot put.  Another one is in love with something else and is no mas with soccer.  The other one hates soccer and her old man finally let go of his dream for his dd and she is now free and enjoying her life of freedom.


----------



## MacDre (Jun 24, 2021)

outside! said:


> An opportunity is an opportunity, NCAA or not. Title IX still applies. Schools that start offer their football players bigger opportunities will also need to offer those larger opportunities to female athletes. I agree that many schools will drop football, and consequently, other sports. As fewer schools offer football, fewer students will become football fans. College sports will slowly die, for better or worse.


Title IX still applies but how the current court would interpret title IX is unknown.  Precedent does get overturned.

I’m not that familiar with Title IX but the rationale seems similar to the separate but equal rationale in plessy v Ferguson that was shot down in the Brown case.

Maybe all college sports will become integrated and co-ed similar to how racially segregated schools were integrated.  Who knows, it all speculation at this point.


----------



## Desert Hound (Jun 24, 2021)

Simisoccerfan said:


> The money has to come from somewhere.


^^^^^This.


----------



## MacDre (Jun 24, 2021)

MacDre said:


> Title IX still applies but how the current court would interpret title IX is unknown.  Precedent does get overturned.
> 
> I’m not that familiar with Title IX but the rationale seems similar to the separate but equal rationale in plessy v Ferguson that was shot down in the Brown case.
> 
> Maybe all college sports will become integrated and co-ed similar to how racially segregated schools were integrated.  Who knows, it all speculation at this point.


This also seems likely since gender is now considered to be on a spectrum and everybody is doing the “pronoun” thing.


----------



## oh canada (Jun 24, 2021)

outside! said:


> An opportunity is an opportunity, NCAA or not. Title IX still applies. Schools that start offer their football players bigger opportunities will also need to offer those larger opportunities to female athletes. I agree that many schools will drop football, and consequently, other sports. As fewer schools offer football, fewer students will become football fans. College sports will slowly die, for better or worse.


Another good article, if interested.  It's amazing to think that only 25 schools' athletic departments are profitable:









						Survey: ADs concerned about women's sports
					

An Associated Press survey of athletic directors showed 94% of respondents said it would be more difficult to comply with Title IX rules if their school were to compensate athletes in the biggest money-making sports.




					www.espn.com


----------



## espola (Jun 24, 2021)

MacDre said:


> Title IX still applies but how the current court would interpret title IX is unknown.  Precedent does get overturned.
> 
> I’m not that familiar with Title IX but the rationale seems similar to the separate but equal rationale in plessy v Ferguson that was shot down in the Brown case.
> 
> Maybe all college sports will become integrated and co-ed similar to how racially segregated schools were integrated.  Who knows, it all speculation at this point.


The language is pretty simple --

No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance, 

The following pages of definitions and exceptions may be seen either to strengthen or weaken that statement, depending on your point of view.  In all cases in which I am aware in which it was invoked, it was in response to a complaint or lawsuit by persons claiming to be offended by an institution's non-compliance.  









						Title Ix Of The Education Amendments Of 1972
					






					www.justice.gov


----------



## NOVA.Dad (Jun 24, 2021)

It will be interesting to see if/how Title 9 is applied.  The argument is that college athletes should share in the profits of the the sport that they participate in.  Women's soccer (and Men's soccer) are not revenue producing sports.

_Everyone agrees that the NCAA can require student athletes to be enrolled students in good standing. But the NCAA’s business model of using unpaid student athletes to generate billions of dollars in revenue for the colleges raises serious questions under the antitrust laws. In particular, it is highly questionable whether the NCAA and its member colleges can justify not paying student athletes a fair share of the revenues on the circular theory that the defining characteristic of college sports is that the colleges do not pay student athletes. And if that asserted justification is unavailing, it is not clear how the NCAA can legally defend its remaining compensation rules._


----------



## dad4 (Jun 24, 2021)

MacDre said:


> This also seems likely since gender is now considered to be on a spectrum and everybody is doing the “pronoun” thing.


"College sports are gender integrated" is just another way to say "women can't play.".  

Expect to see congress step in somehow if courts uphold the idea of integrated sports as an end run around title 9.


----------



## espola (Jun 24, 2021)

dad4 said:


> "College sports are gender integrated" is just another way to say "women can't play.".
> 
> Expect to see congress step in somehow if courts uphold the idea of integrated sports as an end run around title 9.


There have been some female college football kickers.


----------



## MacDre (Jun 24, 2021)

dad4 said:


> "College sports are gender integrated" is just another way to say "women can't play.".
> 
> Expect to see congress step in somehow if courts uphold the idea of integrated sports as an end run around title 9.


