Athletes vs NCAA

[MacDre]

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]

The money has to come from somewhere.

^^^^^This.

 

[MacDre]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.).

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]

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]

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.