Robert Wilson said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

I kind of agree. But good luck getting high school football out of high schools. That's never going to happen.

---

I think those should remain where they are. Same with the "non-revenue" college sports. Athletics can have a purpose related to education. Just the ones we've turned into pro minor leagues for itinerant paid pros need to be spun out.

---

Yeah. That's where I am. Spin off D1 College football someway somehow bit keep the school affiliation for each team.

Married A Horn said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

I kind of agree. But good luck getting high school football out of high schools. That's never going to happen.

---

I think those should remain where they are. Same with the "non-revenue" college sports. Athletics can have a purpose related to education. Just the ones we've turned into pro minor leagues for itinerant paid pros need to be spun out.

---

Yeah. That's where I am. Spin off D1 College football someway somehow bit keep the school affiliation for each team.

---

If it's spun off, it's not really college sports, and I have no interest in that.

I'm a Baylor fan, not a college football fan. I love CFB because I love Baylor. If that connection is broken, I'd rather spend my day doing something else that's productive.

Booboo Bear said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

I kind of agree. But good luck getting high school football out of high schools. That's never going to happen.

---

I think those should remain where they are. Same with the "non-revenue" college sports. Athletics can have a purpose related to education. Just the ones we've turned into pro minor leagues for itinerant paid pros need to be spun out.

---

Yeah. That's where I am. Spin off D1 College football someway somehow bit keep the school affiliation for each team.

---

If it's spun off, it's not really college sports, and I have no interest in that.

I'm a Baylor fan, not a college football fan. I love CFB because I love Baylor. If that connection is broken, I'd rather spend my day doing something else that's productive.

---

I agree. I just don't see college football remaining at this point. At least not for the big boy$.

Married A Horn said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

I kind of agree. But good luck getting high school football out of high schools. That's never going to happen.

---

I think those should remain where they are. Same with the "non-revenue" college sports. Athletics can have a purpose related to education. Just the ones we've turned into pro minor leagues for itinerant paid pros need to be spun out.

---

Yeah. That's where I am. Spin off D1 College football someway somehow bit keep the school affiliation for each team.

---

I'm struggling to understand why any college football fan would have any affiliation whatsoever with a licensed team of minor league players wearing the name of their school with no other connection to it. The absurdity of the problems within collegiate sports is only outpaced by that of the proposed solutions.

In any event, I look forward to watching those in charge of these sports butcher the golden goose. Few people have done more to earn the karma coming their way.

Booboo Bear said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

I kind of agree. But good luck getting high school football out of high schools. That's never going to happen.

---

I think those should remain where they are. Same with the "non-revenue" college sports. Athletics can have a purpose related to education. Just the ones we've turned into pro minor leagues for itinerant paid pros need to be spun out.

---

Yeah. That's where I am. Spin off D1 College football someway somehow bit keep the school affiliation for each team.

---

If it's spun off, it's not really college sports, and I have no interest in that.

I'm a Baylor fan, not a college football fan. I love CFB because I love Baylor. If that connection is broken, I'd rather spend my day doing something else that's productive.

---

Couldn't agree more. And I doubt very much we're alone.

I'm not watching the Waco Bruins play ****ty minor league football.

Booboo Bear said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

I kind of agree. But good luck getting high school football out of high schools. That's never going to happen.

---

I think those should remain where they are. Same with the "non-revenue" college sports. Athletics can have a purpose related to education. Just the ones we've turned into pro minor leagues for itinerant paid pros need to be spun out.

---

Yeah. That's where I am. Spin off D1 College football someway somehow bit keep the school affiliation for each team.

---

If it's spun off, it's not really college sports, and I have no interest in that.

I'm a Baylor fan, not a college football fan. I love CFB because I love Baylor. If that connection is broken, I'd rather spend my day doing something else that's productive.

---

I hear you. But it's already not college sports, anymore than your uncle wearing a dress isn't your aunt.

