Interesting column on the future of women's college sports

[justneededaname]

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]

"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!]

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]

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]

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.]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.]

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]

"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