Carino: Pikes on Hobbs departure

[dpwhite]

 

[Rhuarc]

Interesting facts:

- Pike's buyout is cut in half since Hobbs left: 11 million to 5.5 million
- Hobbs wanted to split the 22 million in NIL funds equally between men and women sports
- When Pike came to Rutgers it was so bad that the beds for the players were too small for the players who slept in them. That's friggin pathetic.

 

[lion1983]

Interesting facts:


- Hobbs wanted to split the 22 million in NIL funds equally between men and women sports

This is interesting. Not saying Hobbs was right or wrong, or what the next AD would do ... this is NOT an AD-only decision, but a legal compliance decision, for which the AD has one voice (as responsible for compliance). There are a TON of discussions going on in college over how to properly comply with Title IX. One path would be to split that $22 million down the middle, half to women's sports and half to men's sports. But there are other models being evaluated as well. For example, current Title IX issues are hugely skewed by the sheer size of the football teams' rosters, making any football school potentially out of compliance without other accommodations made. I think I read somewhere that sports such as track and field is used as a female athlete "dump" to try to even it out.

From the NCAA on Title IX:

Athletics programs are considered educational programs and activities. There are three basic parts of Title IX as it applies to athletics:

1. Participation: Title IX requires that women and men be provided equitable opportunities to participate in sports. Title IX does not require institutions to offer identical sports but an equal opportunity to play;
2. Scholarships: Title IX requires that female and male student-athletes receive athletics scholarship dollars proportional to their participation; and
3. Other benefits: Title IX requires the equal treatment of female and male student-athletes in the provisions of: (a) equipment and supplies; (b) scheduling of games and practice times; (c) travel and daily allowance/per diem; (d) access to tutoring; (e) coaching, (f) locker rooms, practice and competitive facilities; (g) medical and training facilities and services; (h) housing and dining facilities and services; (i) publicity and promotions; (j) support services and (k) recruitment of student-athletes.

Notice the language says "equitable" opportunities ... which is NOT legally the same as "equal." Also notice the 2 point on scholarships says scholarship $$ should be "proportional" to participation ... again, not the same as "equal" - proportional to participation might mean if because of football there are 55% or 60% of scholarship athletes as male, than scholarship $$ should be proportional to that. The language in #3 is slightly more problematic - says "equal" treatment in areas of publicity and promotions, support services, recruitment, etc.

So, not sure how this agreement each major university has up to $22 million to use will be allocated by sport or by gender. No doubt, different schools will find different paths.

That said, the MOST conservative path is splitting 50-50 ... I bet most schools will not do that, because allocating to football (and a bit of basketball also) will be construed as so important, in general. But you could see that a school that allocates 50% to women's sports might end up having an enormous $$ edge in payments to women athletes ... an interesting outcome, eh?

 

[cubuffsdoug]

This is interesting. Not saying Hobbs was right or wrong, or what the next AD would do ... this is NOT an AD-only decision, but a legal compliance decision, for which the AD has one voice (as responsible for compliance). There are a TON of discussions going on in college over how to properly comply with Title IX. One path would be to split that $22 million down the middle, half to women's sports and half to men's sports. But there are other models being evaluated as well. For example, current Title IX issues are hugely skewed by the sheer size of the football teams' rosters, making any football school potentially out of compliance without other accommodations made. I think I read somewhere that sports such as track and field is used as a female athlete "dump" to try to even it out.

From the NCAA on Title IX:

Athletics programs are considered educational programs and activities. There are three basic parts of Title IX as it applies to athletics:

1. Participation: Title IX requires that women and men be provided equitable opportunities to participate in sports. Title IX does not require institutions to offer identical sports but an equal opportunity to play;
2. Scholarships: Title IX requires that female and male student-athletes receive athletics scholarship dollars proportional to their participation; and
3. Other benefits: Title IX requires the equal treatment of female and male student-athletes in the provisions of: (a) equipment and supplies; (b) scheduling of games and practice times; (c) travel and daily allowance/per diem; (d) access to tutoring; (e) coaching, (f) locker rooms, practice and competitive facilities; (g) medical and training facilities and services; (h) housing and dining facilities and services; (i) publicity and promotions; (j) support services and (k) recruitment of student-athletes.

