(03-19-2014 09:45 AM)Tygrys Wrote:  It is stupid. Even if this was ruled a violation of anti-trust laws it does not change the fact that 99% of schools cannot not afford to pay football and male basketball players, let alone an equal distribution to female athlete as Title IX would require. Basically, you end up with a.) 5-10 teams that can annually afford to shell out cash to players and thus 5-10 teams that are competitive or b.) allow boosters to start paying players... What could go wrong there. In either scenario you will only have a handful of teams that are able to remain competitive at all. This would basically end college athletics.

Pay them nothing , if they want to be payed then let them turn pro , and give the ones who want an education , an education . I do not know how much that would be for 4 years but I bet it's quite a bit .

What's next , paying high school kids to switch to your team ?

They should be spun off into a minor league system for the pros, at least in football and basketball. College sports have gotten too big, with way too much money involved. Take state and federal money out of the equation and let them sink or swim on their own as businesses. I love Tiger football, and I would really like to see it succeed. But, isn't the very definition of "success" determined by the inherent institutional inequalities of the NCAA system, and our constant struggle to even achieve that definition partly based on have's / have-not's hierarchy developed by the continually widening monetary divide. And if the gap is continually widening, where will we (meaning all of the non-power 5 members) be 5 years, 10 years, 20 years down the road?

(03-19-2014 12:23 PM)TIGER DENO Wrote:  

(03-19-2014 09:45 AM)Tygrys Wrote:  It is stupid. Even if this was ruled a violation of anti-trust laws it does not change the fact that 99% of schools cannot not afford to pay football and male basketball players, let alone an equal distribution to female athlete as Title IX would require. Basically, you end up with a.) 5-10 teams that can annually afford to shell out cash to players and thus 5-10 teams that are competitive or b.) allow boosters to start paying players... What could go wrong there. In either scenario you will only have a handful of teams that are able to remain competitive at all. This would basically end college athletics.

Pay them nothing , if they want to be payed then let them turn pro , and give the ones who want an education , an education . I do not know how much that would be for 4 years but I bet it's quite a bit .

What's next , paying high school kids to switch to your team ?

And like I said it is simply not feasible for most schools. If the entire athletic department is taken and treated as a business entity then most do not break even, when general fund transfers are taken out. The only way this could be done for most schools is to break the men's football and basketball teams away from the athletic department and treat those two sports as a totally separate entity and let the rest of the sports programs die. However, that will not be allowed to happen unless their is massive shift on how the football/basketball teams are viewed in relation to the school they represent.

(03-19-2014 12:20 PM)Tygrys Wrote:  

(03-19-2014 12:16 PM)MemTigerFan Wrote:  

(03-19-2014 12:14 PM)Tygrys Wrote:  

(03-19-2014 10:44 AM)MemTigerFan Wrote:  

(03-19-2014 09:53 AM)Tygrys Wrote:  Who is making the bulk of money is irrelevant if the school is receiving federal aid in any way, shape, or form...

A recipient of federal funds can demonstrate compliance with Title IX by meeting any one of the three prongs.

"All such assistance should be available on a substantially proportional basis to the number of male and female participants in the institution's athletic program."
"Male and female athletes should receive equivalent treatment, benefits, and opportunities" regarding facilities.
"The athletic interests and abilities of male and female students must be equally effectively accommodated."
"Institutions must provide both the opportunity for individuals of each sex to participate in intercollegiate competition, and for athletes of each sex to have competitive team schedules which equally reflect their abilities."

Compliance can be assessed in any one of three ways:

1.)Providing athletic participation opportunities that are substantially proportionate to the student enrollment. This prong of the test is satisfied when participation opportunities for men and women are "substantially proportionate" to their respective undergraduate enrollment.

2.)Demonstrating a continual expansion of athletic opportunities for the underrepresented sex. This prong of the test is satisfied when an institution has a history and continuing practice of program expansion that is responsive to the developing interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex (typically female).

3.)Accommodating the interest and ability of underrepresented sex. This prong of the test is satisfied when an institution is meeting the interests and abilities of its female students even where there are disproportionately fewer females than males participating in sports.

nothing in what you just posted says they can't pay one more than the other.

Except for this... "All such assistance should be available on a substantially proportional basis to the number of male and female participants in the institution's athletic program."

proportion in that sense means even number of people as I bolded along with your point. It doesn't mean in the amount.

So you genuinely believe that as long as they pay 100 male athletes tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars and they pay 100 females $50 each that all will be well, simply because they are paying the same amount of males in females despite a disparity in pay of tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars?

never said anything of the sort. I simply said there is nothing in the current written laws against it. The law is pretty clear in the matter, because it was written for a different scenario (the one currently in place).

