# Interesting column on the future of women's college sports



## justneededaname (Jun 23, 2022)

Saw this online today about the changes that might be coming to all women's college sports and both men's and women's soccer in the not too distant future - 









						Column: As Title IX turns 50, the future of women's intercollegiate sports may be on shaky ground
					

Football and basketball players getting a bigger slice of pie could mean less for women




					www.sandiegouniontribune.com
				




"Another scenario being discussed if or when football and men’s basketball leave or dissolve the NCAA: Leftover programs on campus become glorified club sports, with minimal university funding, no athletic scholarships, players cramming into vans for a regional schedule and bake sales to pay for the refs. "


----------



## Yak (Jun 23, 2022)

justneededaname said:


> "Another scenario being discussed if or when football and men’s basketball leave or dissolve the NCAA: Leftover programs on campus become glorified club sports, with minimal university funding, no athletic scholarships, players cramming into vans for a regional schedule and bake sales to pay for the refs. "


This is the reality in most other countries.  Universities focus on education and prospective pro athletes focus on their sport outside of the university system.


----------



## outside! (Jun 24, 2022)

Yak said:


> This is the reality in most other countries.  Universities focus on education and prospective pro athletes focus on their sport outside of the university system.


The downside of that system is that athletes who get injured have no education to fall back on.


----------



## crush (Jun 24, 2022)

outside! said:


> The downside of that system is that athletes who get injured have no education to fall back on.


Not all athletes need an education to fall back on if they get whacked playing


----------



## jojon (Jun 26, 2022)

outside! said:


> The downside of that system is that athletes who get injured have no education to fall back on.


Why only athletes? Everyone deserves good education. What is so special about athletes that they get privilege for better education?


----------



## Grace T. (Jun 26, 2022)

jojon said:


> Why only athletes? Everyone deserves good education. What is so special about athletes that they get privilege for better education?


But that’s another difference between Europe and the us (or even Asia and the us)…they don’t believe everyone deserves a college education and admission is restricted by highly competitive entrance exams.  On the flip side most also have robust trade schools and apprenticeships and college education is subsidized by the state.

admission is also almost purely tied to exams. They dont care what sports you did, what injustice you protested, what charity you created, what clubs you did,or your social acumen.


----------



## dad4 (Jun 27, 2022)

jojon said:


> Why only athletes? Everyone deserves good education. What is so special about athletes that they get privilege for better education?


I think the point is more that there is something wrong with a system that creates far for injuries than careers.  

At least college sports pretend to give you some education along with your risk of injury.  Semi-pro and minor league teams don’t necessarily do that.


----------



## Simisoccerfan (Jun 27, 2022)

This is like the glaciers melting.  It is likely inevitable since no one is willing to do what it takes today to prevent the eventual outcome.  Roll this thing forward and it also bad for college football and basketball.  Only a handful of colleges will be able to compete and with the most talented players getting all of the money with nothing left for the other players on those teams or the colleges that can't compete.  Women's sports as we know it will be gone so will other men's sports.   So players that who likely would get paid when they turn pro would now make more money sooner at the expense of college scholarships and the opportunities that brings for everyone else.  Now if the money not spent on athletic scholarships and costs to maintain programs was all redirected into academic scholarships for non-athletes maybe something positive could come out of it but the sceptic in me says that money will not be used that way.  Get use to us not winning much in any future Olympics too.


----------



## dad4 (Jun 27, 2022)

Simisoccerfan said:


> This is like the glaciers melting.  It is likely inevitable since no one is willing to do what it takes today to prevent the eventual outcome.  Roll this thing forward and it also bad for college football and basketball.  Only a handful of colleges will be able to compete and with the most talented players getting all of the money with nothing left for the other players on those teams or the colleges that can't compete.  Women's sports as we know it will be gone so will other men's sports.   So players that who likely would get paid when they turn pro would now make more money sooner at the expense of college scholarships and the opportunities that brings for everyone else.  Now if the money not spent on athletic scholarships and costs to maintain programs was all redirected into academic scholarships for non-athletes maybe something positive could come out of it but the sceptic in me says that money will not be used that way.  Get use to us not winning much in any future Olympics too.


If non-revenue college sports go away, that would be sad.

If we are lucky, college sports will adapt to become more regional and closer to its roots.  Lower coach salaries, simpler facilities, and local games.  

I'm ok with that kind of change.  The money in college sports hadn't been all good.


----------



## socalkdg (Jul 1, 2022)

Title IX doesn't require a school to be part of the NCAA.  It prohibits sex-based discrimination in any school or other education program that receives funding from the federal government.


----------



## Simisoccerfan (Jul 1, 2022)

socalkdg said:


> Title IX doesn't require a school to be part of the NCAA.  It prohibits sex-based discrimination in any school or other education program that receives funding from the federal government.


It also does not require the money to be equal.  If football goes fully private including funding a college could offer just men's and women's basketball and be compliant.  At least that is how I understand it to be.


----------



## dad4 (Jul 1, 2022)

Simisoccerfan said:


> It also does not require the money to be equal.  If football goes fully private including funding a college could offer just men's and women's basketball and be compliant.  At least that is how I understand it to be.


I think the argument is that, if a school eliminates 40 football scholarships on the men’s side, then they would have to get back into balance.  That is, either add men’s scholarships, remove women’s scholarships, or some combination of the two.

Not sure how that works if the football program is still there, operating as a semi-pro team using the school’s name.  I’m sure it will be litigated, like everything.


----------



## outside! (Jul 1, 2022)

Hard to see how a college football team could become totally privately funded without paying the college a big chunk of money for the positive name brand built over years using public money that could have been used for something else. There is also an issue of historical fairness. Just as female sports are on the verge of becoming viable professional leagues, college sports get cut after generations of men received the benefits?


----------



## Keepermom2 (Jul 2, 2022)

socalkdg said:


> Title IX doesn't require a school to be part of the NCAA.  It prohibits sex-based discrimination in any school or other education program that receives funding from the federal government.


That is my take too.  NCAA helps with compliance of the law, but the law is still there whether NCAA exists or not.  That fact alone shows me the author of the article does not understand Title IX and has made sweeping conclusions without consideration of the intricacies of Title IX.