Yeah, but you also have to reconcile your point with the fact that the State and Federal legislators are moving in the same direction as the courts evidenced by the legislation to support NIL payments.


----------



## dad4 (Jun 24, 2021)

espola said:


> There have been some female college football kickers.


Name a woman athlete who can run the 100M in under 10.6 seconds. 

Now name a P5 male sprinter who can't.


----------



## dad4 (Jun 24, 2021)

MacDre said:


> Yeah, but you also have to reconcile your point with the fact that the State and Federal legislators are moving in the same direction as the courts evidenced by the legislation to support NIL payments.


To be clear, I am all in favor of paying college football and basketball athletes a real salary.  Not just NIL.  

I don't ask anyone else to work without pay.  Pay them for real.

This probably means the football and hoops players don't end up subsidizing a soccer scholarship for my daughter.   That's fine.   Let the kids who earned it keep it.


----------



## Soccerfan2 (Jun 24, 2021)

dad4 said:


> To be clear, I am all in favor of paying college football and basketball athletes a real salary.  Not just NIL.
> 
> I don't ask anyone else to work without pay.  Pay them for real.
> 
> This probably means the football and hoops players don't end up subsidizing a soccer scholarship for my daughter.   That's fine.   Let the kids who earned it keep it.


You don't even realize that Title IX is the reason your daughter is playing competitive sports.


----------



## Desert Hound (Jun 24, 2021)

espola said:


> There have been some female college football kickers.


The reason we created womens sports many decades ago is so that women could compete. If it were just one division (men and women) let us do a little thought experiment. 

- How many women would be on a college basketball team where they have to compete for a spot vs men? 
- How many women would be on the PGA? 
- How many women would be on the tennis circuit? 
- How many women would make a national soccer team? 

Etc etc. 

Pretty much none would make it. Which is why we have sports for men and sports for women.


----------



## MacDre (Jun 24, 2021)

dad4 said:


> To be clear, I am all in favor of paying college football and basketball athletes a real salary.  Not just NIL.
> 
> I don't ask anyone else to work without pay.  Pay them for real.
> 
> This probably means the football and hoops players don't end up subsidizing a soccer scholarship for my daughter.   That's fine.   Let the kids who earned it keep it.


I get it.  I actually think a great head coach can be found for under 500k.  No way the President of the NCAA should be making 4 million annually.  No way AD’s should make up to 5 million annually.

If college AD’s and coaches take a pay cut, we can save the women’s team.

Can someone explain why an AD or coach at a University makes more than the POTUS?


----------



## dad4 (Jun 24, 2021)

Soccerfan2 said:


> You don't even realize that Title IX is the reason your daughter is playing competitive sports.


I am well aware of the benefits my daughter receives from title 9.  (and might receive, when she is older.)

That doesn’t mean I expect some other kid to play for free so that my kid can get the benefit of a scholarship.  For better or worse, there are 10,000 people willing to pay money to see him play.  There are about six people willing to pay to see my kid play.

Therefore, the other kid earned it, and my kid did not.  The money should go to him.

Sexism?  Arguably.   If you don’t like it, go buy some Angel City FC season tickets and a replica Jersey.  (or Liga MX Feminil, if that is closer.).


----------



## espola (Jun 24, 2021)

Soccerfan2 said:


> You don't even realize that Title IX is the reason your daughter is playing competitive sports.


The original intent was to open up admissions on an equal basis, with exemptions for schools that had were established to be single ender.

Sports was an afterthought.


----------



## espola (Jun 24, 2021)

There are a lot of comments here that are reaching way out beyond the SCOTUS ruling.  I suggest everyone read it before posting any more foolishness.


----------



## SoccerFan4Life (Jun 24, 2021)

dad4 said:


> To be clear, I am all in favor of paying college football and basketball athletes a real salary.  Not just NIL.
> 
> I don't ask anyone else to work without pay.  Pay them for real.
> 
> This probably means the football and hoops players don't end up subsidizing a soccer scholarship for my daughter.   That's fine.   Let the kids who earned it keep it.


I diafree
The main purpose of having universities is to take high school kids and prepare them to get a college degree and get a good paying job. 
Star athletes should just go pro and forget about going to college. This is going to happen soon with football players. It’s already happening with soccer at a global level and basketball is almost there as well. 

Let the universities focus on academics and allow more kids that want to get a degree take the spot over some 2.5 gpa start athlete that will leave college the moment they can go pro.   They are already getting a full ride in many cases and this is like making $200k ($50k college Fees x 4 years).