Nothing is ever going to be "all well" in this situation, because there is no possible scenario that will make everyone happy. It's doubtful one exists that will even make a majority happy.

There is nothing easier than predicting when the NCAA killing lawsuit will arrive. It will happen 5 minutes after we are admitted into the Big 12.

(03-19-2014 11:07 AM)MemTigerFan Wrote:  

(03-19-2014 10:57 AM)HappyTiger Wrote:  I'm in 100% agreement with the lawsuit. The NCAA and the power conferences ARE a cartel, there's no way around it. Tuition and room and board are but a pittance to these schools. No tears for the NCAA, they brought this all on themselves...

proof? Not trying to be difficult, but people always use this as an excuse and it's almost always wrong. Only a handful of schools actually finish in the black. Now the networks and merchandisers make PLENTY off the game, but the lawsuits have nothing to do with that and honestly can't do much to stop it. But the schools, not really.

I definitely have no tears for the NCAA either. They are greedy and immoral. I'm all for them being taken down. I just don't really fault the schools for much of the issues (Big 5 are a cartel, but that's a different matter than paying the kids, IMO). Plus I don't think they should get paid, so that affects my thoughts too.

You have to understand that for pretty much all division 1 schools, the marginal cost of "tuition + room and board" is next to nothing. Sure, they don't charge the students, but they already own the dorms the students live in, they already employ the professors that teach their classes and heat buildings the classes are in, provide electricity to the dorms, etc. etc." And it's not like space in a large university is terribly limited. You are talking about, what, 400 students total on scholarship at the biggest of institutions?

So the university takes on minimal extra expense for the student athletes. You can argue that they lose income potential on the 400 spots those athletes took from other students without scholarship, but this assumes that enrollment is hard-capped at a certain number, which I'm not sure of. Does Memphis have a waiting list? Does UTK? Will they not exceed a certain threshold, or do they accept a large number knowing there will be annual fluctations in attendance? If they don't hard cap admissions, then the cost of the student athletes scholarship and board is relatively modest

(03-19-2014 12:29 PM)Tygrys Wrote:  

(03-19-2014 12:23 PM)TIGER DENO Wrote:  

(03-19-2014 09:45 AM)Tygrys Wrote:  It is stupid. Even if this was ruled a violation of anti-trust laws it does not change the fact that 99% of schools cannot not afford to pay football and male basketball players, let alone an equal distribution to female athlete as Title IX would require. Basically, you end up with a.) 5-10 teams that can annually afford to shell out cash to players and thus 5-10 teams that are competitive or b.) allow boosters to start paying players... What could go wrong there. In either scenario you will only have a handful of teams that are able to remain competitive at all. This would basically end college athletics.

Pay them nothing , if they want to be payed then let them turn pro , and give the ones who want an education , an education . I do not know how much that would be for 4 years but I bet it's quite a bit .

What's next , paying high school kids to switch to your team ?

And like I said it is simply not feasible for most schools. If the entire athletic department is taken and treated as a business entity then most do not break even, when general fund transfers are taken out. The only way this could be done for most schools is to break the men's football and basketball teams away from the athletic department and treat those two sports as a totally separate entity and let the rest of the sports programs die. However, that will not be allowed to happen unless their is massive shift on how the football/basketball teams are viewed in relation to the school they represent.

Great, would be the best thing for this country. University athletics is a poor system that essentially functions as minor league/lower division professional sports. We're the only country in the world screwy enough to tie high level big money sports with universities, and we only do that because it's the way it's always been done. It would make a lot more sense to form lower level professional leagues in their place and restrict university athletics to intramural status

(03-19-2014 02:36 PM)jgardne Wrote:  

(03-19-2014 11:07 AM)MemTigerFan Wrote:  

(03-19-2014 10:57 AM)HappyTiger Wrote:  I'm in 100% agreement with the lawsuit. The NCAA and the power conferences ARE a cartel, there's no way around it. Tuition and room and board are but a pittance to these schools. No tears for the NCAA, they brought this all on themselves...

proof? Not trying to be difficult, but people always use this as an excuse and it's almost always wrong. Only a handful of schools actually finish in the black. Now the networks and merchandisers make PLENTY off the game, but the lawsuits have nothing to do with that and honestly can't do much to stop it. But the schools, not really.

I definitely have no tears for the NCAA either. They are greedy and immoral. I'm all for them being taken down. I just don't really fault the schools for much of the issues (Big 5 are a cartel, but that's a different matter than paying the kids, IMO). Plus I don't think they should get paid, so that affects my thoughts too.

You have to understand that for pretty much all division 1 schools, the marginal cost of "tuition + room and board" is next to nothing. Sure, they don't charge the students, but they already own the dorms the students live in, they already employ the professors that teach their classes and heat buildings the classes are in, provide electricity to the dorms, etc. etc." And it's not like space in a large university is terribly limited. You are talking about, what, 400 students total on scholarship at the biggest of institutions?