Robert Wilson said:

---

Booboo Bear said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

I kind of agree. But good luck getting high school football out of high schools. That's never going to happen.

---

I think those should remain where they are. Same with the "non-revenue" college sports. Athletics can have a purpose related to education. Just the ones we've turned into pro minor leagues for itinerant paid pros need to be spun out.

---

Yeah. That's where I am. Spin off D1 College football someway somehow bit keep the school affiliation for each team.

---

If it's spun off, it's not really college sports, and I have no interest in that.

I'm a Baylor fan, not a college football fan. I love CFB because I love Baylor. If that connection is broken, I'd rather spend my day doing something else that's productive.

---

I hear you. But it's already not college sports, anymore than your uncle wearing a dress isn't your aunt.

---

As long as the players are required to be students, there is some shared experience and connection between the players and alums. Is it what it used to be? Obviously not. But those of who love college athletics can suspend our disbelief enough to remain at least somewhat engaged.

Once that all-important tie is severed, there is no reason whatsoever to engage. If that is the "solution" those in charge choose, I look forward to watching college football collapse under the weight of its own idiocracy.

bear2be2 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Booboo Bear said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

I kind of agree. But good luck getting high school football out of high schools. That's never going to happen.

---

I think those should remain where they are. Same with the "non-revenue" college sports. Athletics can have a purpose related to education. Just the ones we've turned into pro minor leagues for itinerant paid pros need to be spun out.

---

Yeah. That's where I am. Spin off D1 College football someway somehow bit keep the school affiliation for each team.

---

If it's spun off, it's not really college sports, and I have no interest in that.

I'm a Baylor fan, not a college football fan. I love CFB because I love Baylor. If that connection is broken, I'd rather spend my day doing something else that's productive.

---

I hear you. But it's already not college sports, anymore than your uncle wearing a dress isn't your aunt.

---

As long as the players are required to be students, there is some shared experience and connection between the players and alums. Is it what it used to be? Obviously not. But those of who love college athletics can suspend our disbelief enough to remain at least somewhat engaged.

Once that all-important tie is severed, there is no reason whatsoever to engage. If that is the "solution" those in charge choose, I look forward to watching college football collapse under the weight of its own idiocracy.

---

How much class you think they're attending when they can change schools year to year chasing paychecks? That's a legit question. I have no idea.

Would be interesting to see how 5-year graduation rates look over the next few years compared to, say, 1985.

Look... I'm not saying I have the right answer. If it were up to me, college football would remain college football and revenue sharing would remain revenue sharing - meaning your sport has to earn revenue to be a part of the sharing of said revenue. But title ix is not going to allow this. So now, we have 'forced socialism,' and there's going to be a lot of lawsuits. I'd say endless lawsuits. Something is going to break.

If men's football and basketball can earn the wages they are worth (true revenue sharing) then for sure, keep it as whatever's left of college football.

Title IX needs to be amended. It was created long ago before anyone had any thought of a college athlete making money. This is the true problem. It should not apply to revenue sharing.

bear2be2 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

I've been posting for three years that Title IX will kill NIL.

No one is sharing revenue with women's sports that no one cares about.

NIL will get shut down and payments will go back underground.

Honestly, women's sports are pointless and should be completely shut down at the college level along with most other men's sports like golf, tennis, etc. No one cares about women's sports - it's just a stupid waste of money that is another waste of money caused by our idiotic government.

---

College athletic departments aren't businesses, and they don't exist for your enjoyment or to bolster TV companies' profit margins.

If these schools want to run themselves like companies, they can be treated and taxed like companies.

Otherwise, all the sports you're trashing right now and trying to wish out of existence are the ones doing things the right way and operating as they were meant to.

---

Incorrect. The only reason women's college sports exist is because the government mandated it.

---

Girls and women's sports far predate Title IX -- the first women's basketball game was played almost 80 years before Title IX was passed -- so you can get out of here with that misogynistic nonsense.

---

He probably thinks women shouldn't be allowed to vote, either. What a backward way of thinking.

