more laughable, having the prick Sankey trying to play the victim after getting his end run shoved up his rear end or having Mike Locksley commenting on diversity and inclusion. ESPN becomes a bigger joke each and every day.

leaders for expanding. If you buy that, I got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. Good grief, they think we are stupid!!!!!

To the NFL and pay players and let the others go back to academic football. And I hope VT is in the academic league.

Assuming that is his exact thoughts. If there is a primary Power 2 semi pro league of about 40-48 teams, there's still only 22 starting spots each year at those schools. And there is far more talent to be distributed each year coming out of high school that can pay football at a high enough level to have a shot at an NFL career if they can get playing time. Thus, there will be competitive football that will be played at a high enough level to be valuable to TV companies at far more than just 40-48 schools in a Power 2 league system. And the simple fact is that live football played at a competitive level with large scale fanbases will remain one of the biggest draws on TV for the foreseeable future. Which means there will be more media contract money to spread amongst those "academic football" schools' athletic programs, boosters of those schools will still pump money into their athletic programs and NIL funds to attract the best players possible to give their teams the best chance of winning...whatever championship is available to win. So, I could actually see the "academic" football league as being more shady and clandestine with their funding than the Power 2 league which would just have it all out there in the open with regulation for competitive "balance" and cost control.

Maybe the Power 2 will be a semi-pro league but the remaining D-1 schools will still be paying players, just not at the P-2 level. If you want to watch "academic football", support your local D-2, D-3 or NAIA schools.

is played just like D-2

however, given the money that is spent for football, most schools won't dip into that pot to pay other sports

they would be subject to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and possibly Title IX.

but some on here have posted that D-1 schools can afford to pay all athletes. I seriously doubt it. I think most G-5 schools will have to eliminate some athletic programs if they have to pay all athletes. Heck, Tech may have to drop a few sports. It depends on how much money the athletes will receive. Texas Tech said it will pay 100 football players $25,000/year. Of course, money will be no issue for the B1G and SEC with each school bringing in over 100 million per year.

I think there will be a group of 100 kids, football and men's and women's basketball who will essentially be pros. So, Title IX won't really apply to the rest of the squads. Those 100 will make 10-30 million bucks per year collectively. The non revenues will be trimmed down to much more regional competitions. So, instead of VT tennis competing against miami and BC, they'll compete against Radford and JMU. Those non revenue kids can do NIL's as they see fit, but they're no longer gonna have world class training facilities and coaches. And they're not gonna travel the globe in order to compete in front of two dozen people.

Non revenue sports cost VT about 25 million dollars a year. And what EXACTLY does the school/region/state gain from them? I grew up in the NRV and graduated from Virginia Tech. I'm a big time HOkie. I've attended probably 5 non revenue competitions in my life. I've probably watched 10-20 competitions the last 30 years on TV. I remember Bonnie Ball, Angela Tincher, a soccer game, and this year's baseball team in the tourney. Is that worth 25 million a year? Imagine what VT Football and Basketball could do with 25 million. Imagine the impact it would have on the school. And oh, I've heard great things about VT Rugby and VT Hockey, club sports. i would have been just as likely to be a fan of either of those than most the non revenues..and they cost the school nothing.

Because anyone with eyes could see that they bring in more revenue. Same would be true with a QB. ** Edited by BBBDatVT_ at 8/4/2022, 8:05:17 AM

would still be subject to the same federal laws that they are now plus any new ones that are typically only subject to private businesses. In your reality you can bet the schools would be sued for participating in discrimination practices. The schools would also be sued if they decided to pay the women athletes a lesser salary than the men athletes or even the men's non-revenue athletes a lesser salary than the men's revenue athletes because the schools don't have the same reasons (i.e. experience, education, etc.) that are available to businesses when justifying any pay discrepancies that become publicly known. The sport's perceived "value" may be immaterial in this case.