So the university takes on minimal extra expense for the student athletes. You can argue that they lose income potential on the 400 spots those athletes took from other students without scholarship, but this assumes that enrollment is hard-capped at a certain number, which I'm not sure of. Does Memphis have a waiting list? Does UTK? Will they not exceed a certain threshold, or do they accept a large number knowing there will be annual fluctations in attendance? If they don't hard cap admissions, then the cost of the student athletes scholarship and board is relatively modest

Tuition + room/board is very expensive since a good majority are for out of state students, which means the rates must be at out of state tuition rates.

Plus that's only a fraction of the actual costs of running an athletic department. There are salaries (staff, not main coaches), facilities, travel, marketing, logistics, training, equipment, food, maintenance, sundries, consumables, printing, networks, data, phones, per diems, compliance costs, etc. etc.

The costs are MASSIVE! Is it worth it? Definitely, as there have been direct ties to university enrollment and donation increases tied to success on the field/court. But do they make extra money off it? Mostly, no.

(03-19-2014 02:40 PM)jgardne Wrote:  

(03-19-2014 12:29 PM)Tygrys Wrote:  

(03-19-2014 12:23 PM)TIGER DENO Wrote:  

(03-19-2014 09:45 AM)Tygrys Wrote:  It is stupid. Even if this was ruled a violation of anti-trust laws it does not change the fact that 99% of schools cannot not afford to pay football and male basketball players, let alone an equal distribution to female athlete as Title IX would require. Basically, you end up with a.) 5-10 teams that can annually afford to shell out cash to players and thus 5-10 teams that are competitive or b.) allow boosters to start paying players... What could go wrong there. In either scenario you will only have a handful of teams that are able to remain competitive at all. This would basically end college athletics.

Pay them nothing , if they want to be payed then let them turn pro , and give the ones who want an education , an education . I do not know how much that would be for 4 years but I bet it's quite a bit .

What's next , paying high school kids to switch to your team ?

And like I said it is simply not feasible for most schools. If the entire athletic department is taken and treated as a business entity then most do not break even, when general fund transfers are taken out. The only way this could be done for most schools is to break the men's football and basketball teams away from the athletic department and treat those two sports as a totally separate entity and let the rest of the sports programs die. However, that will not be allowed to happen unless their is massive shift on how the football/basketball teams are viewed in relation to the school they represent.

Great, would be the best thing for this country. University athletics is a poor system that essentially functions as minor league/lower division professional sports. We're the only country in the world screwy enough to tie high level big money sports with universities, and we only do that because it's the way it's always been done. It would make a lot more sense to form lower level professional leagues in their place and restrict university athletics to intramural status

That is fine, but without the Universities attached the market for minor league football and basketball diminishes greatly...

(03-19-2014 02:47 PM)MemTigerFan Wrote:  

(03-19-2014 02:36 PM)jgardne Wrote:  

(03-19-2014 11:07 AM)MemTigerFan Wrote:  

(03-19-2014 10:57 AM)HappyTiger Wrote:  I'm in 100% agreement with the lawsuit. The NCAA and the power conferences ARE a cartel, there's no way around it. Tuition and room and board are but a pittance to these schools. No tears for the NCAA, they brought this all on themselves...

proof? Not trying to be difficult, but people always use this as an excuse and it's almost always wrong. Only a handful of schools actually finish in the black. Now the networks and merchandisers make PLENTY off the game, but the lawsuits have nothing to do with that and honestly can't do much to stop it. But the schools, not really.

I definitely have no tears for the NCAA either. They are greedy and immoral. I'm all for them being taken down. I just don't really fault the schools for much of the issues (Big 5 are a cartel, but that's a different matter than paying the kids, IMO). Plus I don't think they should get paid, so that affects my thoughts too.

You have to understand that for pretty much all division 1 schools, the marginal cost of "tuition + room and board" is next to nothing. Sure, they don't charge the students, but they already own the dorms the students live in, they already employ the professors that teach their classes and heat buildings the classes are in, provide electricity to the dorms, etc. etc." And it's not like space in a large university is terribly limited. You are talking about, what, 400 students total on scholarship at the biggest of institutions?

So the university takes on minimal extra expense for the student athletes. You can argue that they lose income potential on the 400 spots those athletes took from other students without scholarship, but this assumes that enrollment is hard-capped at a certain number, which I'm not sure of. Does Memphis have a waiting list? Does UTK? Will they not exceed a certain threshold, or do they accept a large number knowing there will be annual fluctations in attendance? If they don't hard cap admissions, then the cost of the student athletes scholarship and board is relatively modest

Tuition + room/board is very expensive since a good majority are for out of state students, which means the rates must be at out of state tuition rates.

