NCAA Revenue Sharing

[krup]

In what I thought was be a completely predictable move based on the current political climate yet seems to have caught some people by surprise, the federal DoE sent out a letter yesterday saying that the revenue sharing colleges will be starting is considered “financial assistance” and needs to be equitably distributed to all student athletes or it will be a Title IX violation.

That means that the schools, most of who have been planning to devote the majority of revenue sharing money to football because it is football that generates the revenue, will instead need to pay the second string woman’s field hockey goalie just as much as their starting QB if both are on scholarship.

NIL was made MORE important, because the DoE specified they do not consider NIL financial assistance from the college because a third party is paying it.

 

[vkj91]

In what I thought was be a completely predictable move based on the current political climate yet seems to have caught some people by surprise, the federal DoE sent out a letter yesterday saying that the revenue sharing colleges will be starting is considered “financial assistance” and needs to be equitably distributed to all student athletes or it will be a Title IX violation.

That means that the schools, most of who have been planning to devote the majority of revenue sharing money to football because it is football that generates the revenue, will instead need to pay the second string woman’s field hockey goalie just as much as their starting QB if both are on scholarship.

NIL was made MORE important, because the DoE specified they do not consider NIL financial assistance from the college because a third party is paying it.

Is that 100% what they meant. I saw another person state that you didn't have to pay field hockey BUT women's basketball and mens basketball have to be equal. so Football could still get the lions share since there is no female counterpart. total sh&t show

 

[krup]

Is that 100% what they meant. I saw another person state that you didn't have to pay field hockey BUT women's basketball and mens basketball have to be equal. so Football could still get the lions share since there is no female counterpart. total sh&t show

No, title IX has been interpreted to say that women deserve equity in financial assistance from the university, which is why (since football has so many scholarships) other sports that women DO have get many more scholarships than their male equivalent.

I think this will result in even MORE non-football men’s sports being dropped by schools.

 

[rutgersguy1]

Posted these in the other NIL thread.











Paywall but for the comments

 

[vkj91]

No, title IX has been interpreted to say that women deserve equity in financial assistance from the university, which is why (since football has so many scholarships) other sports that women DO have get many more scholarships than their male equivalent.

I think this will result in even MORE non-football men’s sports being dropped by schools.

I know what Title IX says but there isn't equity in pay. My one daughter plays a P4 sport. She lives in an apartment complex that is 99% athletes. Need that 1% because can't have athlete only dorms. lol
However the amount of gear, perks, walking around money etc that the football players get compared to the girls in not even close

 

[krup]

I know what Title IX says but there isn't equity in pay. My one daughter plays a P4 sport. She lives in an apartment complex that is 99% athletes. Need that 1% because can't have athlete only dorms. lol
However the amount of gear, perks, walking around money etc that the football players get compared to the girls in not even close

That’s because that is not financial assistance. Guaranteed the “walking around money” is small enough it is able to portrayed a something like a per diem replacing meals they miss.

 

[LotusAggressor]

This will not end well.

 

[vkj91]

That’s because that is not financial assistance. Guaranteed the “walking around money” is small enough it is able to portrayed a something like a per diem replacing meals they miss.

that's exactly what it is but its whether they miss or not. men get 800 gift card per semester plus 1750 per year stipend. Girls get $12 a week in season only. lol

 

[rutgersguy1]

 

[rutgersal]

Things are changing Tuesday, so whatever policy was Sent out yesterday doesn’t matter. We might not even have a Dept of Ed in time.

This is a wait and see. My instincts say Trumps Dept of Ed will take a hands off approach and common sense will prevail.

 

[ashokan]

Cant be a little bit pregnant
Running teams that are becoming professional within the scholastic template is a square peg/round hole problem.
DOE/NCAA are vestigial at this point (as far as football is concerned).
DOE is openly tagged for termination
NCAA is in limbo and waiting for others to lead it
It cant even decide about boys in girls sports which underlies how useless it is.
Bigger college teams should go up against NFL (at least get NFL start fees for its farm teams"

Many college teams and even the colleges themselves are inching toward death's door in a bubble economy awaiting the next mismanagement crisis in multiple sectors.

The Geographic Inequity of Risk​

"When we synthesized the data from all institutions, we found that as many as 560 schools (~25%) were at serious risk for potential closure or consolidation in the next few years, even before Covid-19 introduced new uncertainty into the equation. These schools experienced declining enrollment for multiple years, faced intense geographic competition in demographically shifting markets, and fell below industry-recommended metrics in at least four of the seven financial ratios referenced above. This cohort will likely require transformative strategies to remain operational, but even schools with emerging risk factors will need to re-evaluate their long-term strategic decisions.