My understanding of Title IX is that if the college is involved at all, they need to be in compliance with the equality calculation required by Title IX regardless of the various structures that are tried (very summarized conclusion).  I am not certain, but believe....Unless a football team is taken private with no affiliation to the college, the college would still have to comply with Title IX (i.e. if they offer funds to men in any form under any structural set up, they have to offer the same proportional amount to women).  Of course attorneys would have to figure that out.


----------



## espola (Jul 2, 2022)

Title IX itself 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 history of lawsuits and precedents is what gets complicated.  The original enforcement had to do with women being given fair chances at entry into graduate schools, medical schools, law schools, and the like that had been either excluded from females or with just small token admissions.  The route from there to NCAA DI women-only bowling teams is long and complex.


----------



## dad4 (Jul 2, 2022)

Keepermom2 said:


> That is my take too.  NCAA helps with compliance of the law, but the law is still there whether NCAA exists or not.  That fact alone shows me the author of the article does not understand Title IX and has made sweeping conclusions without consideration of the intricacies of Title IX.
> 
> My understanding of Title IX is that if the college is involved at all, they need to be in compliance with the equality calculation required by Title IX regardless of the various structures that are tried (very summarized conclusion).  I am not certain, but believe....Unless a football team is taken private with no affiliation to the college, the college would still have to comply with Title IX (i.e. if they offer funds to men in any form under any structural set up, they have to offer the same proportional amount to women).  Of course attorneys would have to figure that out.


I suspect football deals would be structured so that the money flows the other way: from the football team towards the academic institution.  

So, the college isn’t spending any funds on football, federal or otherwise.


----------



## espola (Jul 2, 2022)

dad4 said:


> I suspect football deals would be structured so that the money flows the other way: from the football team towards the academic institution.
> 
> So, the college isn’t spending any funds on football, federal or otherwise.


Is the college providing facilities, such as a stadium, locker rooms, athletic dormitories, and cafeterias, etc, on an unfunded basis?


----------



## Keepermom2 (Jul 2, 2022)

dad4 said:


> I suspect football deals would be structured so that the money flows the other way: from the football team towards the academic institution.
> 
> So, the college isn’t spending any funds on football, federal or otherwise.


I don't believe it matters whether they are spending federal funds are not.  I believe the law is about whether they are providing equal opportunities and if not, federal funds can be withheld (which has never happened even when a school was found to be out of compliance).  

Isn't football funds already flowing to the school? 

If the football program was privately set up without the college involvement, isn't that just a professional league and separate from college all together?  I believe if there is any involvement or connection with the school, they will still be held to the equal opportunity standard under Title IX


----------



## Grace T. (Jul 2, 2022)

Keepermom2 said:


> I don't believe it matters whether they are spending federal funds are not.  I believe the law is about whether they are providing equal opportunities and if not, federal funds can be withheld (which has never happened even when a school was found to be out of compliance).
> 
> Isn't football funds already flowing to the school?
> 
> If the football program was privately set up without the college involvement, isn't that just a professional league and separate from college all together?  I believe if there is any involvement or connection with the school, they will still be held to the equal opportunity standard under Title IX


You just made the argument for what the title ix advocates will argue before the courts: “any involvement or connection”

the way this will be set up is that private separate entities will be established to run the football programs. Those new entities will pay a trademark license to the colleges to use the name on the team, in advertising and merchandise. A royalty is probably part of the deal. They’ll also rent or buy the facilities. That’s how the money will flow back to the school. The income will be from the tv deals and ticket sales (made easier now if everything is big 10 consolidated and there’s a streamlined national championship). The new entities hire the players and coaches and pay out the salary.

the argument for this system will be that the standard isn’t “any involvement or connection”. The biggest precedent for these separate entities are the affiliated medical systems to the big universities which are structured similarly but have been treated as being outside the education system even though medical students from the medical college are receiving part of their education there.

here’s the biggest problem that I don’t see how it gets resolved: preferential admission of athletes. Even assuming the scholarships get replaced by a salary the question is how do you get the team admitted to the school? Does that mean the student athletes will forgo their degrees and just will be pro athletes at a minor league nfl? Because if there’s a preferential admission, I don’t see how you get away from title ix and it would seem to be a sufficient nexus. And if there is a nexus, I don’t see how you pay womens soccer players an equivalent salary and make the scheme work…the accounting just doesn’t work and the private woman’s soccer program would have to constantly be getting massive financial bailouts.

the fun part then becomes that as private entities, the players can unionize those shops…which the colleges may in fact prefer because it then gives them cover, if forced, to eliminate the other non financially stable programs or to give them a lesser raw deal, all the while getting the merchandising revenue and possibly trade options to the nfl from the football players, instead of having to separately negotiate player by player.


----------



## espola (Jul 2, 2022)

"Nearly three quarters of all Division I football programs now run deficits, which are eventually covered by the rising tuition and student fees."









						Fantasy Football
					

Public universities keep betting on extravagant football programs and stadiums, but the investments rarely pay off — as taxpayers frequently find out.




					www.ibtimes.com


----------



## Keepermom2 (Jul 3, 2022)

"here’s the biggest problem that I don’t see how it gets resolved: preferential admission of athletes"  
That is why the scheme doesn't work.  The minute you admit athletes, you associate the college and have Title IX problems.

The supreme court decision did not open the door to setting up the suggested scheme nor does the proposed rule by the NCAA.  That option was always there with the original arguments against Title IX being the lack of profit to warrant women's sports.  

In order for colleges to attempt to be somewhat in compliance with Title IX, they already had to add certain female sports to attempt to make women's sports opportunities equivalent to men's sports opportunities.  Also, there is already D1 schools without football programs and they generally are out of compliance but in favor of the women.  

The author made significant leaps to conclude women's sports being significantly diminished because of capitalism taking over but, that argument has always been there.  I got to believe if there was some structure that could be set up to avoid Title IX, colleges would have already done it.


