(08-25-2022 12:48 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-25-2022 12:02 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(08-25-2022 06:13 AM)dgrace4cards Wrote:  I tend to think having the schools paying the athletes directly from all this tv money should be the right path, rather than the shady NIL deals....The athletes deserve compensation do to the amount of money they bring in, the manner that's been chosen to do it so far, probably not the best approach.

Not sure that is practical as there would be Title IX considerations. From my understanding, schools would have to pay an equal number of athletes in women's programs the same amount of compensation to comply with the law.

NIL compensation is different in that it has no connection to the schools (at least that's the operating principle). Athletes are free to strike their own deals outside of the school. Sure, schools might help set up collectives to fascinate the process, but these collectives fall outside of the schools' purview, I believe.

I'm sure there are dozens of ways around Title IX. Question is: can they find one that's right for the ACC?

I don't think so. Title IX is Federal law, and is pretty unambiguous.

Any attempt to "get around" Title IX would provide plaintiffs the ability to seek immediate relief in Federal courts. This is not a situation where a school would be trying to mitigate a contractual obligation such as exit fees or a media agreement. This would be challenging existing Federal law.

Title IX has been around for 50 years and I cannot think of one school that has challenged it, much less succeeded in doing so. Can you? There is a reason for that.

(08-26-2022 09:13 AM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(08-25-2022 12:48 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-25-2022 12:02 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(08-25-2022 06:13 AM)dgrace4cards Wrote:  I tend to think having the schools paying the athletes directly from all this tv money should be the right path, rather than the shady NIL deals....The athletes deserve compensation do to the amount of money they bring in, the manner that's been chosen to do it so far, probably not the best approach.

Not sure that is practical as there would be Title IX considerations. From my understanding, schools would have to pay an equal number of athletes in women's programs the same amount of compensation to comply with the law.

NIL compensation is different in that it has no connection to the schools (at least that's the operating principle). Athletes are free to strike their own deals outside of the school. Sure, schools might help set up collectives to fascinate the process, but these collectives fall outside of the schools' purview, I believe.

I'm sure there are dozens of ways around Title IX. Question is: can they find one that's right for the ACC?

I don't think so. Title IX is Federal law, and is pretty unambiguous.

Any attempt to "get around" Title IX would provide plaintiffs the ability to seek immediate relief in Federal courts. This is not a situation where a school would be trying to mitigate a contractual obligation such as exit fees or a media agreement. This would be challenging existing Federal law.

Title IX has been around for 50 years and I cannot think of one school that has challenged it, much less succeeded in doing so. Can you? There is a reason for that.

Even now, schools don't have the same number of male and female scholarship athletes - it's not even close. That's because they've found loopholes in the law. I'm not saying they'll challenge the law, but consider this: how do you count football players if they become employees rather than scholarship athletes? I don't think Title IX requires you to hire the same number of men and women, does it?

(08-26-2022 09:47 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-26-2022 09:13 AM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(08-25-2022 12:48 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-25-2022 12:02 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(08-25-2022 06:13 AM)dgrace4cards Wrote:  I tend to think having the schools paying the athletes directly from all this tv money should be the right path, rather than the shady NIL deals....The athletes deserve compensation do to the amount of money they bring in, the manner that's been chosen to do it so far, probably not the best approach.

Not sure that is practical as there would be Title IX considerations. From my understanding, schools would have to pay an equal number of athletes in women's programs the same amount of compensation to comply with the law.

NIL compensation is different in that it has no connection to the schools (at least that's the operating principle). Athletes are free to strike their own deals outside of the school. Sure, schools might help set up collectives to fascinate the process, but these collectives fall outside of the schools' purview, I believe.

I'm sure there are dozens of ways around Title IX. Question is: can they find one that's right for the ACC?

I don't think so. Title IX is Federal law, and is pretty unambiguous.

Any attempt to "get around" Title IX would provide plaintiffs the ability to seek immediate relief in Federal courts. This is not a situation where a school would be trying to mitigate a contractual obligation such as exit fees or a media agreement. This would be challenging existing Federal law.

Title IX has been around for 50 years and I cannot think of one school that has challenged it, much less succeeded in doing so. Can you? There is a reason for that.

Even now, schools don't have the same number of male and female scholarship athletes - it's not even close. That's because they've found loopholes in the law. I'm not saying they'll challenge the law, but consider this: how do you count football players if they become employees rather than scholarship athletes? I don't think Title IX requires you to hire the same number of men and women, does it?

Title IX requires equity in spending on opportunities between men and women in line with demographics of the institution. I am not sure that employment is a loophole around title IX. The school would likely be directed to provide equitable amount of employment dollars and opportunities across both demographics.

NiL is tricky because depending on setup of the NiL collectives. I think it is likely a court would conclude they are an attempt to get around title IX and would sanction the offending institutions. Especially if they seem geared to focus on athletics of a single school because of the implied coordination between the parties.

NiLs pursued solely by students would be more likely to be safe from Title IX sanction.