While the overall impact has confirmed other research on this topic, we found the geographic inequity of risk factors to be the most disquieting trend. For example, ~40% of schools that we classified as having the greatest risk for closure or consolidation are located in just six states: Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New York, Illinois, and Massachusetts (yet those states represent only 25% of all schools). In those six states, the “highest risk schools” enroll ~22% of undergraduates, yet they enroll 40% of low-income undergraduates, and 50% of non-traditional learners (undergraduates over 25). While these cohorts do not correlate perfectly to family history, they remain strong barometers of first generation college participation."

Research: The Geography of Possible Campus Closures
https://www.u3advisors.com/insights/the-geography-of-campus-closures/

 

[retired711]

In what I thought was be a completely predictable move based on the current political climate yet seems to have caught some people by surprise, the federal DoE sent out a letter yesterday saying that the revenue sharing colleges will be starting is considered “financial assistance” and needs to be equitably distributed to all student athletes or it will be a Title IX violation.

That means that the schools, most of who have been planning to devote the majority of revenue sharing money to football because it is football that generates the revenue, will instead need to pay the second string woman’s field hockey goalie just as much as their starting QB if both are on scholarship.

NIL was made MORE important, because the DoE specified they do not consider NIL financial assistance from the college because a third party is paying it.

As I said in another thread, the most important thing about this guidance is that the identity of the President of the United States is going to change on Monday at noon. I think we can expect that the Department will change its position soon after that. This guidance is cheap talk by an administration that knows it will never be in a position to try to implement it.

 

[Knight Shift]

This will not end well.

 

[retired711]

View embedded media

View embedded media

View embedded media

View embedded media

I don't doubt that Senator Cruz will regard this issue as a priority. But any legislation is very likely to be subject to a filibuster. Therefore nothing will happen unless and until Cruz can develop legislation for which he can attract the support of at least seven Senate Democratic senators. That's more easily said than done.

 

[LETSGORU91]

View embedded media

View embedded media

View embedded media

View embedded media

"Cruz will chair the Senate Commerce Committee, a powerful group with authority to control college sports legislation. He has said it will be a priority for him."

So we have wildfires scorching California, inflation, domestic terrorism, American hostages in the Middle East, etc., yet college sports is his priority? Holy hell!!

 

[retired711]

"Cruz will chair the Senate Commerce Committee, a powerful group with authority to control college sports legislation. He has said it will be a priority for him."

So we have wildfires scorching California, inflation, domestic terrorism, American hostages in the Middle East, etc., yet college sports is his priority? Holy hell!!

In fairness, a lot of those issues don't come before his committee. And he does say it will be *a* priority, not his chief priority. There are priorities and there are priorities if you get my meaning. In any case, *nothing* is going to happen unless he can get a deal with the Democrats. The R's and the D's have been unable to make a deal on sports legislation so far, and I wouldn't hold my breath about it happening any time soon.

 

[WhichReligionIsRight]

It will be interesting to see if Trump does (or can) follow through on his pledge to abolish the DOE. At a minimum, I’d expect the new DOE brass to take a more men’s sports-friendly interpretation.

 

[ashokan]

It will be interesting to see if Trump does (or can) follow through on his pledge to abolish the DOE. At a minimum, I’d expect the new DOE brass to take a more men’s sports-friendly interpretation.

DOE doesn't have to be abolished completely.

Department funding and structure can be altered from within quite a bit and things like "civil rights" enforcement will be transferred back to DOJ. A lot of the KrAzzee in "education" come through a Trojan horse mutation of "rights." Parents learned a lot about this seeing what their kids were being taught during lockdowns. A lot of kids now are also from immigrant families who are better at recognizing the insanity than many Americans are. Musk and Vivek are also part of the education reform project. Musk has had the insanity impact his own family and he takes it personal. The inmates are running the education asylums like DOE

Elon Musk to move SpaceX and X HQ over gender identity law

Mr Musk wants to move his two high-profile firms from California to Texas over controversial new law.

www.bbc.com

 

[retired711]

It will be interesting to see if Trump does (or can) follow through on his pledge to abolish the DOE. At a minimum, I’d expect the new DOE brass to take a more men’s sports-friendly interpretation.

Trump would need Congress to approve abolition of the Department of Education. Even if it does, title IX enforcement won't necessarily go away. The Title IX rules were originally made by the Department of Health, Education & Welfare in the 1970s and enforcement was transferred to the Department of Education when it was established in 1980. if the Department is abolished, then enforcement would almost certainly be transferred again.