----------



## espola (Jul 3, 2022)

Keepermom2 said:


> "here’s the biggest problem that I don’t see how it gets resolved: preferential admission of athletes"
> That is why the scheme doesn't work.  The minute you admit athletes, you associate the college and have Title IX problems.
> 
> The supreme court decision did not open the door to setting up the suggested scheme nor does the proposed rule by the NCAA.  That option was always there with the original arguments against Title IX being the lack of profit to warrant women's sports.
> ...


Why would colleges want to avoid Title IX?


----------



## paytoplayisgood (Jul 3, 2022)

we should abolish title IX.


----------



## outside! (Jul 3, 2022)

paytoplayisgood said:


> we should abolish title IX.


Why?


----------



## paytoplayisgood (Jul 3, 2022)

outside! said:


> Why?


ruins sports opportunities for men. Forces schools to either choose football and cut multiple sports or no football.


----------



## dad4 (Jul 4, 2022)

Does anyone know how Title IX affects female dominant activities, like dance or theater?  

Do they have a similar problem with trying to keep parity when 70% of interested students are a single gender?


----------



## Keepermom2 (Jul 4, 2022)

dad4 said:


> Does anyone know how Title IX affects female dominant activities, like dance or theater?
> 
> Do they have a similar problem with trying to keep parity when 70% of interested students are a single gender?


A couple of links that may answer your question.  








						The complicated history of cheerleading, Title IX and what it means to be a sport
					

Title IX was supposed to move women off the sidelines. But while cheerleading has moved far beyond game day, it still doesn’t have that recognition.




					19thnews.org
				





			https://wiaa.com/ConDocs/Con273/ocrguidance.pdf


----------



## dad4 (Jul 4, 2022)

Keepermom2 said:


> A couple of links that may answer your question.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I looked.  But most of what I found was about the fact that dance became less popular when other options for girls opened up, or that cheer was excluded so that it wouldn’t be a loophole.  If we hadn’t excluded cheer, 1970s football schools would have expanded their cheer programs and ignored every other women’s sport.  Neither really tells me much about how title IX affects female dominant activities on college campuses today.

Specifically, is the “equal opportunites” argument applied in both directions?   Requiring 50% of athletes be women is similar to requiring that 50% of dancers be men.  We can do it, but doing so comes at the expense of female dancers and male athletes.

I don’t know what other option there was.   I certainly can’t support EOTL/Golden Gate/paytoplay when he says get rid of TIX.   The equal numbers claim was a very effective counter to the belief that girls don’t really want sports anyway.   And “half of all athletes are female” is certainly better than “2% of all athletes are female”, which is what we did 50 years ago.

But it does seem the current system is a bit tilted towards my daughter and away from my son.  Works out fine for me, since she’s the athlete.  But it’s probaly not reflective of overall student interest in sports.


----------



## Keepermom2 (Jul 4, 2022)

paytoplayisgood said:


> ruins sports opportunities for men. Forces schools to either choose football and cut multiple sports or no football.


LOL.  You forgot the third option which most colleges have chosen to do....add more women's sports opportunities.

Without Title IX, you most likely would not be coaching even if you only coach boys teams, and you would most likely not be a DOC for a soccer club as you have claimed you are.  Title IX created the growing market for female youth sports, the increased demand for youth soccer coaches and soccer clubs.  With the expectation of the youth sports market to be $77.6 billion by 2026 and female participation calculated during the pandemic to be 45% of the youth sports participation, it is short sited by the author of this article to look at capitalism drivers only within the confines of the college setting, and it would be too limiting to only look at the professional sports market. The investment in female sports by the government through the passing of Title IX has certainly paid off and will continue to pay off.  Given the following information, my guess is there would now be some significant money thrown in the pool by stake holders to ensure women's sports at the college and high school levels are appropriately represented.  Just recently private investors ponied up $75 million into the WNBA.









						Women’s sports revenue and monetization | Deloitte Insights
					

The entire sports industry needs to invest on a sustained basis in creating more opportunities for women’s sports if it is to prove its revenue-generating potential.




					www2.deloitte.com
				




In addition, without Title IX, there wouldn't be a USWNT that recently started generating more revenue than the USMNT.

Also, there were certain college men's sports that were added back after deletion during the pandemic because of Title IX noncompliance.

Having said that, I believe the calculations used to determine equality need to be revisited to add certain variables instead of one size fits all because I have seen a small amount of instances where the men are not equal to the women in the calculations.


----------



## dad4 (Jul 4, 2022)

Keepermom2 said:


> LOL.  You forgot the third option which most colleges have chosen to do....add more women's sports opportunities.
> 
> Without Title IX, you most likely would not be coaching even if you only coach boys teams, and you would most likely not be a DOC for a soccer club as you have claimed you are.  Title IX created the growing market for female youth sports, the increased demand for youth soccer coaches and soccer clubs.  With the expectation of the youth sports market to be $77.6 billion by 2026 and female participation calculated during the pandemic to be 45% of the youth sports participation, it is short sited by the author of this article to look at capitalism drivers only within the confines of the college setting, and it would be too limiting to only look at the professional sports market. The investment in female sports by the government through the passing of Title IX has certainly paid off and will continue to pay off.  Given the following information, my guess is there would now be some significant money thrown in the pool by stake holders to ensure women's sports at the college and high school levels are appropriately represented.  Just recently private investors ponied up $75 million into the WNBA.
> 
> ...


There is a place for looking at who actually wants to play sports.  Watch ULittle rec soccer.  About 2/3 of the participants are boys.  About 1/3 are girls.  You get similar results if you add things up across all sports.  Or if you look at the adult leagues.  There are more male athletes than female athletes.  

That’s not because we discriminate against girls.  It’s because many girls think art class sounds like more fun than soccer or basketball.  

So, if we had a system where 2/3 of slots on college sports teams were for young men, that wouldn’t be some huge injustice.  It would just be a reflection of the fact that more men like sports than women.