Married A Horn said:

---

Look... I'm not saying I have the right answer. If it were up to me, college football would remain college football and revenue sharing would remain revenue sharing - meaning your sport has to earn revenue to be a part of the sharing of said revenue. But title ix is not going to allow this. So now, we have 'forced socialism,' and there's going to be a lot of lawsuits. I'd say endless lawsuits. Something is going to break.

If men's football and basketball can earn the wages they are worth (true revenue sharing) then for sure, keep it as whatever's left of college football.

Title IX needs to be amended. It was created long ago before anyone had any thought of a college athlete making money. This is the true problem. It should not apply to revenue sharing.

---

Football and Men's and Women's basketball need to be spun out of the university systems and have licensing deals with the university. Then Title IX can apply to everything left inside the university. It's the only solution that makes any sense at this point.

If its still Baylor Football, then ok.

Married A Horn said:

---

If I were a football player I would not be happy about this at all. 'My abilities and hard work are being used to give another person $ that didnt earn it.'

Socialism 100%. Wonder how long it will last. Alabama & ut players wont tolerate it for long when they are paid the same as women's rowing.

---

Alabama's athletic department lost $28,000,000 in 2024. What athletes should be required to cover those loses?
Alabama basketball was the only team to make a profit.

BearBall said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

If I were a football player I would not be happy about this at all. 'My abilities and hard work are being used to give another person $ that didnt earn it.'

Socialism 100%. Wonder how long it will last. Alabama & ut players wont tolerate it for long when they are paid the same as women's rowing.

---

Alabama's athletic department lost $28,000,000 in 2024. What athletes should be required to cover those loses?
Alabama basketball was the only team to make a profit.

---

You want to send a bill to all the golfers? I'd expect the university internalizes it like they always did / should have with respect to amateur athletics.

OsoCoreyell said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Look... I'm not saying I have the right answer. If it were up to me, college football would remain college football and revenue sharing would remain revenue sharing - meaning your sport has to earn revenue to be a part of the sharing of said revenue. But title ix is not going to allow this. So now, we have 'forced socialism,' and there's going to be a lot of lawsuits. I'd say endless lawsuits. Something is going to break.

If men's football and basketball can earn the wages they are worth (true revenue sharing) then for sure, keep it as whatever's left of college football.

Title IX needs to be amended. It was created long ago before anyone had any thought of a college athlete making money. This is the true problem. It should not apply to revenue sharing.

---

Football and Men's and Women's basketball need to be spun out of the university systems and have licensing deals with the university. Then Title IX can apply to everything left inside the university. It's the only solution that makes any sense at this point.

---

I don't know what makes anyone believe the courts would allow this. It's an obvious effort to subvert Title IX.

This underscores the likely unsolvable conundrum facing college football. The revenue sports need their connection to the universities to have any sort of broad appeal, and they need to separate from the universities to have any sort of sustainable future as pro sports.

But those who think that college football will ultimately be allowed to have its cake and eat it too haven't paid very close attention to how the courts have ruled on virtually every issue pertaining to the sport the past 10-plus years.

bear2be2 said:

---

OsoCoreyell said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Look... I'm not saying I have the right answer. If it were up to me, college football would remain college football and revenue sharing would remain revenue sharing - meaning your sport has to earn revenue to be a part of the sharing of said revenue. But title ix is not going to allow this. So now, we have 'forced socialism,' and there's going to be a lot of lawsuits. I'd say endless lawsuits. Something is going to break.

If men's football and basketball can earn the wages they are worth (true revenue sharing) then for sure, keep it as whatever's left of college football.

Title IX needs to be amended. It was created long ago before anyone had any thought of a college athlete making money. This is the true problem. It should not apply to revenue sharing.

---

Football and Men's and Women's basketball need to be spun out of the university systems and have licensing deals with the university. Then Title IX can apply to everything left inside the university. It's the only solution that makes any sense at this point.

---

I don't know what makes anyone believe the courts would allow this. It's an obvious effort to subvert Title IX.

