(03-09-2024 12:24 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Obviously, it’s mostly the overwhelming money of football.

However, it’s a little flippant to say it’s *solely* about money. Outside of the Big East and a handful of schools like Gonzaga, Memphis, San Diego State, etc., the top basketball brands are in the power football conferences. The hoops moneymakers are still highly concentrated in the P4.

At the same time, Title IX is the law of the land and anyone that thinks that’s going to be adjusted for the new college sports world doesn’t understand the much greater political will behind it to make it apply even more broadly, much less try to reduce its impact. So, even if the powers that be wanted to separate football into its own entity (whatever it might be), they (a) may not be able to do it under Title IX from a legal perspective and/or (b) the practical effect is that the schools have to equalize whatever they’re doing to football with an equivalent amount for women’s sports, anyway, so that largely defeats the purpose of separating football.

Finally, I think a lot of people are missing the bigger picture: keeping football tied to everything else is actually how the P4 can structurally separate themselves from everyone else on a “neutral” basis that has a better chance of complying with antitrust laws and/or passing political and regulatory scrutiny. That is, if the P4 want to separate and the only reason is that they list out the football programs that ESPN and Fox deem to be the most valuable, that’s probably getting hammered in antitrust grounds.

However, if the power conferences say, “We’re the ones generating the value for the system, and as a result, we’re providing a full scholarship for EVERY women’s roster spot on our campuses. NCAA scholarship limitations no longer apply. Only those institutions to are FULLY committed by providing this full scholarship opportunity to every single athlete are going to be in the top group and receive the benefit of the top revenue for football and basketball.”

THAT is how you sell it if you’re the power conferences. All of the “riff raff” are always going to be willing to spend money on football and basketball when push comes to shove, so the powers that be *don’t* want that to be separate. It’s the willingness to spend on the sports that *don’t* make money where the power conferences turn the conversation from “We’re taking all of the football and basketball money because we’re greedy” to “We’re taking all of the football and basketball money because we’re the ones fully committed to spending maximum resources on women’s sports.”

That’s why the power conferences are going to tie all sports together. The ability to spend money on sports that *don’t* make money is actually the neutral justification for the power conferences to have separate rules and revenue apply to them (and possibly be a separate entity altogether).

I’m confused. Scholarships aren’t—nor have they ever been—funded by media contracts.

(03-09-2024 03:55 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  

(03-09-2024 03:43 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-09-2024 02:28 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  

(03-09-2024 12:24 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Obviously, it’s mostly the overwhelming money of football.

However, it’s a little flippant to say it’s *solely* about money. Outside of the Big East and a handful of schools like Gonzaga, Memphis, San Diego State, etc., the top basketball brands are in the power football conferences. The hoops moneymakers are still highly concentrated in the P4.

At the same time, Title IX is the law of the land and anyone that thinks that’s going to be adjusted for the new college sports world doesn’t understand the much greater political will behind it to make it apply even more broadly, much less try to reduce its impact. So, even if the powers that be wanted to separate football into its own entity (whatever it might be), they (a) may not be able to do it under Title IX from a legal perspective and/or (b) the practical effect is that the schools have to equalize whatever they’re doing to football with an equivalent amount for women’s sports, anyway, so that largely defeats the purpose of separating football.

Finally, I think a lot of people are missing the bigger picture: keeping football tied to everything else is actually how the P4 can structurally separate themselves from everyone else on a “neutral” basis that has a better chance of complying with antitrust laws and/or passing political and regulatory scrutiny. That is, if the P4 want to separate and the only reason is that they list out the football programs that ESPN and Fox deem to be the most valuable, that’s probably getting hammered in antitrust grounds.

However, if the power conferences say, “We’re the ones generating the value for the system, and as a result, we’re providing a full scholarship for EVERY women’s roster spot on our campuses. NCAA scholarship limitations no longer apply. Only those institutions to are FULLY committed by providing this full scholarship opportunity to every single athlete are going to be in the top group and receive the benefit of the top revenue for football and basketball.”

THAT is how you sell it if you’re the power conferences. All of the “riff raff” are always going to be willing to spend money on football and basketball when push comes to shove, so the powers that be *don’t* want that to be separate. It’s the willingness to spend on the sports that *don’t* make money where the power conferences turn the conversation from “We’re taking all of the football and basketball money because we’re greedy” to “We’re taking all of the football and basketball money because we’re the ones fully committed to spending maximum resources on women’s sports.”

That’s why the power conferences are going to tie all sports together. The ability to spend money on sports that *don’t* make money is actually the neutral justification for the power conferences to have separate rules and revenue apply to them (and possibly be a separate entity altogether).

You don't think there's an argument that can be made and won by saying that Football should be exempt from Title IX because.it basically funds each schools entire athletic budget.

