...........and because of Title IX implications, it seems to me that these added benefits (stipend for example) will have to be provided to all men's and women's sports of these P5 schools.

Recent articles have suggested that the majority of these "benefits" will be "permissive" in nature meaning the remaining D1 schools will be allowed to enact these benefits as well without the approval of the entire D1 (minus the P5), but the reality is most will not be able to afford it.

One problem / issue I haven't seen anyone mention is the fact that several of these P5 schools have affiliate athletic programs in other G5 or D1 conferences.

Just one example............

Kentucky and South Carolina are affiliate members of CUSA in men's soccer.

So this makes you wonder.................

If those two schools (UK, USCe) mens soccer players receive all these extra benefits associated with autonomy that say the rest of CUSA soccer schools may not be able to afford, isn't that creating more (key word-more) of an unfair playing field or does it really have no bearing on anything?

Also, does this answer the question I've seen asking whether "a conference has to pass these initiatives as a whole or can individual schools within a conference offer these benefits?"

Seems to me that if Kentucky / USC soccer players can get these benefits "individually" as "conference mates" of CUSA soccer, then individual schools ought to be able to vote in these benefits without approval of the conference or the rest of D1.

THOUGHTS ??

(04-27-2014 10:55 AM)ECUPirated Wrote:  ...........and because of Title IX implications, it seems to me that these added benefits (stipend for example) will have to be provided to all men's and women's sports of these P5 schools.

Recent articles have suggested that the majority of these "benefits" will be "permissive" in nature meaning the remaining D1 schools will be allowed to enact these benefits as well without the approval of the entire D1 (minus the P5), but the reality is most will not be able to afford it.

One problem / issue I haven't seen anyone mention is the fact that several of these P5 schools have affiliate athletic programs in other G5 or D1 conferences.

Just one example............

Kentucky and South Carolina are affiliate members of CUSA in men's soccer.

So this makes you wonder.................

If those two schools (UK, USCe) mens soccer players receive all these extra benefits associated with autonomy that say the rest of CUSA soccer schools may not be able to afford, isn't that creating more (key word-more) of an unfair playing field or does it really have no bearing on anything?

Also, does this answer the question I've seen asking whether "a conference has to pass these initiatives as a whole or can individual schools within a conference offer these benefits?"

Seems to me that if Kentucky / USC soccer players can get these benefits "individually" as "conference mates" of CUSA soccer, then individual schools ought to be able to vote in these benefits without approval of the conference or the rest of D1.

THOUGHTS ??

The meeting this week passed the proposal with one change---the "actionable" portion of the proposal was removed. The other 27 D1 programs do not have to approve the use of rules adopted through the autonomous powers of the P5. What the NCAA did NOT decide is exactly HOW these rules would be adopted by schools outside of the P5, other than it would NOT require a vote of the rest of D1.

That leaves open the possibility that these rules will require a vote on the baisis of subdivision or conference. It is also possible that the rules will be left entirely to the individual school. That said, even if the rules can be adopted on a school by school basis, it would still be possible for conferences to prevent their use within a conference by a simple majority vote. It would then be up to a school to move to another conference that allows the P5 autonomous rules they wish to adopt. My guess is this is not going to be an issue at the G5 level, but could be a huge issue in the rest of D1.

(04-27-2014 10:55 AM)ECUPirated Wrote:  ...........and because of Title IX implications, it seems to me that these added benefits (stipend for example) will have to be provided to all men's and women's sports of these P5 schools.

Recent articles have suggested that the majority of these "benefits" will be "permissive" in nature meaning the remaining D1 schools will be allowed to enact these benefits as well without the approval of the entire D1 (minus the P5), but the reality is most will not be able to afford it.

One problem / issue I haven't seen anyone mention is the fact that several of these P5 schools have affiliate athletic programs in other G5 or D1 conferences.

Just one example............

Kentucky and South Carolina are affiliate members of CUSA in men's soccer.

So this makes you wonder.................

If those two schools (UK, USCe) mens soccer players receive all these extra benefits associated with autonomy that say the rest of CUSA soccer schools may not be able to afford, isn't that creating more (key word-more) of an unfair playing field or does it really have no bearing on anything?

Also, does this answer the question I've seen asking whether "a conference has to pass these initiatives as a whole or can individual schools within a conference offer these benefits?"

Seems to me that if Kentucky / USC soccer players can get these benefits "individually" as "conference mates" of CUSA soccer, then individual schools ought to be able to vote in these benefits without approval of the conference or the rest of D1.

THOUGHTS ??

Interesting question. If they can offer it in some sports but not others, does it get them into a Title IX question?

Most likely, it does seem it will be on a conference by conference basis.

It'll be an issue of statutory construction. The idea was to even up mens and women's sports.

(04-27-2014 10:55 AM)ECUPirated Wrote:  ...........and because of Title IX implications, it seems to me that these added benefits (stipend for example) will have to be provided to all men's and women's sports of these P5 schools.

Recent articles have suggested that the majority of these "benefits" will be "permissive" in nature meaning the remaining D1 schools will be allowed to enact these benefits as well without the approval of the entire D1 (minus the P5), but the reality is most will not be able to afford it.

One problem / issue I haven't seen anyone mention is the fact that several of these P5 schools have affiliate athletic programs in other G5 or D1 conferences.

Just one example............

Kentucky and South Carolina are affiliate members of CUSA in men's soccer.

So this makes you wonder.................

If those two schools (UK, USCe) mens soccer players receive all these extra benefits associated with autonomy that say the rest of CUSA soccer schools may not be able to afford, isn't that creating more (key word-more) of an unfair playing field or does it really have no bearing on anything?

Also, does this answer the question I've seen asking whether "a conference has to pass these initiatives as a whole or can individual schools within a conference offer these benefits?"

Seems to me that if Kentucky / USC soccer players can get these benefits "individually" as "conference mates" of CUSA soccer, then individual schools ought to be able to vote in these benefits without approval of the conference or the rest of D1.

THOUGHTS ??

Your basic premise is wrong. Title IX protects gender discrimination, not football v. baseball discrimination. Paying football and basketball playes does not mean that everyone hsa to get paid. It only means that an equal number of men and women must get paid. Even then, I'm not sure if the women actually have to get paid. I think that you could probably just increase scholarship levels of existing sports, which would be MUCH cheaper for schools.

(Indoor) Volleyball players get full rides like football and basketball players. If FBS schools were smart, they'd create a "I-A" subdivision for volleyball and bump the scholarship limit up from 12 scholarships. They may have to drag some other sports (like women's soccer) into it just to balance the numbers from a Title IX standpoint.

Keep in mind that federal law will likely dictate some equity in any pay above the cost of the scholarship.

(04-27-2014 03:34 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  (Indoor) Volleyball players get full rides like football and basketball players. If FBS schools were smart, they'd create a "I-A" subdivision for volleyball and bump the scholarship limit up from 12 scholarships. They may have to drag some other sports (like women's soccer) into it just to balance the numbers from a Title IX standpoint.

Keep in mind that federal law will likely dictate some equity in any pay above the cost of the scholarship.

I doubt it. I think that the aggregate numbers have to be the same, not individual treatment.

In other words, I think that it could be the case that 50 $2k stipends may be offset by 4 new $25k women's scholarships, even though those 4 new scholarships might only be costin ghte school $15k each ($60k total), whereas the the stipends would be costin gthe school $100k. It will be interesting to see how that's sorted out.