It is more likely that the new management at the Department would withdraw the new guidance. That would be the quickest way to proceed.

 

[satnom]

Posted these in the other NIL thread.

View embedded media

View embedded media

View embedded media

View embedded media

View embedded media

Paywall but for the comments

View embedded media

Key take away: “However, the document is not a regulation but only guidance.”

GO RU

 

[retired711]

Key take away: “However, the document is not a regulation but only guidance.”

GO RU

The fact it's guidance isn't that helpful. If the Biden administration were staying in office, then the school would feel that they have to follow the guidance or risk losing federal money. What is much more helpful is that the incoming Trump Administration can throw it in the trash.

 

[satnom]

The fact it's guidance isn't that helpful. If the Biden administration were staying in office, then the school would feel that they have to follow the guidance or risk losing federal money. What is much more helpful is that the incoming Trump Administration can throw it in the trash.

Seems to me that “guidance” is more opinion which is easier to sidestep or change versus “regulation” which is more letter of the law and more difficult to overturn and must be adhered to.

GO RU

 

[retired711]

Seems to me that “guidance” is more opinion which is easier to sidestep or change versus “regulation” which is more letter of the law and more difficult to overturn and must be adhered to.

GO RU

You're right, but . . . Imagine a prosecutor says, "I interpret the law to require that you stop doing what you're doing. If you keep doing it, I'll prosecute you." What the prosecutor says does not have the force of law -- only a court could actually punish you -- but wouldn't you think quite seriously about whether to stop what you're doing? The same is true here; no school wants to risk being subject to an enforcement action that might cost it federal funding. This is why agency guidance is so important even though it does not have have the force of law.

 

[bac2therac]

the climate will be much better starting next week and the more I read this declaration is so phony...guidance not anything that matters. The power brokers of the college world largely reside in red states and the msm hold on pushing a liberal equity agenda has fallen off the clif of late so after the initial screaming about this, im no longer worried

 

[MADHAT1]

the climate will be much better starting next week and the more I read this declaration is so phony...guidance not anything that matters. The power brokers of the college world largely reside in red states and the msm hold on pushing a liberal equity agenda has fallen off the clif of late so after the initial screaming about this, im no longer worried

never was anything to worry about, if pushed the courts would end it.
It was a case of pushing something too far , something both sides of the political spectrum have been doing to appease the radical elements in their party.
The worry should be : will women sports be downgraded by athletic departments when it comes to funding them because the new administration feels it's every man for himself when it comes to Colleges funding their athletic programs

 

[retired711]

never was anything to worry about, if pushed the courts would end it.
It was a case of pushing something too far , something both sides of the political spectrum have been doing to appease the radical elements in their party

Maybe the courts would end it if the government tried to enforce it. But it's unlikely any of the schools would take that chance: no one wants to lose federal money. That's why it's so vital that the Trump Administration withdraw it -- which I'm sure it will.

 

[retired711]

BTW, what the Justice Department wants is for the cap to be removed or made the topic of further litigation. I doubt that Judge Wilken will pay attention-- she has gone along with the idea of a cap so far.

 

[NY AGENTMAN]

Maybe the courts would end it if the government tried to enforce it. But it's unlikely any of the schools would take that chance: no one wants to lose federal money. That's why it's so vital that the Trump Administration withdraw it -- which I'm sure it will.

Title 9 will be abolished if they have to match the $$ to the women that the football team gets. These southern states won’t put up with that

 

[satnom]

Interesting if Title 9 is enforced to split money evenly which then precipitates the splintering off of football and basketball as a separate entity.

GO RU

 

[retired711]

Title 9 will be abolished if they have to match the $$ to the women that the football team gets. These southern states won’t put up with that

It would be hard to repeal Title IX (that would require an Act of Congress) and it's unnecessary -- all the Trump administration has to do is to withdraw the guidance as it undoubtedly will.

 

[retired711]

Interesting if Title 9 is enforced to split money evenly which then precipitates the splintering off of football and basketball as a separate entity.

GO RU

It wouldn't help so long as the football and basketball programs are being run by the schools. But let's not worry about it -- the Department of Education's guidance will undoubtedly be withdrawn and the Justice Department will be do the same with its position that there shouldn't be a revenue cap.

BTW, administrative law mavens have long debated whether an agency should have to go through a rulemaking proceeding in order to establish guidance. That's because guidance can have such a big practical effect. On the other hand, those who are regulated often *like* guidance because it lets them know what they can do without the possibility of a penalty. The last thing they want is for it to be harder for agencies to issue guidance.