----------



## Keepermom2 (Jul 4, 2022)

dad4 said:


> There is a place for looking at who actually wants to play sports.  Watch ULittle rec soccer.  About 2/3 of the participants are boys.  About 1/3 are girls.  You get similar results if you add things up across all sports.  Or if you look at the adult leagues.  There are more male athletes than female athletes.
> 
> That’s not because we discriminate against girls.  It’s because many girls think art class sounds like more fun than soccer or basketball.
> 
> So, if we had a system where 2/3 of slots on college sports teams were for young men, that wouldn’t be some huge injustice.  It would just be a reflection of the fact that more men like sports than women.


So you just ignored the participation in youth sports results of 45% females?   Having said that, that is one of the variables that I believe should be considered now in the equality calculation.


----------



## dad4 (Jul 4, 2022)

Keepermom2 said:


> So you just ignored the participation in youth sports results of 45% females?   Having said that, that is one of the variables that I believe should be considered now in the equality calculation.


ignore?  Kind of the opposite.  I think we should follow that 45%, or whatever number it ends up being in the future.  

If roughly 45% of young athletes are women, then roughly 45% of college sports slots should go to women.  

I said 2:1 because that was my guess based on old AYSO numbers.  If it is 44% now, then 44%.


----------



## Keepermom2 (Jul 4, 2022)

dad4 said:


> There is a place for looking at who actually wants to play sports.  Watch ULittle rec soccer.  About 2/3 of the participants are boys.  About 1/3 are girls.  You get similar results if you add things up across all sports.  Or if you look at the adult leagues.  There are more male athletes than female athletes.
> 
> That’s not because we discriminate against girls.  It’s because many girls think art class sounds like more fun than soccer or basketball.
> 
> So, if we had a system where 2/3 of slots on college sports teams were for young men, that wouldn’t be some huge injustice.  It would just be a reflection of the fact that more men like sports than women.


I can't help but chuckle when you say your son is unfairly treated.  The attached article is


dad4 said:


> ignore?  Kind of the opposite.  I think we should follow that 45%, or whatever number it ends up being in the future.
> 
> If roughly 45% of young athletes are women, then roughly 45% of college sports slots should go to women.
> 
> I said 2:1 because that was my guess based on old AYSO numbers.  If it is 44% now, then 44%.


Well...there is a pretty big difference between your 2/3 eyeballing participation of boys and the statistical facts of 45% are girls.   I agree that the participation should be a factor in the calculation, but not on a 1 for 1 basis as you suggest. The whole point of Title IX was to create opportunities for females to play sports. If they used your calculation back in 1974, your daughter would not have the opportunity she has now. The oportunities have definitely increased at the college level due to stronger enforcement than high school. High school opportunities for women are still lagging behind to men so it would stand to reason that would impact desire. Of course congress put in laws without providing the necessary funding.

Your son certainly isn't discriminated against given the facts pointed out in the article below. 

There are a few instances at schools with no football programs that he may be slightly discriminated against.








						Powerful Title IX report reveals reporting loopholes and roster manipulation in women's college sports
					

A new USA Today report reveals top U.S. colleges and universities still fail to comply with Title IX and how a loophole has led to widespread roster manipulation.




					onherturf.nbcsports.com


----------



## dad4 (Jul 4, 2022)

Keepermom2 said:


> I can't help but chuckle when you say your son is unfairly treated.  The attached article is
> 
> Well...there is a pretty big difference between your 2/3 eyeballing participation of boys and the statistical facts of 45% are girls.   I agree that the participation should be a factor in the calculation, but not on a 1 for 1 basis as you suggest. The whole point of Title IX was to create opportunities for females to play sports. If they used your calculation back in 1974, your daughter would not have the opportunity she has now. The oportunities have definitely increased at the college level due to stronger enforcement than high school. High school opportunities for women are still lagging behind to men so it would stand to reason that would impact desire. Of course congress put in laws without providing the necessary funding.
> 
> ...


The mistreatment isn’t against anyone in my family or extended family.  Our best athletes are all girls.  

Title IX in 1974 is a world different from Title IX now.  Back then, there were almost no sports available to girls.  Today, you have dads wearing pink ribbons in their hair while volunteering to coach their daughter’s team.  

The law should be updated.


----------



## Keepermom2 (Jul 4, 2022)

dad4 said:


> The mistreatment isn’t against anyone in my family or extended family.  Our best athletes are all girls.
> 
> Title IX in 1974 is a world different from Title IX now.  Back then, there were almost no sports available to girls.  Today, you have dads wearing pink ribbons in their hair while volunteering to coach their daughter’s team.
> 
> The law should be updated.


Maybe the law should be updated when high schools get in compliance and when colleges get closer to actually complying with the law.  Of course at that time they would need to factor in that 60% of college students are female.  The calculation change as you propose would probably benefit the women over the men.

Hadn't even thought about it but, it would stand to reason that females fund 60% of tuition revenue along with federal and state funding.  Shouldn't that be considered too as it relates to opportunities?  Just saying.


----------



## dad4 (Jul 4, 2022)

Keepermom2 said:


> Maybe the law should be updated when high schools get in compliance and when colleges get closer to actually complying with the law.  Of course at that time they would need to factor in that 60% of college students are female.  The calculation change as you propose would probably benefit the women over the men.
> 
> Hadn't even thought about it but, it would stand to reason that females fund 60% of tuition revenue along with federal and state funding.  Shouldn't that be considered too as it relates to opportunities?  Just saying.


Really good point that 60% of college students are female.  That probably does flip the result.  

I stand by my method either way.  If colleges have more prospective women athletes than men, then their programs should have more slots on women’s sports teams.


----------



## socalkdg (Jul 4, 2022)

I say go with school population ratio guys to girls to decide pct in college sports.


----------



## espola (Jul 4, 2022)

socalkdg said:


> I say go with school population ratio guys to girls to decide pct in college sports.


That's not how it works.  The Title IX requirement, as amended over the years by literal trial and error, is for equivalent opportunity, not equal results.


----------



## Simisoccerfan (Jul 5, 2022)

College football realignment news: Notre Dame on deck; Pac-12, Big 12 could merge; SEC vs. Big Ten playoff?
					

