Athletes vs NCAA

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.

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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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:

 
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.

 
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.
 
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.
 
"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.
 
"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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.).
 
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top