 

[T2Kplus20]

Title 9 will be abolished if they have to match the $$ to the women that the football team gets. These southern states won’t put up with that

Southern states will secede (again) before giving up their football teams.

 

[T2Kplus20]

Interesting if Title 9 is enforced to split money evenly which then precipitates the splintering off of football and basketball as a separate entity.

GO RU

1. The new admin will likely ignore or change this guidance.
2. Probably a good idea to stop the charade and just "hire" football and b-ball players as athletic employees of the universities.

 

[satnom]

1. The new admin will likely ignore or change this guidance.
2. Probably a good idea to stop the charade and just "hire" football and b-ball players as athletic employees of the universities.

Weird that “guidance” was given on this matter on the way out. Revenue share should be a bi-partisan/non-politicized issue but I get why one side doesn’t want one side to get all the revenue but don’t understand how you lose sight of why this revenue is forthcoming in the first place.

Football and basketball should get the bulk of the revenue because it makes the bulk of it.

GO RU

 

[T2Kplus20]

Weird that “guidance” was given on this matter on the way out. Revenue share should be a bi-partisan/non-politicized issue but I get why one side doesn’t want one side to get all the revenue but don’t understand how you lose sight of why this revenue is forthcoming in the first place.

Football and basketball should get the bulk of the revenue because it makes the bulk of it.

GO RU

I think this is solely about one admin trying to be dicks to the other admin as the changeover happens. Nothing more. This has happened about 10 times already this week.

 

[bac2therac]

Weird that “guidance” was given on this matter on the way out. Revenue share should be a bi-partisan/non-politicized issue but I get why one side doesn’t want one side to get all the revenue but don’t understand how you lose sight of why this revenue is forthcoming in the first place.

Football and basketball should get the bulk of the revenue because it makes the bulk of it.

GO RU

Not weird...its trademark of the petty insufferable admin

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

Department of Education is about Education. They have an argument where scholarship counts and scholarship money is the point.

Beyond that, where NIL and revenue sharing exists.. the Department of Education should have ZERO say. Two athletes on scholarship, male and female, have the same access to EDUCATION. They do not need to be PAID the same. Revenue sharing should be about REVENUE.

Show me where the womens basketball team makes the same revenue as teh men's and the players are paid less in revenue sharing. When that happens, there may be a point to be made.

 

[Roy_Faulker]

Will be interesting to see what happens from here.

US soccer got sued by representatives of the the women’s team demanding equal pay. The federation argued the disproportionate pay for men to women was based on revenue (if memory serves) not results.

They entered into an agreement resulting in equal pay.

The Wisconsin/Miami issue is just as intriguing to me. Glad someone put their foot down but I’m surprised it was the university vs the collective as it is not pat of the school.

 

[krup]

Will be interesting to see what happens from here.

US soccer got sued by representatives of the the women’s team demanding equal pay. The federation argued the disproportionate pay for men to women was based on revenue (if memory serves) not results.

They entered into an agreement resulting in equal pay.

The Wisconsin/Miami issue is just as intriguing to me. Glad someone put their foot down but I’m surprised it was the university vs the collective as it is not pat of the school.

The US soccer issue was not as you described.

The men make their living from the club they play for, with decent salaries and the club handling any injuries, so the USSF paid them like contractors. They got a set fee when they made the squad for a USMNT game, and that was it. There are no guarantees.

There is no money in women’s soccer so the women preferred to be paid as salaried employees. When they made the women’s team they were paid a regular salary even if they weren’t in the squad for a game, and the USSF paid their medical benefits. There were women who were even paid by the USSF for the 18 months while they went through and recovered from a pregnancy.

Understandably, the “contractor” fee for the men was higher than the “salary” for the women, because the men were only given that fee for individual games not to support their entire existence.

The women were given the chance to switch to the exact same payment system and amounts as the men (which would have been actual equality) and turned it down.

Then, the USSF ridiculously decided to give women the same pay as the men even though the men don’t get a lot of things (guaranteed salary, medical benefits, etc.) that the women do.

 

[retired711]

In 2019, CNBC reported:

According to The Wall Street Journal, U.S. women’s soccer games have generated more revenue for the USSF than U.S. men’s games over the past three years, and according to Nike, the 2019 women’s stadium home jersey is the top-selling soccer jersey, men’s or women’s, ever sold on Nike.com in one season.

[I have no idea if this is still true, but it's an interesting fact.]

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/10/us-...world-cup-final-was-higher-than-the-mens.html