Interesting memo from the department of ed just days before the President Elect takes office. Basically they are saying any profit sharing the schools do would fall under Title IX rules and has to be shared proportionately.

That is until a lawsuit or law or new leadership at the Dept. reverses that decision.

In my opinion there should be no reason a member of a small team that gets few fans to attend and no tv like say tennis (men's or women's) should be getting the same as athletes from the sports that do.

Sort of the same argument of pay for WNBA pay to me.

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/43443976/dept-education-says-title-ix-applies-payments-athletes

Apparently many P4 schools were planning to devote 80% to 85% of the $20.5 million revenue to football players.

It'll be interesting to see how this impacts those plans. Of course...with a new incoming administration things could certainly change again.

Realitybites said:

---

If things go as they should, four years from now we won't have a Department of Ed to make such proclamations.

---

Don't hold your breath.

That's so stupid

Realitybites said:

---

If things go as they should, four years from now we won't have a Department of Ed to make such proclamations.

---

Even if that were to happen (unlikely), it does nothing to change the fact that Title IX is established law. Meaning that this would all still be decided in court. Any way you slice it, "the settlement" is toothless nonsense, as I always suspected.

bear2be2 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

That's so stupid

---

What's stupid is these conferences and schools thinking they could make hundreds of millions of dollars in "amateur sports" and there would be no repercussions.

Interscholastic athletics don't work as a for-profit enterprise. Any "solution" they arrive at at this point will introduce dozens of other issues and conflicts.

Put plainly, unchecked greed killed college athletics.

---

Like at UT?

bear2be2 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

That's so stupid

---

What's stupid is these conferences and schools thinking they could make hundreds of millions of dollars in "amateur sports" and there would be no repercussions.

Interscholastic athletics don't work as a for-profit enterprise. Any "solution" they arrive at at this point will introduce dozens of other issues and conflicts.

Put plainly, unchecked greed killed college athletics.

---

I agree with that, but kids who are playing sports that lose money should be really happy with a free scholarship, room, and board. And the idea that you have to spread the money around from the people who are making it to the ones who aren't is another version of the problem we had before.

Robert Wilson said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

That's so stupid

---

What's stupid is these conferences and schools thinking they could make hundreds of millions of dollars in "amateur sports" and there would be no repercussions.

Interscholastic athletics don't work as a for-profit enterprise. Any "solution" they arrive at at this point will introduce dozens of other issues and conflicts.

Put plainly, unchecked greed killed college athletics.

---

I agree with that, but kids who are playing sports that lose money should be really happy with a free scholarship, room, and board. And the idea that you have to spread the money around from the people who are making it to the ones who aren't is another version of the problem we had before.

---

The issue is still with the schools. You don't get to pay these players hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars and claim they're not employees.

As long as they're not employees, that money will (understandably) be viewed legally as "athletic financial assistance" and, as such, be subject to Title IX.

This is a quagmire. There is no solution.

Robert Wilson said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

That's so stupid

---

What's stupid is these conferences and schools thinking they could make hundreds of millions of dollars in "amateur sports" and there would be no repercussions.

Interscholastic athletics don't work as a for-profit enterprise. Any "solution" they arrive at at this point will introduce dozens of other issues and conflicts.

Put plainly, unchecked greed killed college athletics.

---

I agree with that, but kids who are playing sports that lose money should be really happy with a free scholarship, room, and board. And the idea that you have to spread the money around from the people who are making it to the ones who aren't is another version of the problem we had before.

---

I agree.

But I would also point out that at many schools athletes in some of the smaller sports don't get full ride scholarships.

Even at Baylor. Take track and field for example. Not all of them get full scholarships. Some get partial or none at all.

So at least give them that to start with.

Perhaps if they are getting paid they no longer need scholarships on top of their pay, especially if the small sports are going to make a ton of money to make it "equal" to football.

Pleasantly surprised at the reasonableness of the discussion here. When I first saw this news, my thought was BF is probably in meltdown.

Another reason schools need to figure out the employee model, and quickly. Continuing to pigeonhole everything into the amateurism rules is like trying to put Melissa McCarthy into a size 0 swimsuit.

bear2be2 said:

---

This is a quagmire. There is no solution.

---

Solution? Go DIII, I guess.

(Looking at you, UMHB)

Will this prevent a big time football player from getting a legit NIL deal with some company ... like a mustard company?

So if a ut player like Manning gets $1M for EASports (or whatever he gets) does a girl on the rowing team now also have to get a $1M deal?

If so, this is the dumbest thing ever. And I have a full scholarship college athlete daughter.

I agree that this discussion thread is well-focused and not hijacked by invective.

There are TWO sets of laws that Congress must address:

• The provisions granting antitrust exemptions to professional sports but not college sports
• The provisions involving Title IX requirements.

Fixing just one of them won't be enough.

Married A Horn said:

---

Will this prevent a big time football player from getting a legit NIL deal with some company ... like a mustard company?

So if a ut player like Manning gets $1M for EASports (or whatever he gets) does a girl on the rowing team now also have to get a $1M deal?

If so, this is the dumbest thing ever. And I have a full scholarship college athlete daughter.

---

I'm no expert...but my understanding is those individual deals that athletes make with companies to be sponsors are outside of this discussion.

This is about revenue sharing. The individual licensing deals are outside of that.