Realignment may cool off for the holiday, but it's about to pick up again any day now




					www.cbssports.com
				




“If football and basketball players are paid directly, that will run straight into Title IX concerns. Title IX is the 1973 federal law that mandates equal opportunities for an underrepresented gender at institutions that receive federal money. That discriminated gender has mostly referred to women. Simply put, the market value of Young and a women's cross-country athlete are different. 

By the letter of the law, each should get an equal salary. 

The Knight Commission suggested solution in December 2020: The FBS would break away as a separate entity and be funded by the CFP.”

Paying these athletes is going to happen. Also these colleges can’t afford to pay non revenue generating athletes let alone pay them equally.  Not sure how this will exactly develop but big changes are coming and I can guess who will be on the losing side.


----------



## Simisoccerfan (Jul 5, 2022)

*With the NCAA backed into a corner, the age of paying college athletes is officially upon us*
*Deregulation of the NCAA and the empowerment of college athletes has created a long-awaited opportunity*
[IMG alt="            Dennis Dodd
    "]https://sportshub.cbsistatic.com/i/r/2016/05/04/d660dee6-a5b1-45fd-bd82-775ee7744f42/thumbnail/80x80/07db7edab5f38b67ba448e6ea9e02755/dennisdodd.png[/IMG]

By Dennis Dodd

Jan 20, 2022 at 2:47 pm ET

wrong link above.  This is the correct article.  I couldn’t link it


----------



## Carlsbad7 (Jul 5, 2022)

Simisoccerfan said:


> College football realignment news: Notre Dame on deck; Pac-12, Big 12 could merge; SEC vs. Big Ten playoff?
> 
> 
> Realignment may cool off for the holiday, but it's about to pick up again any day now
> ...


The answer is that sports in college will still exist. What will change is that players will be paid X amount but they will no longer get scholarships. Magically the amout paid will be exactly equal to the amout they would be given as a scholarship. You see the shell game? Nothing will change initially.

What will blow things up is when college sports players unionize + bring in agents.


----------



## dad4 (Jul 5, 2022)

Carlsbad7 said:


> The answer is that sports in college will still exist. What will change is that players will be paid X amount but they will no longer get scholarships. Magically the amout paid will be exactly equal to the amout they would be given as a scholarship. You see the shell game? Nothing will change initially.
> 
> What will blow things up is when college sports players unionize + bring in agents.


The salary will automatically be the same as a scholarship, except when it isn’t.

There are high school seniors whose fair market value is well above tuition + R&B.  They know it, and the boosters know it.  Even if Alabama won’t offer 300K for a top recruit, someone will.  

Which is good.  That player probably would rather buy his mom a house than subsidize my daughter’s scholarship.  And he is right to do it.


----------



## paytoplayisgood (Jul 5, 2022)

Keepermom2 said:


> LOL.  You forgot the third option which most colleges have chosen to do....add more women's sports opportunities.
> 
> Without Title IX, you most likely would not be coaching even if you only coach boys teams, and you would most likely not be a DOC for a soccer club as you have claimed you are.  Title IX created the growing market for female youth sports, the increased demand for youth soccer coaches and soccer clubs.  With the expectation of the youth sports market to be $77.6 billion by 2026 and female participation calculated during the pandemic to be 45% of the youth sports participation, it is short sited by the author of this article to look at capitalism drivers only within the confines of the college setting, and it would be too limiting to only look at the professional sports market. The investment in female sports by the government through the passing of Title IX has certainly paid off and will continue to pay off.  Given the following information, my guess is there would now be some significant money thrown in the pool by stake holders to ensure women's sports at the college and high school levels are appropriately represented.  Just recently private investors ponied up $75 million into the WNBA.
> 
> ...


ok keeper mom. Not going to read all that. Funny you waste your life responding with a whole essay to a baiting comment.


----------



## Keepermom2 (Jul 5, 2022)

dad4 said:


> The salary will automatically be the same as a scholarship, except when it isn’t.
> 
> There are high school seniors whose fair market value is well above tuition + R&B.  They know it, and the boosters know it.  Even if Alabama won’t offer 300K for a top recruit, someone will.
> 
> Which is good.  That player probably would rather buy his mom a house than subsidize my daughter’s scholarship.  And he is right to do it.


If they pay them by scholarship, salary or McDonald's gift certificates, it doesn't matter.  Title IX  equity calcs. will still come to play.  "OCR examines the total program afforded to male student-athletes and the total program afforded to female student-athletes and whether each program meets the standards of equal treatment. Title IX does not require that each team receive exactly the same services and supplies. Rather, Title IX requires that the men and women's program receive the same level of service, facilities, supplies and etc. Variations within the men and women's program are allowed, as long as the variations are justified. "


----------



## Keepermom2 (Jul 5, 2022)

paytoplayisgood said:


> ok keeper mom. Not going to read all that. Funny you waste your life responding with a whole essay to a baiting comment.


Haha....your response makes me laugh and was totally predicted.  Do you feel better about yourself?


----------



## Carlsbad7 (Jul 5, 2022)

Keepermom2 said:


> Haha....your response makes me laugh and was totally predicted.  Do you feel better about yourself?


Getting back on topic...

Something I find interesting is that traditionally mens professional clubs in Europe are starting to embrace womens teams and players.

From what I've seen the pro clubs are just as ruthless with the women as they are with the men. Which is all top level women players have been asking for. 

Will it pan put for top talent? Probably not, but that's ok.


----------



## dad4 (Jul 6, 2022)

Keepermom2 said:


> If they pay them by scholarship, salary or McDonald's gift certificates, it doesn't matter.  Title IX  equity calcs. will still come to play.  "OCR examines the total program afforded to male student-athletes and the total program afforded to female student-athletes and whether each program meets the standards of equal treatment. Title IX does not require that each team receive exactly the same services and supplies. Rather, Title IX requires that the men and women's program receive the same level of service, facilities, supplies and etc. Variations within the men and women's program are allowed, as long as the variations are justified. "


How do even do the current equity calculation if the football team has a 5 million dollar roster?  (85 players.  It’s not unreasonable.)

Matching slots makes more sense.   “there are 85 players on football, so we need about 85 players on women’s sports teams.”.