And any reasonable person would agree. The only thing even associating VT Football with Volleyball is tradition and nostalgia. VT Football is a business, VT Volleyball is a charity. And the NBA does t pay the same as the WNBA. Somebody will take it to court. But whenever this new THING emerges from the B1G and SEC, there will be plenty of work done to push things through. Zero chance Bama ends up paying Volleyball players what Football players earn. ** Edited by BBBDatVT_ at 8/4/2022, 12:20:42 AM ** Edited by BBBDatVT_ at 8/4/2022, 12:42:15 AM ** Edited by BBBDatVT_ at 8/4/2022, 12:43:27 AM

federal funding. However, VT and the other schools do receive federal funding. Also, the NBA and WNBA are legally separate entities. Whereas the VT is 1 entity with 2 separate sections (academics and athletics). Even if you could view the sections as somehow being separate entities, the VT Athletic Department is still 1 entity. If you want an apples-to-apples comparison, then you would need to combine all the pro leagues in North America under 1 giant umbrella organization to get close to the same ballpark and even then it wouldn't be an exact match because of the federal funding issue.

As I mentioned, the poor kid who is a star LB or PG is gonna take it to court too. You think it will be tough for him to prove that he’s worth more than a back up volleyball player? While I’m FAR from a fan of the current Supreme Court, I LOVE how they have looked at college Athletics through reasonable eyes lately. It would be flat out ridiculous to not realize the worth of the Fball and Bball players. And oh, so how can the Fball amd Bball coaches make multiple times more money than the volleyball coach? Where’s that lawsuit?

continues to receive federal funding. Remember any place of business, public or private, are legally required to pay a male employee and female employee the same salary/wage for any given profession if all the criteria (i.e. experience, education, etc.) are the same for both employees. If the business pays the male employee more than the female employee, then it is likely the business has violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for gender and possibly age discrimination because those would be the only criteria with any differences between the employees. The same concept would apply to college athletes if they ever became employees because their experience and education would be the same for all sports. Also, it is unlikely the schools would pay a different salary for the players on any given athletic team because the salaries would be established when the player is an incoming freshmen (aka an unproven commodity) at the school. Plus, having different salaries/wages on a single team could increase the likelihood of jealousy taking root among the players given that adults ages 18-24 may not be at the maturity level needed to discuss this topic rationally. It is likely the schools would treat this contract as the pro's version of the "rookie contract" and probably make it a multi-contract too. Otherwise, the AD will be spending a large chunk of his/her time negotiating annual contracts with every player's agent for every sport the school sponsors. Plus, the AD would also be responsible for negotiating any free agent contracts. It won't matter if the players can remain at the school for a specific period of time (i.e. 5 years) or until they retire from the sport. Remember all colleges and universities have accounting and reporting requirements they must adhere to just like most businesses and government entities which would be another reason to keep the financial piece centralized instead of delegating it to the coaches. An AD would essentially assume the role of the GM within any pro organization.

have different professional experiences and those experiences are weighted differently. At least that would be the logical defense for the schools if any lawsuits are brought against them. Whereas for the players, there only experience is HS, travel, and youth teams which doesn't create enough of a difference. Also, it only becomes a potential issue for sports with both men's and women's teams. American football currently doesn't have a women's counterpart, so it becomes even more subjective when trying to compare against any women's sport. All the coaches are supposed to be mature adults and not impressionable younger adults. It is rare to find a head coach in his/her late 20s and even rarer for that head coach to be in his/her early 20s which would be the same age as most of his/her players. Given that the players are between the ages of 18 and 24, you should assume the courts will be more protective of the student-athletes than the coaches because 18-24 is considered to be the "impressionable younger adult" stage in most societies. If you don't believe that is a stage, then all you have to do is compare the number of stupid/dump mistakes made by college kids vs. the number of stupid/dump mistakes made by the other stages of adulthood. You shouldn't see the numbers for the other stages come close to the numbers for the college kids. ** Edited by VTHokie2000 at 8/4/2022, 11:44:13 AM

Mike Vick was young and impressionable so he should t have received any of the money he was bringing in for VT? Instead, they should just give that extra money to Frank Beamer? The courts are really going to see it that way? Look, about every chance they got, the courts have sided with these kids lately, as they should. You would t tangibly be able to determine that a VT Football player brings in more money than a VT Field Hockey player? This is ludicrous, which is what the entire NCAA system has been for decades. The courts are seeing right through it.