Nope. None. Nada. Zero chance. Whether football makes more money than anything is irrelevant (and if anything, strengthens the fact that women’s sports need to be added to counterbalance its power). I don’t think a lot of college sports fans understand that Title IX is not a “college sports law” - it’s a broadly applicable law and there is zero (truly ZERO) political or legal basis to exempt football from it (as exempting football basically makes Title IX toothless). Every proposal for college sports in the future needs to account for Title IX applying or else it isn’t an actual real proposal.

So how broad are we talking? A = man, B = woman
Example: Salesman A sells $1M of product, gets $100K commission
Salesman B sells $150K of product, gets $100K commission due to Title IX?

What an inane argument. It's simply complying with the law of the land. We can and do have all sorts of discussions here about Grants of Rights and whether they'll hold up in court, or whether student athletes are really employee athletes b/c there's a legitimate discussion to be had on those topics. Why? Congress hasn't passed a law that governs those things. You know what they have passed, however? A law called "Title IX" that, among many other things, forces colleges to offer the same benefits to male athletes as they do to female athletes:

No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

If your school doesn't take any money from the Federal Govt, they can do whatever they want. If your school does take any money from the federal govt, then they have to do what the Govt says. It doesn't matter if the girls bring in (negative) -$10m per year and the mens sports bring in +$20m per year. It's the Govt, that's how they do things, and, yes, we all know that this sort of thing wouldn't fly in the real world.

(03-09-2024 04:57 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(03-09-2024 02:52 PM)Garden_KC Wrote:  

(03-09-2024 11:45 AM)XLance Wrote:  Greed.

Greed and also Fear of being stuck in second place.

Fear of being left behind is exactly what should be driving the M2 to join the G5 in opposition to the P2’s CFP auto-bid and revenue distribution proposals.

It should be obvious to the M2 that this is an effort to remove them from the adults table. And once they’re kicked off there’s no going back. No more steak and lobster meals.

It won’t be too bad at first. They’ll get some occasional roast beef. A dessert now and then. They won’t be relegated to Happy Meal fare right away.

But once the separation is achieved, the gap will only grow. That’s been the case for decades. Some M2 schools will be spared by landing golden ticket invitations into the P2, but only a handful. Once the P2 have the gourmet menu to themselves, they’ll have little motivation to share.

Having said all that… Will the M2 actually have the foresight and guts to say hell no to these proposals? I wouldn’t bet a donut on that. It’s more likely they’ll be co-opted by divide-and-conquer tactics.

I did a deep dive into the likely impact on income to both the P2 and M2 if they can't reach an agreement. It's basically bad for everybody. They'll reach an agreement, the P2 will get more than the M2, but it's possible and perhaps even likely that the gap won't be quite as extreme as what we've seen floated in this thread.

(03-09-2024 06:46 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(03-09-2024 03:55 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  

(03-09-2024 03:43 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-09-2024 02:28 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  

(03-09-2024 12:24 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Obviously, it’s mostly the overwhelming money of football.

However, it’s a little flippant to say it’s *solely* about money. Outside of the Big East and a handful of schools like Gonzaga, Memphis, San Diego State, etc., the top basketball brands are in the power football conferences. The hoops moneymakers are still highly concentrated in the P4.

At the same time, Title IX is the law of the land and anyone that thinks that’s going to be adjusted for the new college sports world doesn’t understand the much greater political will behind it to make it apply even more broadly, much less try to reduce its impact. So, even if the powers that be wanted to separate football into its own entity (whatever it might be), they (a) may not be able to do it under Title IX from a legal perspective and/or (b) the practical effect is that the schools have to equalize whatever they’re doing to football with an equivalent amount for women’s sports, anyway, so that largely defeats the purpose of separating football.

Finally, I think a lot of people are missing the bigger picture: keeping football tied to everything else is actually how the P4 can structurally separate themselves from everyone else on a “neutral” basis that has a better chance of complying with antitrust laws and/or passing political and regulatory scrutiny. That is, if the P4 want to separate and the only reason is that they list out the football programs that ESPN and Fox deem to be the most valuable, that’s probably getting hammered in antitrust grounds.

However, if the power conferences say, “We’re the ones generating the value for the system, and as a result, we’re providing a full scholarship for EVERY women’s roster spot on our campuses. NCAA scholarship limitations no longer apply. Only those institutions to are FULLY committed by providing this full scholarship opportunity to every single athlete are going to be in the top group and receive the benefit of the top revenue for football and basketball.”

THAT is how you sell it if you’re the power conferences. All of the “riff raff” are always going to be willing to spend money on football and basketball when push comes to shove, so the powers that be *don’t* want that to be separate. It’s the willingness to spend on the sports that *don’t* make money where the power conferences turn the conversation from “We’re taking all of the football and basketball money because we’re greedy” to “We’re taking all of the football and basketball money because we’re the ones fully committed to spending maximum resources on women’s sports.”