I gave up watching college basketball once they allowed players to leave sooner than 4 years.   The one and done rule is ridiculous with these star athletes. If they want to get paid than just go to the pro level.


----------



## Soccerfan2 (Jun 24, 2021)

dad4 said:


> I am well aware of the benefits my daughter receives from title 9.  (and might receive, when she is older.)
> 
> That doesn’t mean I expect some other kid to play for free so that my kid can get the benefit of a scholarship.  For better or worse, there are 10,000 people willing to pay money to see him play.  There are about six people willing to pay to see my kid play.
> 
> ...


Too much to disagree with here, not the least of which is the purpose of college and college athletics (college is not and should not be professional). But yes, it is sexist.


----------



## MacDre (Jun 24, 2021)

Soccerfan2 said:


> Too much to disagree with here, not the least of which is the purpose of college and college athletics (college is not and should not be professional). But yes, it is sexist.


I read the opinion as clearly safeguarding the distinction of amateur vs. professional athletes while also allowing creative ways for amateur athletes to get paid.  Nothing in the opinion makes them professionals.


----------



## Soccerfan2 (Jun 24, 2021)

MacDre said:


> I read the opinion as clearly safeguarding the distinction of amateur vs. professional athletes while also allowing creative ways for amateur athletes to get paid.  Nothing in the opinion makes them professionals.


Yep. I was answering dad4 regarding his own opinion. I didn’t say a word about the ruling.


----------



## crush (Jun 24, 2021)

dad4 said:


> I am well aware of the benefits my daughter receives from title 9.  (and might receive, when she is older.)
> 
> That doesn’t mean I expect some other kid to play for free so that my kid can get the benefit of a scholarship.  For better or worse, there are 10,000 people willing to pay money to see him play.  There are about six people willing to pay to see my kid play.
> 
> ...


I hear you dad but that seems harsh.  Their is no basketball player or football player in the first place without a woman to carry that stud 9 months and then raise the boy for 18 years, for free.  It's called sharing.  Share with the girls so they can play for the love of the game.  They dont need to get paid, they just want to play for free at school so they too can improve their lot in life.  Sorry, but you come across like the man that you are.


----------



## Simisoccerfan (Jun 24, 2021)

I see two possible outcomes:

College athletes can market their NIL and get paid.  No salary or additional payments to revenue players.  Title IX keeps women's sports in tact.
Revenue sports (football, men's b-ball, and maybe women's b-ball) pay their players from the revenue generated.  In this scenario many lower level colleges will drop these sports so maybe just 25 to 50 programs left.   In order to avoid Title IX concerns these programs will leave the NCAA and will somehow need to not be associated with any federal funding.  Other wise they would need to provide equal opportunity to women and their is no way they can afford to do both.  All other sports are defunded.  Not just scholarships being lost but also no money for coaches, travel, uniforms, trainers and facilities.  Some schools will fill the void with club sports paid by the students that want to play.


----------



## Dubs (Jun 24, 2021)

Simisoccerfan said:


> I see two possible outcomes:
> 
> College athletes can market their NIL and get paid.  No salary or additional payments to revenue players.  Title IX keeps women's sports in tact.
> Revenue sports (football, men's b-ball, and maybe women's b-ball) pay their players from the revenue generated.  In this scenario many lower level colleges will drop these sports so maybe just 25 to 50 programs left.   In order to avoid Title IX concerns these programs will leave the NCAA and will somehow need to not be associated with any federal funding.  Other wise they would need to provide equal opportunity to women and their is no way they can afford to do both.  All other sports are defunded.  Not just scholarships being lost but also no money for coaches, travel, uniforms, trainers and facilities.  Some schools will fill the void with club sports paid by the students that want to play.


I sure hope things go in the way of #1.


----------



## outside! (Jun 24, 2021)

Simisoccerfan said:


> Revenue sports (football, men's b-ball, and maybe women's b-ball) pay their players from the revenue generated.  In this scenario many lower level colleges will drop these sports so maybe just 25 to 50 programs left.   In order to avoid Title IX concerns these programs will leave the NCAA and will somehow need to not be associated with any federal funding.  Other wise they would need to provide equal opportunity to women and their is no way they can afford to do both.  All other sports are defunded.  Not just scholarships being lost but also no money for coaches, travel, uniforms, trainers and facilities.  Some schools will fill the void with club sports paid by the students that want to play.


Title IX has nothing to do with the NCAA, it is a federal law that the NCAA makes a poor faith effort to implement well enough to avoid most lawsuits.