Notice the language says "equitable" opportunities ... which is NOT legally the same as "equal." Also notice the 2 point on scholarships says scholarship $$ should be "proportional" to participation ... again, not the same as "equal" - proportional to participation might mean if because of football there are 55% or 60% of scholarship athletes as male, than scholarship $$ should be proportional to that. The language in #3 is slightly more problematic - says "equal" treatment in areas of publicity and promotions, support services, recruitment, etc.

So, not sure how this agreement each major university has up to $22 million to use will be allocated by sport or by gender. No doubt, different schools will find different paths.

That said, the MOST conservative path is splitting 50-50 ... I bet most schools will not do that, because allocating to football (and a bit of basketball also) will be construed as so important, in general. But you could see that a school that allocates 50% to women's sports might end up having an enormous $$ edge in payments to women athletes ... an interesting outcome, eh?

I understand equal rights, but if you don't earn any of the money you don't deserve half.

 

[BigEastPhil]

Interesting facts:

- Pike's buyout is cut in half since Hobbs left: 11 million to 5.5 million
- Hobbs wanted to split the 22 million in NIL funds equally between men and women sports
- When Pike came to Rutgers it was so bad that the beds for the players were too small for the players who slept in them. That's friggin pathetic.

Think it was Shaq Doorson, if I recall, whose feet dangled off the bed.

It will be interesting to see the relationship between Pike and the new AD and how it impacts Pike and the BB Program. It appeared Pike and Hobbs were in sync professionally and were quite close.

I was fortunate to attend a BB Practice several weeks ago and Hobbs was at the practice. He was mingling with people in the stands and one would have no indication of what would occur several weeks later (IE - his abrupt resignation ).

 

[rubigtimenow]

This is interesting. Not saying Hobbs was right or wrong, or what the next AD would do ... this is NOT an AD-only decision, but a legal compliance decision, for which the AD has one voice (as responsible for compliance). There are a TON of discussions going on in college over how to properly comply with Title IX. One path would be to split that $22 million down the middle, half to women's sports and half to men's sports. But there are other models being evaluated as well. For example, current Title IX issues are hugely skewed by the sheer size of the football teams' rosters, making any football school potentially out of compliance without other accommodations made. I think I read somewhere that sports such as track and field is used as a female athlete "dump" to try to even it out.

From the NCAA on Title IX:

Athletics programs are considered educational programs and activities. There are three basic parts of Title IX as it applies to athletics:

1. Participation: Title IX requires that women and men be provided equitable opportunities to participate in sports. Title IX does not require institutions to offer identical sports but an equal opportunity to play;
2. Scholarships: Title IX requires that female and male student-athletes receive athletics scholarship dollars proportional to their participation; and
3. Other benefits: Title IX requires the equal treatment of female and male student-athletes in the provisions of: (a) equipment and supplies; (b) scheduling of games and practice times; (c) travel and daily allowance/per diem; (d) access to tutoring; (e) coaching, (f) locker rooms, practice and competitive facilities; (g) medical and training facilities and services; (h) housing and dining facilities and services; (i) publicity and promotions; (j) support services and (k) recruitment of student-athletes.

Notice the language says "equitable" opportunities ... which is NOT legally the same as "equal." Also notice the 2 point on scholarships says scholarship $$ should be "proportional" to participation ... again, not the same as "equal" - proportional to participation might mean if because of football there are 55% or 60% of scholarship athletes as male, than scholarship $$ should be proportional to that. The language in #3 is slightly more problematic - says "equal" treatment in areas of publicity and promotions, support services, recruitment, etc.

So, not sure how this agreement each major university has up to $22 million to use will be allocated by sport or by gender. No doubt, different schools will find different paths.

