(02-04-2020 03:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  ...... Furthermore, Title 9 has opened many of those opportunities to women---largely on the back of money provided by the two mens revenue sports.

...... So, by law---the government is essentially taking the money that the players say they deserve----and giving it to women athletes. ....

The notion that men's hoops and football are big cash cows being milked to support Title IX women's sports doesn't seem to hold up. Now sure, at the high-end places, like Texas or LSU or Notre Dame, the football is making a big net profit, and ditto for hoops at places like Duke, Kentucky, and Louisville. But those are outliers, they aren't the typical FBS school.

For example, here are the football program profits/losses for FBS state of Michigan schools in 2015 (link below):

Michigan ........... $56m profit

Michigan State ... $29m profit

Eastern Michigan .... $3.87m loss

Central Michigan .... $4.56m loss

Western Michigan ... $5.27m loss

So yes, two of the five FBS programs are rolling in football profits that can fund all kinds of things. But three of the five are losing money on football. Point is, it's hard to imagine pay for play, even extreme, being incompatible with Title IX as it is currently enforced, because the evidence doesn't suggest that a pay model would kill the football goose that is laying the women's sports golden eggs. Football isn't laying that egg in many places, heck it is itself being subsidized by fees and transfers from students, so the women's sports aren't being funded by them.


https://www.mlive.com/news/2016/08/michi..._cost.html