----------



## Simisoccerfan (Jun 24, 2021)

outside! said:


> Title IX has nothing to do with the NCAA, it is a federal law that the NCAA makes a poor faith effort to implement well enough to avoid most lawsuits.


Well if the top programs pay revenue generating players they will need to figure out how to avoid federal funding since I can't see them having any money left to provide equal opportunity to women.


----------



## dad4 (Jun 24, 2021)

Soccerfan2 said:


> Too much to disagree with here, not the least of which is the purpose of college and college athletics (college is not and should not be professional). But yes, it is sexist.


You’re actually playing the student athlete card?   

I’ll call them students when their graduation rate improves.  Until then, they look a lot like unpaid minor league players.

Unpaid minor leaguers whose labor supports million dollar salaries for other people.


----------



## vegasguy (Jun 24, 2021)

dad4 said:


> I am well aware of the benefits my daughter receives from title 9.  (and might receive, when she is older.)
> 
> That doesn’t mean I expect some other kid to play for free so that my kid can get the benefit of a scholarship.  For better or worse, there are 10,000 people willing to pay money to see him play.  There are about six people willing to pay to see my kid play.
> 
> ...


Nobody goes to see an offensive lineman play yet he may be a 5star recruit. He and his parents will expect to get paid too.  If you pay one you need to pay the other.  It will come down to accounting and Bernie Madoff could cook books. 

What if you are Jordan Brown (4star recruit) and end up an Nevada for the money.  You flame out and average 5pts a game.  Now you transfer to Arizona for maybe more money to average 9pts a game... you are a 4 star recruit losing minutes and now costing the University cash..  do they now cut your scholarship.  You all know scholarships are year to year.  Who is responsible?


----------



## espola (Jun 24, 2021)

dad4 said:


> You’re actually playing the student athlete card?
> 
> I’ll call them students when their graduation rate improves.  Until then, they look a lot like unpaid minor league players.
> 
> Unpaid minor leaguers whose labor supports million dollar salaries for other people.











						The graduation success rate of NCAA student-athletes reaches an all time high
					

According to new information released by the NCAA, athletes' graduation success rates have reached an all-time high in recent studies.




					swimswam.com
				



.


----------



## dad4 (Jun 24, 2021)

espola said:


> The graduation success rate of NCAA student-athletes reaches an all time high
> 
> 
> According to new information released by the NCAA, athletes' graduation success rates have reached an all-time high in recent studies.
> ...


And, as usual, the non-revenue sports are at the top, and football is dead last.  78%, even after doing everything they can to goose the numbers.  

For example, NCAA excludes transfers before they compute the numbers.  Admit a weak student who can barely keep a C average in watered down classes, and then transfers to JuCo?  No problem.  As long as he bails before he is completely ineligible, GSR sys you don’t have to count him.

This is why your number says “graduation success rate” instead of “graduation rate”.  The NCAA noticed that their numbers looked bad, so they came up with a new number which sounds better.  Actual graduation rates are lower.  (Even if true, a 22% drop out rate is nothing to brag about.)


----------



## espola (Jun 24, 2021)

dad4 said:


> And, as usual, the non-revenue sports are at the top, and football is dead last.  78%, even after doing everything they can to goose the numbers.
> 
> For example, NCAA excludes transfers before they compute the numbers.  Admit a weak student who can barely keep a C average in watered down classes, and then transfers to JuCo?  No problem.  As long as he bails before he is completely ineligible, GSR sys you don’t have to count him.
> 
> This is why your number says “graduation success rate” instead of “graduation rate”.  The NCAA noticed that their numbers looked bad, so they came up with a new number which sounds better.  Actual graduation rates are lower.  (Even if true, a 22% drop out rate is nothing to brag about.)


They do much better than the average college student.









						Everything You Need to Know About the College Dropout Rate
					

What makes student drop out of college? Find out in our comprehensive report about college dropout rate in the US.




					whattobecome.com


----------



## full90 (Jun 25, 2021)

It seems like the push from the men’s bball and ftball players that started this boils down to: we want to be pros. We want a share of the money we bring in from tv/ticket/jersey sales. The ways they are getting there are varied (NIL, this latest ruling, etc). They want to be paid.

the ncaa is fundamentally against that so this will continue to be a war of paper cuts trying to move the line towards being pros vs the status quo.

if I’m the ncaa I do this:
All div 1 sports are full scholarship head count sports. No more partial scholarships or walk ons. Football is reduced to 65. 
soccer gets 20. (Or whatever)
Much of the inequality issue comes from athletes putting in the same hours and workload of a full ride kid but still paying for school. Solve that first. 

