keep talking about things like they are today many times. Here you have an SEC school that will make 60-70 million off of TV money alone, saying just about all facility projects are on hold. This is just the beginning of hearing about financial cutbacks in Olympic Sports. If all NCAA athletes are going to have to be paid, how many non-revenue Olympic Sports are going to be cut all together? Especially on the Men’s side with Title IX helping the women to be even on roster spots. Now football can have 105 players, so doesn’t that probably mean 20 less Men Olympic Sports roster spots? What am I missing here?

look like 24 months from now. And the House decision is just the 1st grenade to land

My understanding is Title IX requires equivalency between men and women on scholarships? What about NIL distribution? Do the women have to be paid the same total amount as the men's FB and BB teams, or is it some other metric?

Since it is the party that enforces Title IX, then that is who will be issuing the guidance on it.

Trial date in mid-2025.

team. If they win, you would now be talking Club Sports.

station IMHO.

It’s allowed by law in Virginia. I believe there are a fair number of states that either don’t allow it or don’t have a law that allows it - that’s where it could get murky. But you’re correct that the train is leaving the station.

we now get agents at the high school level?

strict rules as to what they can and cannot do. I don’t know what they are for NIL though, but I will find out.

** Edited by RJHokie at 8/26/2024, 8:47:52 PM

the capacity to enter into contracts. Any contract a minor enters into is not enforceable which means minors can disaffirm contracts at will. There are a few exceptions out there such as contracts for necessities (i.e. food, clothing, lodging), penalties, military service, employment contracts, and contractual obligations (i.e. taxes, bank regulations, etc.).

and others will catch up in due time.

to play in a local youth rec league.

(TV, movies, Broadway, play) or appear in an ad/commercial? I would love to be a fly on the wall when you try to convince Gerber to not use a baby for its "Gerber Baby" or for Pampers/Huggies to not use a baby to promote its diapers.

have their school's name on the jersey or in the club name, I don't see anything wrong with club teams receiving a cut of the money. Granted most of the broadcasts are on a streaming service like ESPN+, X, or Facebook, but I have been able to watch a few club sports on the ESPN Family of Networks. I think even the BTN has gotten in on the act.

the University will athletes be paying them? This thing seems like an industrial size can of worms, where one answer just leads to more problems to solve. ** Edited by Stech at 8/26/2024, 1:06:06 PM

The remainder will be women's sports in order to comply with Title IX. I guess the rest will be club sports per the other posters here.

Have a privately funded entity employ the revenue athletes, license the college name and lease the facilities. Eliminate all scholarships, no Title IX concerns, no requirement to be a student, eliminate entire athletic department…..Problem solved.

Interesting!

They can still do that in my scenario.

"What does Title IX require for schools’ athletic programs? The Title IX regulations require schools to provide equal opportunity based on sex. This requirement applies to schools’ athletic programs, including club, intramural, and interscholastic teams."

Would be employees of a non-college related entity. Title IX wouldn’t apply for the same reason it doesn’t apply to NFL players. As for the clubs, the school would not provide funding or coaches or special facilities for any of them. The clubs would have to figure it out on their own and pay their own way. Maybe the college could provide a facilitator and an office to coordinate scheduling. But the school would have little involvement. Don’t see Title IX as an issue.

any of the existing clubs. However, Title IX still applies because the schools can't give more opportunities (perceived or not) to essentially men's club sports. Schools are limited on the number of men's club sport applications are approved each fiscal year based on the number of applications are approved for women's club sports. Now the schools may have a little wiggle room for the club sports that can be classified as co-ed. The same rules and policies apply to intramural sports including any facilities and equipment made available for the intramural sport.

And any “issue” easily solvable. If not, get rid of the clubs. That certainly solves the issue.

interest to get rid of the club sports because they provide benefits to both the students and the schools. Benefits to the students student development physical fitness socializing representing the school exposure building a resume (employers often view the participation as a positive attribute Benefits to the schools increasing enrollment and retention (i.e. Life University has seen an increase in enrollment due to the success of its men's rugby program) broadening outreach to students increasing the potential for future alumni involvement and donations

No scholarships, minimal financial support equally allocated…..Just not seeing a major problem.

I can see where schools will have football, men's basketball, and maybe baseball and women's basketball, softball, and soccer. The rest will be club sports, which you already have at many schools.

the football roster. Not sure how many women make up a gymnastic roster, I don't think it covers the new 20 football spots. Question for the board: Are schools liable for the 105 or only for the number that are actually on scholarship?

it doesn’t matter if you’re on scholarship or not. However, I just asked @VTScoop below, he is very informed in this area. By the way, my source was from a UVA Olympic Sport Head Coach doing a Tour with potential students. He described all of this with the term Roster Spots. It’s really uncharted territory.