federal laws will play into the equation. There are plenty of examples on how the courts have ruled in cases involving the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX. Plus, the courts ruling on players being paid involved payments from external sources and directly from the schools. So you can't assume the courts will take the same approach if there ever comes a day when the schools are directly paying these athletes. As I have noted in other posts as long as the academic side receives federal funding and the athletic side remains connected to the academic side, then the government has a vested interest in ensuring the schools comply with Title IX requirements in athletics. That means if VT wants to pay every football player a salary of $100,000, then it will have to provide that same benefit to every other athlete, male or female, because of Title IX and likely the Civil Rights Act of 1964. There are probably some other federal laws that would have a say in the matter that I am not thinking of off the top of my head. You may not agree with it or even like it, but federal law will always trump what the schools or the NCAA desire to do regarding this topic. This reality is what may prevent the schools from directly paying the athletes at some point in the future. If they do decide to pay them, then it will be at a lower salary regardless of what you believe is a player's "fair market value." Always remember a person's "fair market value" is only established when both parties agree on a value. You may think your fair market value is worth $100 million dollars. However, if the highest salary any potential employer is willing to offer you is $10,000 and you sign the contract, then guess what your "fair market value" is only worth $10,000. The other factor which can help determine a player's "fair market value" is whether the schools and the players' union agreed on a salary cap for each sport or the entire athletic department.

eliminate. Also, Title IX could end up requiring the schools to pay all the athletes the same amount regardless of sport or gender. Given that women's sports don't have an equivalent to football and each division level will likely still have a minimum sports requirement like it is now, it could force a lot of schools to rethink just how committed they are to paying these athletes and just how committed they are to continue sponsoring football. I could easily see the following scenario. DI: Big Ten, SEC, and any other schools who want to pay their athletes for all sports DII: the remaining former DI schools DIII: the former DII schools DIV: the former DIII schools If that ends up becoming the new division levels, then it wouldn't shock me if VT announced it was opting to become a DII school because it can't quite afford to pay all the athletes without eliminating so many sports that it drops VT below the men's or women's minimum requirement. Now if the schools decide that the athletic department should be spun off into a completely independent entity with no budgetary ties to the schools, then the entity could do whatever it wants because I believe it would no longer be subject to Title IX since it would no longer have any connection to the academic side's receipt of federal aid. At least I can't think of a scenario where the independent entity would be receiving federal aid of some kind.

I see zero reason why non revenue, women's, sports should be compensated. Those athletes truly are compensated adequately through tuition/room/board for what they bring to the school. This is going to be an entirely new thing. VT Football is going to be viewed as an entirely different animal than VT Tennis...as it should be.

passing the Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972 which was to update the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which banned several forms of discrimination in employment, but did not address or mention discrimination in education. Even though Title IX does not explicitly address collegiate athletics, the U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights later established those requirements by requiring schools to pass 1 of 3 tests. Basically Title IX prohibits sex-based discrimination in any school or any other education program that receives funding from the federal government. Instead of athletic scholarship being the "benefit," it is now a salary or wage. Keep in mind that student-athletes can also receive federal aid via grants (i.e. Pell Grant), loans, or work-study funds to help pay for their education particularly in sports where the student-athletes do not receive a full athletic scholarship. Even if the courts decide that Title IX doesn't apply to the salary/wage issue, the schools would still be subject to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

athletes, then they will need to figure out a way for the athletic department to divorce itself/become completely independent from the academic side of the school. Basically the VT Athletic Department would be rebranded as the VT Athletic Club (or VTAC) and sponsor whatever sports it wants to sponsor like what you see at Bayern Munchen which currently sponsors football (or soccer), handball, chess, bowling, table tennis, and basketball at the professional level.

believe the schools may still decide to sponsor "collegiate athletics" via the club route. I say that because the European colleges/universities do have athletic teams, but I don't think they receive the same level of media exposure as the professional clubs. Now whether the schools would offer athletic scholarships to the various club teams is unclear.