lift all age restrictions on professional leagues. You want to be a pro? Awesome. Go for it. No one is making you go to college to play. Go find a league that pays a 18 year old and chase it.
I don’t know how you solve NIL issues. It’s so slippery. You’re handing over recruiting to the biggest booster who can offer marketing opportunities to recruits. Good luck schools regulating that. And when the QB or point guard is taking in thousands per year from the billboard advertising the local Ford dealership how will his offensive lineman whose getting nothing feel? Uh try completing this pass from your back.

ditto for paying them. How do you define market value? PLUS who was the quarterback for Alabama in 2014? No one knows. They are selling out even if my mom is their quarterback. Duke basketball season tickets are sold out for years to come with no idea who they will have playing. Tickets sales and espn contracts are valuable because of the school and fan base. So sure Zion helped Duke. But Duke for sure helped Zion. If he went to metro state in podunkville with 1 game per year on espn4 is he still as big a name? No. So how do you define his market value at a school? 

good luck untangling title ix implications.

full ride kids get education paid for, extra money each year, nutrition, tutoring, internships, travel, gear, medical care, weight training, development, marketing and housing paid for. Plus provided extra food on top of their scholarship and cash. Plus extra money for clothes and travel home if needed. 
find me a college kid who has all that covered and works 20 hours a week and then we can talk about paying college athletes.


----------



## dad4 (Jun 25, 2021)

I would prefer a solution which separates revenue sports from non revenue sports.  

Non revenue sports would have scholarships, salary caps for all associated staff, ticket price caps, and spending caps.  

Revenue sports would look like minor leagues. Player salaries, OSHA, disability insurance, and so on.

Football and field hockey are not similar.  They really need to be under different sets of rules.


----------



## outside! (Jun 25, 2021)

dad4 said:


> I would prefer a solution which separates revenue sports from non revenue sports.
> 
> Non revenue sports would have scholarships, salary caps for all associated staff, ticket price caps, and spending caps.
> 
> ...


Separating revenue sports from non-revenue sports ignores the decades worth of unequal promotion and opportunities for women's sports and will never satisfy Title IX.


----------



## dad4 (Jun 25, 2021)

outside! said:


> Separating revenue sports from non-revenue sports ignores the decades worth of unequal promotion and opportunities for women's sports and will never satisfy Title IX.


There is no doubt it does support women's sports.  But it supports women's sports with the stolen wages of young male athletes in football and basketball.

The school sports system, as of 1971, blatantly discriminated against women.  But these kids were not alive then.  I’m pretty sure they didn’t do it.


----------



## espola (Jun 25, 2021)

dad4 said:


> I would prefer a solution which separates revenue sports from non revenue sports.
> 
> Non revenue sports would have scholarships, salary caps for all associated staff, ticket price caps, and spending caps.
> 
> ...


Field hockey was offered as a women's equivalent of football in response to Title IX pressure.  Sort of.

How come no men have filed a Title IX complaint about the non-availability of college men's field hockey?


----------



## outside! (Jun 28, 2021)

dad4 said:


> There is no doubt it does support women's sports.  But it supports women's sports with the stolen wages of young male athletes in football and basketball.
> 
> The school sports system, as of 1971, blatantly discriminated against women.  But these kids were not alive then.  I’m pretty sure they didn’t do it.


None of those young male athletes would even have a place to play without massive public support over the years. In addition, most football and basketball programs at publicly supported schools do not make money and are in fact supported by public funding and student fees. Since the majority of college students are now female, a pretty strong argument could be made for having more scholarships for female athletes. The school sports system, as of 2021 still blatantly discriminates against women.


----------



## outside! (Jun 28, 2021)

espola said:


> Field hockey was offered as a women's equivalent of football in response to Title IX pressure.  Sort of.
> 
> How come no men have filed a Title IX complaint about the non-availability of college men's field hockey?


Football.


----------



## Technician72 (Jun 30, 2021)

NCAA adopts interim name, image, likeness policy
					

The NCAA approved the interim name, image, and likeness policy, which means athletes will have the opportunity to earn money from endorsements, sponsorships, social media, and more as soon as Thursday.




					www.foxnews.com


----------



## Technician72 (Jun 30, 2021)

NCAA clears student-athletes to make money
					

The NCAA's board of directors has suspended the organization's rules prohibiting athletes from selling the rights to their names, images and likenesses.




					www.espn.com


----------