This underscores the likely unsolvable conundrum facing college football. The revenue sports need their connection to the universities to have any sort of broad appeal, and they need to separate from the universities to have any sort of sustainable future as pro sports.

But those who think that college football will ultimately be allowed to have its cake and eat it too haven't paid very close attention to how the courts have ruled on virtually every issue pertaining to the sport the past 10-plus years.

---

Courts can't stop a re-org. They could determine whether / to what extent Title IX applies to the new situation. But I doubt the Dept of Ed today would say Title IX requires equal distribution of funds earned by football. That was just a last second, hail mary "hurry up and publish this memo before Elon gets here" maneuver.

What the courts have done in recent years is pro economic freedom for the athletes. There's no indication they're going to say football money must be sent to tennis players. If anything, I'd say that's contra-indicated. Paying football players part of what they generate means there is less left for the universities to gather up and send to the tennis program.

Robert Wilson said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

OsoCoreyell said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Look... I'm not saying I have the right answer. If it were up to me, college football would remain college football and revenue sharing would remain revenue sharing - meaning your sport has to earn revenue to be a part of the sharing of said revenue. But title ix is not going to allow this. So now, we have 'forced socialism,' and there's going to be a lot of lawsuits. I'd say endless lawsuits. Something is going to break.

If men's football and basketball can earn the wages they are worth (true revenue sharing) then for sure, keep it as whatever's left of college football.

Title IX needs to be amended. It was created long ago before anyone had any thought of a college athlete making money. This is the true problem. It should not apply to revenue sharing.

---

Football and Men's and Women's basketball need to be spun out of the university systems and have licensing deals with the university. Then Title IX can apply to everything left inside the university. It's the only solution that makes any sense at this point.

---

I don't know what makes anyone believe the courts would allow this. It's an obvious effort to subvert Title IX.

This underscores the likely unsolvable conundrum facing college football. The revenue sports need their connection to the universities to have any sort of broad appeal, and they need to separate from the universities to have any sort of sustainable future as pro sports.

But those who think that college football will ultimately be allowed to have its cake and eat it too haven't paid very close attention to how the courts have ruled on virtually every issue pertaining to the sport the past 10-plus years.

---

Courts can't stop a re-org. They could determine whether / to what extent Title IX applies to the new situation. But I doubt the Dept of Ed today would say Title IX requires equal distribution of funds earned by football. That was just a last second, hail mary "hurry up and publish this memo before Elon gets here" maneuver.

What the courts have done in recent years is pro economic freedom for the athletes. There's no indication they're going to say football money must be sent to tennis players. If anything, I'd say that's contra-indicated. Paying football players part of what they generate means there is left for the universities to gather up and send to the tennis program.

---

It's the continued association with the universities that will be the problem. If these want to be professional sports, they can separate from the universities entirely. But we all know that won't happen and why.

I'm the meantime, Title IX is established law. There's not going to be some convenient loophole around it.

bear2be2 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

OsoCoreyell said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Look... I'm not saying I have the right answer. If it were up to me, college football would remain college football and revenue sharing would remain revenue sharing - meaning your sport has to earn revenue to be a part of the sharing of said revenue. But title ix is not going to allow this. So now, we have 'forced socialism,' and there's going to be a lot of lawsuits. I'd say endless lawsuits. Something is going to break.

If men's football and basketball can earn the wages they are worth (true revenue sharing) then for sure, keep it as whatever's left of college football.

Title IX needs to be amended. It was created long ago before anyone had any thought of a college athlete making money. This is the true problem. It should not apply to revenue sharing.

---

Football and Men's and Women's basketball need to be spun out of the university systems and have licensing deals with the university. Then Title IX can apply to everything left inside the university. It's the only solution that makes any sense at this point.

---

I don't know what makes anyone believe the courts would allow this. It's an obvious effort to subvert Title IX.