That’s why the power conferences are going to tie all sports together. The ability to spend money on sports that *don’t* make money is actually the neutral justification for the power conferences to have separate rules and revenue apply to them (and possibly be a separate entity altogether).

You don't think there's an argument that can be made and won by saying that Football should be exempt from Title IX because.it basically funds each schools entire athletic budget.

Nope. None. Nada. Zero chance. Whether football makes more money than anything is irrelevant (and if anything, strengthens the fact that women’s sports need to be added to counterbalance its power). I don’t think a lot of college sports fans understand that Title IX is not a “college sports law” - it’s a broadly applicable law and there is zero (truly ZERO) political or legal basis to exempt football from it (as exempting football basically makes Title IX toothless). Every proposal for college sports in the future needs to account for Title IX applying or else it isn’t an actual real proposal.

So how broad are we talking? A = man, B = woman
Example: Salesman A sells $1M of product, gets $100K commission
Salesman B sells $150K of product, gets $100K commission due to Title IX?

What an inane argument. It's simply complying with the law of the land. We can and do have all sorts of discussions here about Grants of Rights and whether they'll hold up in court, or whether student athletes are really employee athletes b/c there's a legitimate discussion to be had on those topics. Why? Congress hasn't passed a law that governs those things. You know what they have passed, however? A law called "Title IX" that, among many other things, forces colleges to offer the same benefits to male athletes as they do to female athletes:

No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

If your school doesn't take any money from the Federal Govt, they can do whatever they want. If your school does take any money from the federal govt, then they have to do what the Govt says. It doesn't matter if the girls bring in (negative) -$10m per year and the mens sports bring in +$20m per year. It's the Govt, that's how they do things, and, yes, we all know that this sort of thing wouldn't fly in the real world.

But if football splits off and they become legit employees and not just scholarship/school related employees, then what? As in, they are no longer student-athletes at all but pro football employees (or just athletes and not students at all except under their own volition and financial aid), how can that be regulated ?

(03-09-2024 02:28 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  You don't think there's an argument that can be made and won by saying that Football should be exempt from Title IX because.it basically funds each schools entire athletic budget.

Quit bringing logic into the picture. It's about politics and law, not logical thinking.

(03-09-2024 06:59 PM)C2__ Wrote:  

(03-09-2024 06:46 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(03-09-2024 03:55 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  

(03-09-2024 03:43 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-09-2024 02:28 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  You don't think there's an argument that can be made and won by saying that Football should be exempt from Title IX because.it basically funds each schools entire athletic budget.

Nope. None. Nada. Zero chance. Whether football makes more money than anything is irrelevant (and if anything, strengthens the fact that women’s sports need to be added to counterbalance its power). I don’t think a lot of college sports fans understand that Title IX is not a “college sports law” - it’s a broadly applicable law and there is zero (truly ZERO) political or legal basis to exempt football from it (as exempting football basically makes Title IX toothless). Every proposal for college sports in the future needs to account for Title IX applying or else it isn’t an actual real proposal.

So how broad are we talking? A = man, B = woman
Example: Salesman A sells $1M of product, gets $100K commission
Salesman B sells $150K of product, gets $100K commission due to Title IX?

What an inane argument. It's simply complying with the law of the land. We can and do have all sorts of discussions here about Grants of Rights and whether they'll hold up in court, or whether student athletes are really employee athletes b/c there's a legitimate discussion to be had on those topics. Why? Congress hasn't passed a law that governs those things. You know what they have passed, however? A law called "Title IX" that, among many other things, forces colleges to offer the same benefits to male athletes as they do to female athletes:

No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

If your school doesn't take any money from the Federal Govt, they can do whatever they want. If your school does take any money from the federal govt, then they have to do what the Govt says. It doesn't matter if the girls bring in (negative) -$10m per year and the mens sports bring in +$20m per year. It's the Govt, that's how they do things, and, yes, we all know that this sort of thing wouldn't fly in the real world.

But if football splits off and they become legit employees and not just scholarship/school related employees, then what? As in, they are no longer student-athletes at all but pro football employees (or just athletes and not students at all except under their own volition and financial aid), how can that be regulated ?

Same issue with Title IX since it’s an educational institution. Courts have already ruled that Title IX applies to student employees of university medical centers, which have revenue that dwarf athletic departments. (Ohio State’s medical center revenue is well over $1 billion per year.) Shifting football players to employment status doesn’t change anything because that is now a group of 85 employees that are inherently male that need to be balanced out.

Trust me everyone: every single message board hypothetical of a way around Title IX with respect to football has been vetted, attempted, and/or completely smacked down by the courts. There is no way around it. Schools simply need to comply with the law if they want to have a football team, whether they’re scholarship or non-scholarship or employees or not. The court rulings about Title IX applying to university medical centers essentially obliterate any attempt to create some type of separate athletic legal entity as a way to avoid Title IX issues.