Plus that's only a fraction of the actual costs of running an athletic department. There are salaries (staff, not main coaches), facilities, travel, marketing, logistics, training, equipment, food, maintenance, sundries, consumables, printing, networks, data, phones, per diems, compliance costs, etc. etc.

The costs are MASSIVE! Is it worth it? Definitely, as there have been direct ties to university enrollment and donation increases tied to success on the field/court. But do they make extra money off it? Mostly, no.

Sure, the costs of the athletic department are large, but that's a school decision to divert tons of money into making athletics good and not directly related to the cost of providing for the athletes themselves.

Maybe coaches & NCAA executive's salaries don't need to be measured in millions leaving plenty of money to pay the players. It's not like the players would get a huge amount. They bring in all the money for everyone to split up but them. It's long overdue.

(03-19-2014 02:40 PM)jgardne Wrote:  Great, would be the best thing for this country. University athletics is a poor system that essentially functions as minor league/lower division professional sports. We're the only country in the world screwy enough to tie high level big money sports with universities, and we only do that because it's the way it's always been done. It would make a lot more sense to form lower level professional leagues in their place and restrict university athletics to intramural status

i wouldn't go so far as intramural but I would make it like D3 and the coaches salary can be no greater than the university president.

death to smoochy, the "BIG 5" and the NCAA!

(03-19-2014 03:31 PM)jgardne Wrote:  

(03-19-2014 02:47 PM)MemTigerFan Wrote:  

(03-19-2014 02:36 PM)jgardne Wrote:  

(03-19-2014 11:07 AM)MemTigerFan Wrote:  

(03-19-2014 10:57 AM)HappyTiger Wrote:  I'm in 100% agreement with the lawsuit. The NCAA and the power conferences ARE a cartel, there's no way around it. Tuition and room and board are but a pittance to these schools. No tears for the NCAA, they brought this all on themselves...

proof? Not trying to be difficult, but people always use this as an excuse and it's almost always wrong. Only a handful of schools actually finish in the black. Now the networks and merchandisers make PLENTY off the game, but the lawsuits have nothing to do with that and honestly can't do much to stop it. But the schools, not really.

I definitely have no tears for the NCAA either. They are greedy and immoral. I'm all for them being taken down. I just don't really fault the schools for much of the issues (Big 5 are a cartel, but that's a different matter than paying the kids, IMO). Plus I don't think they should get paid, so that affects my thoughts too.

You have to understand that for pretty much all division 1 schools, the marginal cost of "tuition + room and board" is next to nothing. Sure, they don't charge the students, but they already own the dorms the students live in, they already employ the professors that teach their classes and heat buildings the classes are in, provide electricity to the dorms, etc. etc." And it's not like space in a large university is terribly limited. You are talking about, what, 400 students total on scholarship at the biggest of institutions?

So the university takes on minimal extra expense for the student athletes. You can argue that they lose income potential on the 400 spots those athletes took from other students without scholarship, but this assumes that enrollment is hard-capped at a certain number, which I'm not sure of. Does Memphis have a waiting list? Does UTK? Will they not exceed a certain threshold, or do they accept a large number knowing there will be annual fluctations in attendance? If they don't hard cap admissions, then the cost of the student athletes scholarship and board is relatively modest

Tuition + room/board is very expensive since a good majority are for out of state students, which means the rates must be at out of state tuition rates.

Plus that's only a fraction of the actual costs of running an athletic department. There are salaries (staff, not main coaches), facilities, travel, marketing, logistics, training, equipment, food, maintenance, sundries, consumables, printing, networks, data, phones, per diems, compliance costs, etc. etc.

The costs are MASSIVE! Is it worth it? Definitely, as there have been direct ties to university enrollment and donation increases tied to success on the field/court. But do they make extra money off it? Mostly, no.

Sure, the costs of the athletic department are large, but that's a school decision to divert tons of money into making athletics good and not directly related to the cost of providing for the athletes themselves.

it's 100% directly related. If that stuff wasn't there, there'd be no programs no teams and thus no athletes.

(03-19-2014 10:40 AM)fsquid Wrote:  the schools have made this a big business, when you do that, you attract the questions. I'm fine with this lawsuit and the basis of it. Why should it be capped?

Yup. No one brought this on the NCAA except the institutions themselves.

(03-19-2014 03:40 PM)Antonio5fan Wrote:  Maybe coaches & NCAA executive's salaries don't need to be measured in millions leaving plenty of money to pay the players. It's not like the players would get a huge amount. They bring in all the money for everyone to split up but them. It's long overdue.

If their good enough out of high school to get paid , fine go pro . If not , get an education ( a free one at that ) and have options to get paid .

jmo