This underscores the likely unsolvable conundrum facing college football. The revenue sports need their connection to the universities to have any sort of broad appeal, and they need to separate from the universities to have any sort of sustainable future as pro sports.

But those who think that college football will ultimately be allowed to have its cake and eat it too haven't paid very close attention to how the courts have ruled on virtually every issue pertaining to the sport the past 10-plus years.

---

Courts can't stop a re-org. They could determine whether / to what extent Title IX applies to the new situation. But I doubt the Dept of Ed today would say Title IX requires equal distribution of funds earned by football. That was just a last second, hail mary "hurry up and publish this memo before Elon gets here" maneuver.

What the courts have done in recent years is pro economic freedom for the athletes. There's no indication they're going to say football money must be sent to tennis players. If anything, I'd say that's contra-indicated. Paying football players part of what they generate means there is less left for the universities to gather up and send to the tennis program.

---

It's the continued association with the universities that will be the problem. If these want to be professional sports, they can separate from the universities entirely. But we all know that won't happen and why.

I'm the meantime, Title IX is established law. There's not going to be some convenient loophole around it.

---

Yeah, that's what this part meant.

"They could determine whether / to what extent Title IX applies to the new situation."

Robert Wilson said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

OsoCoreyell said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Look... I'm not saying I have the right answer. If it were up to me, college football would remain college football and revenue sharing would remain revenue sharing - meaning your sport has to earn revenue to be a part of the sharing of said revenue. But title ix is not going to allow this. So now, we have 'forced socialism,' and there's going to be a lot of lawsuits. I'd say endless lawsuits. Something is going to break.

If men's football and basketball can earn the wages they are worth (true revenue sharing) then for sure, keep it as whatever's left of college football.

Title IX needs to be amended. It was created long ago before anyone had any thought of a college athlete making money. This is the true problem. It should not apply to revenue sharing.

---

Football and Men's and Women's basketball need to be spun out of the university systems and have licensing deals with the university. Then Title IX can apply to everything left inside the university. It's the only solution that makes any sense at this point.

---

I don't know what makes anyone believe the courts would allow this. It's an obvious effort to subvert Title IX.

This underscores the likely unsolvable conundrum facing college football. The revenue sports need their connection to the universities to have any sort of broad appeal, and they need to separate from the universities to have any sort of sustainable future as pro sports.

But those who think that college football will ultimately be allowed to have its cake and eat it too haven't paid very close attention to how the courts have ruled on virtually every issue pertaining to the sport the past 10-plus years.

---

Courts can't stop a re-org. They could determine whether / to what extent Title IX applies to the new situation. But I doubt the Dept of Ed today would say Title IX requires equal distribution of funds earned by football. That was just a last second, hail mary "hurry up and publish this memo before Elon gets here" maneuver.

What the courts have done in recent years is pro economic freedom for the athletes. There's no indication they're going to say football money must be sent to tennis players. If anything, I'd say that's contra-indicated. Paying football players part of what they generate means there is less left for the universities to gather up and send to the tennis program.

---

It's the continued association with the universities that will be the problem. If these want to be professional sports, they can separate from the universities entirely. But we all know that won't happen and why.

I'm the meantime, Title IX is established law. There's not going to be some convenient loophole around it.

---

Yeah, that's what this part meant.

"They could determine whether / to what extent Title IX applies to the new situation."

---

That was the crux of my entire point, though, and why IMO college football is mired in such a quagmire.

bear2be2 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

I've been posting for three years that Title IX will kill NIL.

No one is sharing revenue with women's sports that no one cares about.

NIL will get shut down and payments will go back underground.

Honestly, women's sports are pointless and should be completely shut down at the college level along with most other men's sports like golf, tennis, etc. No one cares about women's sports - it's just a stupid waste of money that is another waste of money caused by our idiotic government.

---

College athletic departments aren't businesses, and they don't exist for your enjoyment or to bolster TV companies' profit margins.

If these schools want to run themselves like companies, they can be treated and taxed like companies.