That said, the MOST conservative path is splitting 50-50 ... I bet most schools will not do that, because allocating to football (and a bit of basketball also) will be construed as so important, in general. But you could see that a school that allocates 50% to women's sports might end up having an enormous $$ edge in payments to women athletes ... an interesting outcome, eh?

Thanks for a great summary.
While Title IX overall is spectacular, splitting the revenue sharing money between men’s and women’s sports 50/50 seems untenable and nonsensical tbh.
I hope and presume it will ultimately be up to each university or that each conference sets minimum/maximum for each sport.
I believe the revenue generated/should be distributed along these approximate lines:
Football 75-95%?
Men’s basketball 8-15%
All others 1-12%

 

[RRRRUUUU]

It should be proportional to the revenue the programs bring in. Can look at it as revenue as defined as ticket revenue and exclude tv rights.

 

[NY AGENTMAN]

another form of socialism not allowing the NIL to be based on what is earned. Insane to give woman 50% of NIL. NIL contributions will need to be earmarked for a particular team!

 

[RutgHoops]

The NCAA just got hit with $2.75B judgment against relating to back pay damages for current and former college athletes. The 9-0 SCOTUS decision in Alston plus this back pay loss it appears the Courts are not being super friendly to the NCAA and Universities using free labor. Based on this I am not certain there is one school in the country that is going to be "first" in determining that football and basketball get all/most of the money while the rest of the athletes fight for scraps. To me that seems to be a path/decision frought with real financial and legal jeopardy.

 

[koleszar]

This is interesting. Not saying Hobbs was right or wrong, or what the next AD would do ... this is NOT an AD-only decision, but a legal compliance decision, for which the AD has one voice (as responsible for compliance). There are a TON of discussions going on in college over how to properly comply with Title IX. One path would be to split that $22 million down the middle, half to women's sports and half to men's sports. But there are other models being evaluated as well. For example, current Title IX issues are hugely skewed by the sheer size of the football teams' rosters, making any football school potentially out of compliance without other accommodations made. I think I read somewhere that sports such as track and field is used as a female athlete "dump" to try to even it out.

From the NCAA on Title IX:

Athletics programs are considered educational programs and activities. There are three basic parts of Title IX as it applies to athletics:

1. Participation: Title IX requires that women and men be provided equitable opportunities to participate in sports. Title IX does not require institutions to offer identical sports but an equal opportunity to play;
2. Scholarships: Title IX requires that female and male student-athletes receive athletics scholarship dollars proportional to their participation; and
3. Other benefits: Title IX requires the equal treatment of female and male student-athletes in the provisions of: (a) equipment and supplies; (b) scheduling of games and practice times; (c) travel and daily allowance/per diem; (d) access to tutoring; (e) coaching, (f) locker rooms, practice and competitive facilities; (g) medical and training facilities and services; (h) housing and dining facilities and services; (i) publicity and promotions; (j) support services and (k) recruitment of student-athletes.

Notice the language says "equitable" opportunities ... which is NOT legally the same as "equal." Also notice the 2 point on scholarships says scholarship $$ should be "proportional" to participation ... again, not the same as "equal" - proportional to participation might mean if because of football there are 55% or 60% of scholarship athletes as male, than scholarship $$ should be proportional to that. The language in #3 is slightly more problematic - says "equal" treatment in areas of publicity and promotions, support services, recruitment, etc.

So, not sure how this agreement each major university has up to $22 million to use will be allocated by sport or by gender. No doubt, different schools will find different paths.

That said, the MOST conservative path is splitting 50-50 ... I bet most schools will not do that, because allocating to football (and a bit of basketball also) will be construed as so important, in general. But you could see that a school that allocates 50% to women's sports might end up having an enormous $$ edge in payments to women athletes ... an interesting outcome, eh?

We will go through 152 lawsuits before a settlement is reached. Men's Football and Basketball will sue if they're making the same as a gymnast or crew members.