----------



## paytoplayisgood (Jul 6, 2022)

Keepermom2 said:


> Haha....your response makes me laugh and was totally predicted.  Do you feel better about yourself?


I feel good that I am not as naive as you


----------



## Mosafie (Jul 6, 2022)

Carlsbad7 said:


> Getting back on topic...
> 
> Something I find interesting is that traditionally mens professional clubs in Europe are starting to embrace womens teams and players.
> 
> ...


Europe is very different. They have a distinct separation between education and athletics. Their University system is public funded abd virtually free. They don't waste resources on facilities that don't directly affect an  academic major.

As my Dutch cousins told me, 

"if you want to play a sport then join a club. I don't need my engineering school to have a football team. Also by this age you should have already decided if you want to do football or engineering. There is no time at University in Holland to be good at both".


----------



## Mosafie (Jul 6, 2022)

USC is now paying every single athlete $5000 cash stipend regardless if they are on scholarship or not. I think they started that this year.


----------



## Keepermom2 (Jul 6, 2022)

dad4 said:


> How do even do the current equity calculation if the football team has a 5 million dollar roster?  (85 players.  It’s not unreasonable.)
> 
> Matching slots makes more sense.   “there are 85 players on football, so we need about 85 players on women’s sports teams.”.


The current calculation is ensuring financial aid given to student athletes is equitable between men and women.  "The second broad issue, represented by Component II, is whether any financial aid related to athletics is being distributed on an equitable basis."  

Also, coaches salaries are not included in the calculation.


----------



## dad4 (Jul 7, 2022)

Keepermom2 said:


> The current calculation is ensuring financial aid given to student athletes is equitable between men and women.  "The second broad issue, represented by Component II, is whether any financial aid related to athletics is being distributed on an equitable basis."
> 
> Also, coaches salaries are not included in the calculation.


In that case, why would running a semi-pro football team count against Title IX at all?

It’s salary, not financial aid.


----------



## espola (Jul 7, 2022)

dad4 said:


> In that case, why would running a semi-pro football team count against Title IX at all?
> 
> It’s salary, not financial aid.


Are the players on that semi-pro team students who have been given preferential admission to the school?


----------



## MacDre (Jul 7, 2022)

espola said:


> Are the players on that semi-pro team students who have been given preferential admission to the school?


I don’t think preferential admission will be a factor as there are several other categories such as “academic” or “DEI” that an athlete could be given preference under without invoking Title IX.


----------



## dad4 (Jul 7, 2022)

espola said:


> Are the players on that semi-pro team students who have been given preferential admission to the school?


Of course not.  Our admissions process strives to create a diverse student body composed of world class scholars from all walks of life whose personal and professional conduct exemplify the virtues of West Podunk State.`


----------



## Keepermom2 (Jul 7, 2022)

dad4 said:


> In that case, why would running a semi-pro football team count against Title IX at all?
> 
> It’s salary, not financial aid.


Financial aid is not defined in the 1 sentence law.  In all the guidance issued in the last 50 years by the OCR or the precedents established through the court system and the OCR, financial aid is scholarships or the like because that was the only form of aid provided.    I think any attorney that tried to make the argument that salaries is different than financial aid and should be excluded from the equality calculation will most likely not succeed with that argument.  If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, acts like a duck, it is a duck!  Many have tried to fight the application of Title IX in the court system even winning at the lower court level at times, but eventually losing in appeals based on the spirit of the law of equality of the opportunities between men and women.

There is no guidance or precedence established related to the suggested scheme. As Espola pointed out, the preferential admission to said college presents the struggle under Title IX with future guidance sure to be provided should a school attempt the third party scheme.  In addition to admissions, where are the students going to live, practice, play games?

I see the endorsement deals with certain athletes as the best option for a chance at getting through Title IX hurtles.    It has already started, but certain sports attorneys have presented equality issues of the school's involvement with helping set up those endorsement deals and the connection to the school in the endorsements.  It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the court system.

The following is from a position paper from The Drake Group:
"Universities must not only focus on their own Title IX compliance obligations to provide male and female athletes with equal participation opportunities, athletics scholarship support, and equal treatment and benefits (including promotion, publicity, and recruiting), they must also require the third parties they establish, control, assist, or benefit from — conferences, national governing organizations, businesses, booster clubs and NIL collectives — to do likewise. With specific regard to the support of college athletes’ NIL agreements, institutions and these third parties must provide equal opportunities for male and female athletes to obtain NIL agreements (recognizing that the value of such agreements will be subject to the marketplace). Institutions cannot use third parties as a subterfuge to evade their Title IX legal obligations."


----------



## dad4 (Jul 7, 2022)

Keepermom2 said:


> Financial aid is not defined in the 1 sentence law.  In all the guidance issued in the last 50 years by the OCR or the precedents established through the court system and the OCR, financial aid is scholarships or the like because that was the only form of aid provided.    I think any attorney that tried to make the argument that salaries is different than financial aid and should be excluded from the equality calculation will most likely not succeed with that argument.  If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, acts like a duck, it is a duck!  Many have tried to fight the application of Title IX in the court system even winning at the lower court level at times, but eventually losing in appeals based on the spirit of the law of equality of the opportunities between men and women.
> 
> There is no guidance or precedence established related to the suggested scheme. As Espola pointed out, the preferential admission to said college presents the struggle under Title IX with future guidance sure to be provided should a school attempt the third party scheme.  In addition to admissions, where are the students going to live, practice, play games?
> 
> ...


What does Drake Group even mean when they say “equal opportunities to obtain NIL agreements”?

Same right to sign?  Sure, but that’s free.

Same dollar amount?  Who is going to sign millions of dollars in NIL contracts for essentially unknown female athletes?  Or are the courts going to require that male athletes give half their NIL money to female athletes?


----------



## Simisoccerfan (Jul 7, 2022)

Keepermom2 said:


> The current calculation is ensuring financial aid given to student athletes is equitable between men and women.  "The second broad issue, represented by Component II, is whether any financial aid related to athletics is being distributed on an equitable basis."
> 
> Also, coaches salaries are not included in the calculation.