(03-09-2024 06:50 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(03-09-2024 04:57 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(03-09-2024 02:52 PM)Garden_KC Wrote:  

(03-09-2024 11:45 AM)XLance Wrote:  Greed.

Greed and also Fear of being stuck in second place.

Fear of being left behind is exactly what should be driving the M2 to join the G5 in opposition to the P2’s CFP auto-bid and revenue distribution proposals.

It should be obvious to the M2 that this is an effort to remove them from the adults table. And once they’re kicked off there’s no going back. No more steak and lobster meals.

It won’t be too bad at first. They’ll get some occasional roast beef. A dessert now and then. They won’t be relegated to Happy Meal fare right away.

But once the separation is achieved, the gap will only grow. That’s been the case for decades. Some M2 schools will be spared by landing golden ticket invitations into the P2, but only a handful. Once the P2 have the gourmet menu to themselves, they’ll have little motivation to share.

Having said all that… Will the M2 actually have the foresight and guts to say hell no to these proposals? I wouldn’t bet a donut on that. It’s more likely they’ll be co-opted by divide-and-conquer tactics.

I did a deep dive into the likely impact on income to both the P2 and M2 if they can't reach an agreement. It's basically bad for everybody. They'll reach an agreement, the P2 will get more than the M2, but it's possible and perhaps even likely that the gap won't be quite as extreme as what we've seen floated in this thread.

That's my take as well. Regardless of what threats are made by either side, I don't expect a breakaway. But I do think the M2 and G5 could use the threat of a "reverse breakaway" (if you want to call it that) as negotiating leverage to convince the P2 to back off on their more extreme proposals. As much as the M2 and G5 have to lose from a split, the P2 arguably have more.

However I have doubts that the M2 and G5 have the guts to go to the mat.

(03-09-2024 02:28 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  

(03-09-2024 12:24 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Obviously, it’s mostly the overwhelming money of football.

However, it’s a little flippant to say it’s *solely* about money. Outside of the Big East and a handful of schools like Gonzaga, Memphis, San Diego State, etc., the top basketball brands are in the power football conferences. The hoops moneymakers are still highly concentrated in the P4.

At the same time, Title IX is the law of the land and anyone that thinks that’s going to be adjusted for the new college sports world doesn’t understand the much greater political will behind it to make it apply even more broadly, much less try to reduce its impact. So, even if the powers that be wanted to separate football into its own entity (whatever it might be), they (a) may not be able to do it under Title IX from a legal perspective and/or (b) the practical effect is that the schools have to equalize whatever they’re doing to football with an equivalent amount for women’s sports, anyway, so that largely defeats the purpose of separating football.

Finally, I think a lot of people are missing the bigger picture: keeping football tied to everything else is actually how the P4 can structurally separate themselves from everyone else on a “neutral” basis that has a better chance of complying with antitrust laws and/or passing political and regulatory scrutiny. That is, if the P4 want to separate and the only reason is that they list out the football programs that ESPN and Fox deem to be the most valuable, that’s probably getting hammered in antitrust grounds.

However, if the power conferences say, “We’re the ones generating the value for the system, and as a result, we’re providing a full scholarship for EVERY women’s roster spot on our campuses. NCAA scholarship limitations no longer apply. Only those institutions to are FULLY committed by providing this full scholarship opportunity to every single athlete are going to be in the top group and receive the benefit of the top revenue for football and basketball.”

THAT is how you sell it if you’re the power conferences. All of the “riff raff” are always going to be willing to spend money on football and basketball when push comes to shove, so the powers that be *don’t* want that to be separate. It’s the willingness to spend on the sports that *don’t* make money where the power conferences turn the conversation from “We’re taking all of the football and basketball money because we’re greedy” to “We’re taking all of the football and basketball money because we’re the ones fully committed to spending maximum resources on women’s sports.”

That’s why the power conferences are going to tie all sports together. The ability to spend money on sports that *don’t* make money is actually the neutral justification for the power conferences to have separate rules and revenue apply to them (and possibly be a separate entity altogether).

You don't think there's an argument that can be made and won by saying that Football should be exempt from Title IX because.it basically funds each schools entire athletic budget.

Wasn't that argument lost in the 1970s?

https://youtu.be/-0kcet4aPpQ?si=s0ZHsJE9mYMt2BZy

(03-12-2024 06:51 AM)JSUCleburneslim Wrote:  https://youtu.be/-0kcet4aPpQ?si=s0ZHsJE9mYMt2BZy

I'll see that and raise you:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GXE_n2q08Y...kgbydqYXlz

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LxR2p88_bt...BqYWNrc29u