So I don’t believe that is the case, I am looking forward to hearing from VTScoop, he is very knowledgeable in this area.

when a judge makes a ruling. Either they go back to the drawing board, it goes to trial, or the P2 gets their way at the expense of college athletics across the board. I know which outcome I'd put my money on, but we will not know until it's final. Then we can sweat what happens moving forward.

judge doesn’t see scholarships as payment, and it’s not likely she reverses on that. In fact if she considered scholarships payment, there is not a strong case for any change. The point is, she thinks athletes should be paid, and scholarships are not payment. So I wouldn’t get my hopes up on that one.

as in all settlement discussions anticipated some, if not all, scholarship payments would count toward the revenue share. It is why scholarship limits were increased and roster sizes were equalized with those limits. It is not likely the judge would make a change to a significant provision like that as it would be tantamount to not approving the settlement with at least one party likely to back away. Wilken has ruled against the NCAA in multiple cases and there are questions what she will do this time. While the court has rejected one challenge to the settlement already concerns are rising that there may be more to come as people read and study the fine print. There are lots of complaints the Big football schools took advantage of the process and are cramming it down the remaining school's throats and that the damage repayments funding sources do not match, or at least equitably line up, with the previous beneficiaries.

At one point I looked up a few years of the units that conferences earned from the NCAA tournament. And the % of the total NCAA distribution bucket lines up fairly well with the damage repayments calculations. So my guess is the Power football conferences knowingly used a calculation that only covers 20% of their revenue (the NCAA distributions) and applied it to everything. And this results in the Power conferences paying significantly less in damages, while the G5 pay significantly more. But in reality, the damages are from lack of sharing all money (NCAA + conference media deals). The proposed damages payments should absolutely not go through as currently laid out. It would cripple all G5 football programs and athletic departments.

However, the compensation is by no means just the scholarship right? I mean why have the case if this is just about the scholarship money they are already getting? ** Edited by Stech at 8/26/2024, 11:26:24 AM

uncertainty and I am tied up some today. Saw your question earlier. What @2hhoop3 is saying is true relative to scholarships counting as part of the revenue sharing. Here is a little more on that from a post I made the other day when @Chris Coleman was asking why scholarships were being increased and was using baseball as an example. Some of what you are asking is in this post and should help a little: "If I could answer your question as to why scholarships are increasing. The whole reasoning behind this is to "unlock" the restrictions needed to help with the revenue sharing "settlement." Schools are allowed to count additional scholarships as part of the revenue settlement amount. I believe it is in the neighborhood of $2-$3M (of the ~$22M). So, all of these scholarships (of which your math illustration is not coincidental ~$2.5-$3M for 63 scholarships) will come close to adding up to the dollar figure allowed as part of the revenue. But, unless the NCAA lifted the restriction on scholarship numbers, the additional scholarship dollars would NOT have been allowed to count as part of the revenue sharing. So, using your baseball example, the scholarship additions would be their revenue sharing and there would not necessarily be a need to share any more with baseball (in theory). There is obviously a cap on the amount that can be used for scholarships because a good portion/majority of the revenue is going to be allocated to football and basketball and those folks are already on full scholarship. So their revenue enhancements would have to come from sources not tied to scholarships. I do realize the adding of 20 football scholarships is now available, but that is not going to move the needle on revenue needed for football. In fact, if I am any school, I would think long and hard about adding football scholarships so I don't dilute the "revenue pie" with more players. That doesn't really make sense as a school can't exceed the CAP that has been installed. Some of the revenue "decision making" is still yet to be determined, as many are going to have to guess/assume risk as to the Title IX ramifications of this. If anyone is curious, the revenue sharing is based on including what a school typically spends on scholarships already. Generally, most schools spend around $15-$16M on scholarships. The additional $22M from the settlement brings the total revenue sharing to $37-$38M per school. That is considered half (like the pro model of 50% revenue sharing) of what the typical Power 4 school brings in from ticket revenue/sponsor revenue/conference payout. Crazy times. Thank goodness the additional revenue is also coming from the new CFP payouts also. I still expect some significant changes within our athletic department (relative to expenses)." Me again. That should give you some background. Most of the Power 4 schools will want the majority of revenue going to football for obvious reasons. Don't think we have made any final decisions yet as to how we will proceed just yet.

is the scholarship payments COUNT in the calculation of the percentage revenue share. You use the term compensation which, at least for some, implies inclusion in income. Those specifics are not addressed in this settlement. The revenue share agreement says certain sources(tickets, media rights, etc.) constitute shareable revenues and athletes going forward are entitled to a percentage share currently estimated to approximate $22M. per school. In determining school compliance with the revenue share scholarship costs will count toward that share.

What is the Title IX balancing metric? Is it total payment amount, or just the number of athletes getting some level of payment?

provide would be little more than a WAG. I do not think even the parties involved in negotiating the settlement have an idea. In fact, Kessler one of the plaintiff attorneys said as much with a quote along the lines of we'll let the courts decide likely signaling the next billable windfall on his horizon.

a mess for a very long time but, people only started paying attention when the NCAA started losing court cases that amounted to real money. Solutions would have been tough years ago but, the longer this ran and the larger the money pile became the more difficult resolution became because the damaged class includes not only present and future athletes but, former athletes angered that earlier pleas were ignored. The problems are made more difficult due to the ever widening revenue gaps between sports.

Schools will field the absolute minimum number of non-revenue sports in the future.

It won’t matter if you are on an Academic Scholarship, an Athletic Scholarship or no Scholarship at all. They will still pay you a certain amount to play. So if that’s true, where does the money come from to pay players? It seems either a lot less roster spots in a sport, or like you said, just cut the sport and make it a Club sport. @VTScoop I would love to hear what you know on this. What am I missing here?