Many colleges are not currently meeting Title IX and they are getting away with it.   Title IX means equal opportunity not equal finances.   No way any women's teams are treated as well as Men's Football or Basketball.   Look at the scandal a few years ago with the NCAA B Ball Tourney and how women are treated compared to men.   Do you think anything lasting was done about that?  Once players are being paid you won't have to pay a women's soccer player the same as a men's football player.  Those colleges that can't compete financially in the future of big money college football could drop those programs.  Do you really think there would be as many women's college sports and teams if that happened.


----------



## EvilGoalie 21 (Jul 7, 2022)

socalkdg said:


> I say go with school population ratio guys to girls to decide pct in college sports.


That is actually precisely how it is written into the sections of title XI covering intercollegiate sports: opportunity proportional to enrollment.


----------



## espola (Jul 7, 2022)

EvilGoalie 21 said:


> That is actually precisely how it is written into the sections of title XI covering intercollegiate sports: opportunity proportional to enrollment.


Title XI is something else altogether.


----------



## EvilGoalie 21 (Jul 7, 2022)

My impression is that title IX is not a boogeyman that is going to make non-profit turning sports, men or women's, disappear.  From the discussion, it is apparent that the rules have flexibility, enforcement is not heavy handed, and the responsibility of most athletic directors is to make sure they generally pass muster.  If fact, it can be harder to present a balanced sport portfolio if there are big cash cows sort of sitting on one side of the scale.  The thing that is driving reductions in sports is largely simple financial pressures.  Several UCs, for example, have floated the idea of simply reverting to intra-mural programs.  Saves a bunch on infrastructure and you can zero out a bunch of staff/administrative positions.


----------



## EvilGoalie 21 (Jul 7, 2022)

espola said:


> Title XI is something else altogether.


Trust me-title IX touches on many aspects of university life and administration.  mostly in a good way.  although the on-line training is a PITA.


----------



## EvilGoalie 21 (Jul 7, 2022)

espola said:


> Title XI is something else altogether.


I see.  An X and I inversion thing.  whoops.


----------



## Rockinchair (Jul 7, 2022)

Probably been mentioned, but seems to me that the smaller schools, smaller as in NAIA and juco use sports like D3 does…as a moneymaker. Sure hand out some partial scholarships here and there, but the player is on the hook for the rest of the tuition, buying books, and paying for room and board…all while the entire coaching staff probably makes $60k combined and the facilities are, well, you know.  Maybe it’s only the jucos that seem to be adding sports left and right but can’t see women’s sports disappearing at the lower college level any time soon.  

Fairly competitive D2 (private) school in the south has approx 25% of their enrollment as student athletes…looked it up and the national average is 23%



			https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/about/d2/2021-22D2_FactsFigures.pdf
		


Here’s the same type of info for D3, student athletes average 27% of enrollment…local D3 coach told me they are 40% SA and the school makes it a point to not have a large volume of afternoon classes campus wide to accommodate the SA’s participation 



			https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/about/d3/D3_FactandFigures.pdf
		


The DI topic is a completely different discussion as the mid majors are struggling to keep up with the Jones‘ as they have to try and stay competitive


----------



## Keepermom2 (Jul 7, 2022)

Simisoccerfan said:


> Many colleges are not currently meeting Title IX and they are getting away with it.   Title IX means equal opportunity not equal finances.   No way any women's teams are treated as well as Men's Football or Basketball.   Look at the scandal a few years ago with the NCAA B Ball Tourney and how women are treated compared to men.   Do you think anything lasting was done about that?  Once players are being paid you won't have to pay a women's soccer player the same as a men's football player.  Those colleges that can't compete financially in the future of big money college football could drop those programs.  Do you really think there would be as many women's college sports and teams if that happened.


Some are getting away with it for now.  Just google "Lawsuits title IX sports college" and you will see many cases in the last few months with one school paying out $400k settlement.

It looks there was significant changes made to NCAA women's basketball.  https://sports.yahoo.com/ncaa-womens-basketball-gender-inequities-march-madness-tournament-changes-163454222.html


----------



## Keepermom2 (Jul 7, 2022)

dad4 said:


> What does Drake Group even mean when they say “equal opportunities to obtain NIL agreements”?
> 
> Same right to sign?  Sure, but that’s free.
> 
> Same dollar amount?  Who is going to sign millions of dollars in NIL contracts for essentially unknown female athletes?  Or are the courts going to require that male athletes give half their NIL money to female athletes?


I believe the "equal opportunities to obtain NIL agreements" is they are making the same efforts to obtain NIL agreements for men and women.

Not sure where you got "same dollar amount" from.  They stated: "With specific regard to the support of college athletes’ NIL agreements, institutions and these third parties must provide equal opportunities for male and female athletes to obtain NIL agreements (recognizing that the value of such agreements will be subject to the marketplace)"  

What I believe that means is the same efforts and assistance needs to be provided to female athletes as male athletes in obtaining those NIL agreements.  The reference to recognizing the marketplace value deals with the fact that a male football player market place value endorsement value is substantially a higher market value than an endorsement for a female goalkeeper.  The value of the NIL agreement does not need to be equal, but the effort put in to obtain the NIL agreement needs to be equal.  That is consistent with the guidance offered by the OCR related to other matters.


----------



## Keepermom2 (Jul 7, 2022)

Keepermom2 said:


> I believe the "equal opportunities to obtain NIL agreements" is they are making the same efforts to obtain NIL agreements for men and women.
> 
> Not sure where you got "same dollar amount" from.  They stated: "With specific regard to the support of college athletes’ NIL agreements, institutions and these third parties must provide equal opportunities for male and female athletes to obtain NIL agreements (recognizing that the value of such agreements will be subject to the marketplace)"
> 
> What I believe that means is the same efforts and assistance needs to be provided to female athletes as male athletes in obtaining those NIL agreements.  The reference to recognizing the marketplace value deals with the fact that a male football player market place value endorsement value is substantially a higher market value than an endorsement for a female goalkeeper.  The value of the NIL agreement does not need to be equal, but the effort put in to obtain the NIL agreement needs to be equal.  That is consistent with the guidance offered by the OCR related to other matters.