Otherwise, all the sports you're trashing right now and trying to wish out of existence are the ones doing things the right way and operating as they were meant to.

---

Incorrect. The only reason women's college sports exist is because the government mandated it.

---

Girls and women's sports far predate Title IX -- the first women's basketball game was played almost 80 years before Title IX was passed -- so you can get out of here with that misogynistic nonsense.

---

Sweetheart, as much as it is sort of fun to explain to obvious to teenagers, it also can be tedious. I appreciate the fact how you sort of have a cute little talking point that makes you think you dunked on someone, let an adult explain it to you ... but I cannot understand it for you.

No one said that girl's and women's sports far predate Title IX. Again, this is a fallacy of answering a question not asked.

What I posted was that women's college sports would not exist if not for Title IX. Exist is in the English tense of present, which means currently. If I was talking about whatever **** you're talking about 80 years ago, I would have typed "women's sports would not have existed." I realize English may not be your first language, or maybe you're a moron.

Regardless, if the federal government did not mandate it, women's collegiate athletics would not exist (that is present tense .. that means today, not 80 years ago).

Now go pick out your dress for tomorrow and let the adults talk.

What a university pays as a stipend to a student athlete is not related in any way to NIL that an athlete earns in their own agreements. And it also has nothing to do with funds that are channeled through privatize athletics booster organizations.

Killing Floor said:

---

What a university pays as a stipend to a student athlete is not related in any way to NIL that an athlete earns in their own agreements. And it also has nothing to do with funds that are channeled through privatize athletics booster organizations.

---

Not according to Title IX.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

I've been posting for three years that Title IX will kill NIL.

No one is sharing revenue with women's sports that no one cares about.

NIL will get shut down and payments will go back underground.

Honestly, women's sports are pointless and should be completely shut down at the college level along with most other men's sports like golf, tennis, etc. No one cares about women's sports - it's just a stupid waste of money that is another waste of money caused by our idiotic government.

---

College athletic departments aren't businesses, and they don't exist for your enjoyment or to bolster TV companies' profit margins.

If these schools want to run themselves like companies, they can be treated and taxed like companies.

Otherwise, all the sports you're trashing right now and trying to wish out of existence are the ones doing things the right way and operating as they were meant to.

---

Incorrect. The only reason women's college sports exist is because the government mandated it.

---

Girls and women's sports far predate Title IX -- the first women's basketball game was played almost 80 years before Title IX was passed -- so you can get out of here with that misogynistic nonsense.

---

Sweetheart, as much as it is sort of fun to explain to obvious to teenagers, it also can be tedious. I appreciate the fact how you sort of have a cute little talking point that makes you think you dunked on someone, let an adult explain it to you ... but I cannot understand it for you.

No one said that girl's and women's sports far predate Title IX. Again, this is a fallacy of answering a question not asked.

What I posted was that women's college sports would not exist if not for Title IX. Exist is in the English tense of present, which means currently. If I was talking about whatever **** you're talking about 80 years ago, I would have typed "women's sports would not have existed." I realize English may not be your first language, or maybe you're a moron.

Regardless, if the federal government did not mandate it, women's collegiate athletics would not exist (that is present tense .. that means today, not 80 years ago).

Now go pick out your dress for tomorrow and let the adults talk.

---

You're an imbecile. Girls and women's sports have literally never been more popular than they are now.

Keep spewing bull****, you woman-hating jackass.

Are you stupid?

Title IX is 52 years old, FWIW.
Title IX doesn't say anything about athlete compensation because that didn't apply.

When an administrator says "but Title IX…." about a new and evolving 21st century issue that is completely detached from governmental spending oversight Those are just words.

DOE says what???

"I can't hear you!"

-Ken Starr from the grave, a man sadly before his time

bear2be2 said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

If your sport doesnt generate revenue, you shouldn't be a part of any revenue sharing.

I'm now of the opinion college football needs to be spun off from the colleges to get away from Title IX. (This will help all the lesser men's sports - the real losers to Title IX.)