I wonder about this extreme change in college football coupled with dramatic changes elsewhere. Barred here from factually relating those areas of change. Would be on any sport's board. So this will just concern football. Why the changes? NIL, an instantaneous Transfer Portal versus the old one year wait and one year loss of eligibility. Plus the apparently upcoming wholesale expansion boom. The expansion can be wrote off to greed which is an inborn timeless fallacy within humanity. However why the NIL & Transfer Portal creations? What was the pressure or the inherent drive to do that? There was none. It appears as just tools to wreck our sport and it will probably will do so. Coaches already have to play doting father roles to get the best efforts of athletes. Now are they going have to make sure everybody drives a high priced sport's car and has a gold necklace to get them working hard on the practice field? Those athletes are too young for that. It is going to ruin the college sport.

Preventing players from profiting off their popularity is very hard to defend when you step outside the bubble.

The system of a service given in exchange for an expense free college education had legally sufficed over 100 years. Why the legal change? It just gets back to the first paragraph of my comment you replied to. We have huge fundamental changes in all three branches of government on a regular basis. That includes the judicial branch. The courts did not address my bottom line. They just screwed college football.

These guys were supposed to bust their ass and bodies in the name of school spirit while dozens of other folks around campus were banking millions?

Those folks around campus banking millions have agents and high priced attorneys overseeing every contract they sign. Those juvenile athletes are going to be bouncing from program to program on a whim for the most dollars and the best sales pitch. You will need to buy a game program to know who is still on the team. The middle age and older fans are going to get tired of that who's still here & who ain't while trying to support their favorite team real fast.

have to sit out a year, which was a stupid rule to begin with. It only applied to football and basketball. I wonder why.

I have also read they would now have two Transfer Portal windows per season. You see the only obstacle is remaining academically eligible. How tough do you think that will be for universities to arrange? How many football startes flunk out at Alabama with Nick Saban or anywhere else?

And whatever the B1G and SEC come up with, it will make transfers and such far less prominent. Think about it, kids are going to be signing contracts.

weren't allowed to profit from their NIL outside of that service exchanged for education model. Players argued that's not ok. Courts agreed.

You say 100 years, but it’s really just been the last 20-30 where college profits have skyrocketed based largely on the athletes that play football for them. The challenge for media rights by Georgia and OU in the mid 80’s started a lot of this but it didn’t truly take root for another decade or two, aided by the expansive media market that could handle the massive broadcasting load of major college football. Yes, the collegiate allegiance felt by the majority of fans who tune in is important to the success of the sport, but the better the athletes got and as the number of great athletes increased combined with the massive amount of content that is able to be disseminated to viewers through the ever evolving media since the 90’s, the bigger the financial gains that were to be had amongst a growing amount of schools competing in college football. Here lies the two breaking points, between schools and their competition for money (haves and have nots… Oklahoma vs Oklahoma St; Texas vs Texas Tech; USC vs Arizona) and between schools and their players, where the sharing of profits is far too imbalanced. It is only natural that as the employer profits more and more while the laborer’s wages do not increase (that scholarship) that there will be friction. And all would have never happened if college athletics’ revenue didn’t undergo the explosion it has experienced The last few decades

Heck, the old Danny Ford days of "cruit'n" may have been sleazier than what's going down today. Remember how guys were graduating while functionally illiterate. I'm just glad some of these issues may perhaps now be addressed. Whatever this new thing that develops between the B1G and SEC looks like, i'm thinking it will be much better positioned to develop reasonable rules/regulations. And those rules and regulations will be much better enforced. Good for them! ** Edited by BBBDatVT_ at 8/3/2022, 11:41:40 AM ** Edited by BBBDatVT_ at 8/3/2022, 11:44:00 AM

Pretty straightforward. And the athletes can't sell university stuff either; like the logo or the name.

In CFB. The Big 10 and SEC. Sankey is a good commissioner and serves his presidents well. Warren we still are wait and see, but he has proven to be ruthless ( Sankey I'd also), which unfortunately is required in this environment. ** Edited by goldendomer at 8/2/2022, 3:38:02 PM