That does not hold true for Financial Aid provided which needs to be equal according participation rates with males and females etc.

There needs to be justification for it not to be equal which market place value would be justification.


----------



## EvilGoalie 21 (Jul 7, 2022)

Rockinchair said:


> Probably been mentioned, but seems to me that the smaller schools, smaller as in NAIA and juco use sports like D3 does…as a moneymaker. Sure hand out some partial scholarships here and there, but the player is on the hook for the rest of the tuition, buying books, and paying for room and board…all while the entire coaching staff probably makes $60k combined and the facilities are, well, you know.


The overviews you linked to were interesting.  Some of these smaller private schools scattered across the country...sport acts as a moneymaker, at least in part, by serving as a lure to attract students.  For these schools, the challenge is "how to attract students willing to come all the way out here and pay what we are charging".  Like you say, they often have a high percentage of student athletes.  Give them a little break on tuition, etc.  Family/student on the hook for say, 40-50K/year. But you get to play a college sport. Academic quality, well, hit and miss.  We checked out a number of such schools that contacted my kid.  If the goal is strictly to play, those opportunities are out there-for a price. And some of them, for the right student, are good opportunities.

We drove by Drake University in Des Moines, IA recently and they generally fit with your overviews, although they are a lower tier D1.  Total enrollment, less than 3000.  About 500 of them are student/athletes.  I looked at the men's soccer roster (which seems incomplete).  A mixture of guys from across the country (midwest focused) and internationals.  Kind of what you'd expect.


----------



## jojon (Jul 8, 2022)

EvilGoalie 21 said:


> The overviews you linked to were interesting.  Some of these smaller private schools scattered across the country...sport acts as a moneymaker, at least in part, by serving as a lure to attract students.  For these schools, the challenge is "how to attract students willing to come all the way out here and pay what we are charging".  Like you say, they often have a high percentage of student athletes.  Give them a little break on tuition, etc.  Family/student on the hook for say, 40-50K/year. But you get to play a college sport. Academic quality, well, hit and miss.  We checked out a number of such schools that contacted my kid.  If the goal is strictly to play, those opportunities are out there-for a price. And some of them, for the right student, are good opportunities.
> 
> We drove by Drake University in Des Moines, IA recently and they generally fit with your overviews, although they are a lower tier D1.  Total enrollment, less than 3000.  About 500 of them are student/athletes.  I looked at the men's soccer roster (which seems incomplete).  A mixture of guys from across the country (midwest focused) and internationals.  Kind of what you'd expect.


My niece just experienced it this year. She was "recruited" by so many small private schools offering tuition discount but the real marketing ploy is college sports for mediocre athletes.
Very hard not to be cynical but there are a lot of willing victims. This is a rich country. I just feel sorry for people who take out loans for this.


----------



## EvilGoalie 21 (Jul 8, 2022)

jojon said:


> My niece just experienced it this year. She was "recruited" by so many small private schools offering tuition discount but the real marketing ploy is college sports for mediocre athletes.
> Very hard not to be cynical but there are a lot of willing victims. This is a rich country. I just feel sorry for people who take out loans for this.


I share your cynicism, but for more broadly based reasons. The "mediocre player" part IMO is probably not uniformly true, or, more precisely, it depends on what you are evaluating.  On the guys recruitment side, it is important to realize the extent to which many of our 17/18 year old players are disadvantaged compared to international U23s and older transfer students.  They simply are not where they will be physically in two more years.  D1 size and D1 speed is a cliche.  But if you have ever positioned yourself quietly behind the folding chairs at a tourney and listened to what is being said you'll realize these coaches are not exactly playing 12D chess.  There are so many technical and high soccer IQ kids in SoCal who just age out or suck it up and go to a small school in the midwest in order to keep playing-at least three just from my son's team. There was a post on a different thread today about how convincing parents that the goal of youth soccer is not to play in college was like screaming at the ocean.  That's true-I sympathize with the perspective.  But the koan remains-what are we developing these kids for?  There is something false about expecting the relatively small percentage of kids who put in thousands of hours over the years of a youth sports career, and then just think they are going to switch that drive off, with a pat on the back and some hollow adult aphorisms about valuable life lessons.  But, certainly on the guys soccer side, that is what we do. I read once where if you love the game it will be cruel to you in the end and the farther you go the crueler it will be.  Perhaps that's true.

It's also important to say that not all these smaller non-state schools are just rip offs, although they are clearly bastions of socio-economic privledge.  Some of them have good academic programs and, when you talk to them, coaches that come across as reasonable human beings with decent soccer pedigrees.  But it is also buyer beware and you need to do your homework.  If things don't work out, you get injured, etc it is important to suss out up front "is there any other reason for me to be here spending this money".


----------



## crush (Jul 8, 2022)

jojon said:


> My niece just experienced it this year. She was "recruited" by so many small private schools offering tuition discount but the real marketing ploy is college sports for mediocre athletes.
> Very hard not to be cynical but there are a lot of willing victims. This is a rich country. I just feel sorry for people who take out loans for this.


I have a very dear friend who feels just like you Jojon.  His dd was offered a discount to play at a D3 in the State of Vermont or a discount at a D2 in South Dakota. Dad was pissed off because Doc said with his training and connections, D1 would be knocking. Covid hit so not all the Docs fault because most schools cut their deals in half.  2023 is looking better. Doc said he got her a deal and that's all he could promise. He never promised her a rose garden and now dad feels like his kid was played the last three years. Yes and no. She would have been a for sure D1 pick before the pandemic.


----------



## dad4 (Jul 8, 2022)

jojon said:


> My niece just experienced it this year. She was "recruited" by so many small private schools offering tuition discount but the real marketing ploy is college sports for mediocre athletes.
> Very hard not to be cynical but there are a lot of willing victims. This is a rich country. I just feel sorry for people who take out loans for this.


The small schools with so-so soccer programs aren't necessarily trying to fool you.

They are offering a service.  It is a premium service. They have smaller classes, more sports teams, room in the drama productions, and so on.

It also costs more.  If you have the money and want to spend it that way, enjoy!.  If money is tight, there are better options.


----------