---

College football spun off from the colleges is just bad minor league football. It's a worse UFL.

Without the colleges and their built-in fan bases, college football isn't profitable.

---

Even if they were spun off, the teams would still play in the same stadiums, have the same scheduling and be attended by the same fan bases.

What's left of the DoE already flipped field on this.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6131665/2025/02/12/title-ix-nil-college-sports-department-of-education/

bear2be2 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

I've been posting for three years that Title IX will kill NIL.

No one is sharing revenue with women's sports that no one cares about.

NIL will get shut down and payments will go back underground.

Honestly, women's sports are pointless and should be completely shut down at the college level along with most other men's sports like golf, tennis, etc. No one cares about women's sports - it's just a stupid waste of money that is another waste of money caused by our idiotic government.

---

College athletic departments aren't businesses, and they don't exist for your enjoyment or to bolster TV companies' profit margins.

If these schools want to run themselves like companies, they can be treated and taxed like companies.

Otherwise, all the sports you're trashing right now and trying to wish out of existence are the ones doing things the right way and operating as they were meant to.

---

Incorrect. The only reason women's college sports exist is because the government mandated it.

---

Girls and women's sports far predate Title IX -- the first women's basketball game was played almost 80 years before Title IX was passed -- so you can get out of here with that misogynistic nonsense.

---

Sweetheart, as much as it is sort of fun to explain to obvious to teenagers, it also can be tedious. I appreciate the fact how you sort of have a cute little talking point that makes you think you dunked on someone, let an adult explain it to you ... but I cannot understand it for you.

No one said that girl's and women's sports far predate Title IX. Again, this is a fallacy of answering a question not asked.

What I posted was that women's college sports would not exist if not for Title IX. Exist is in the English tense of present, which means currently. If I was talking about whatever **** you're talking about 80 years ago, I would have typed "women's sports would not have existed." I realize English may not be your first language, or maybe you're a moron.

Regardless, if the federal government did not mandate it, women's collegiate athletics would not exist (that is present tense .. that means today, not 80 years ago).

Now go pick out your dress for tomorrow and let the adults talk.

---

You're an imbecile. Girls and women's sports have literally never been more popular than they are now.

Keep spewing bull****, you woman-hating jackass.

---

They when do they have to be subsidized by men's sports? Why can't they stand on their won?

Saying there more popular than ever is like saying water polo is more popular than every ... okay, but still nobody really cares.

Robert Wilson said:

---

Are you stupid?

---

No.

Killing Floor said:

---

Title IX is 52 years old, FWIW.
Title IX doesn't say anything about athlete compensation because that didn't apply.

When an administrator says "but Title IX…." about a new and evolving 21st century issue that is completely detached from governmental spending oversight Those are just words.

---

Fair, but I think you underestimate the ability of the federal government to make new rules out of nonsensical crap. Title IX also was not envisioned to crated Kangaroo Courts on campus that falsely "convict" men of rape, but here we are.

Basically university sponsored pro teams and leagues would likely not have long term success. They aren't going to compete with the NFL. Take away any hit of actually being student athletes and it will lose its separate football appeal pretty quickly and lose ground.

But it seems to be headed in that direction, if some major adjustments aren't made that will suit all parties involved, at least for a while.

Might as well establish a prison league sponsored by the states and get them a broadcast deal. That's the only way to keep player salaries and free agency under some kind of control.

The Biden administration guidance for the US DOE been rescinded by Trump.

Going forward, at least for the short term, Title IX does not apply to name, image and likeness (NIL) deals.

It is not clear to me if this new stance also applies to the revenue that schools will share with athletes, but I don't have time to research it.

montypython said:

---

The Biden administration guidance for the US DOE been rescinded by Trump.

Going forward, at least for the short term, Title IX does not apply to name, image and likeness (NIL) deals.

It is not clear to me if this new stance also applies to the revenue that schools will share with athletes, but I don't have time to research it.

---

College football can live to see another day now.