(03-31-2021 12:08 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-31-2021 11:50 AM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(03-31-2021 10:44 AM)Wedge Wrote:  If the justices' comments as reported are an accurate reflection, then the most important thing might be that they seem to think the NCAA's limitations on athlete compensation are unsustainable.

Even if that's not the direct issue in this case -- if that's what comes across in the court's ruling, it becomes an open invitation for other courts and state legislatures to dismantle the whole thing if they want to.

And not just the fact of their saying it but the fact of who's saying it. Kavanaugh and Gorsuch are two of the more-conservative jurists on the Court. Perhaps this board is an anomaly and there's always exceptions, but at least anecdotally, conservatives seem more likely to push back against anything that challenges student-athlete amateurism, while liberals seem more likely to press it forward. If that holds on the Court, the right case could burst the dam like a nuclear warhead that detonates at the base of the Hoover.

Legal conservatives aren't always the same breed as regular American conservatives. They place a very high priority in their lives on ideological consistency (even if they come in different ideological flavors).

And, as someone who I forget pointed out on twitter, the SCOTUS justices are all Ivy League nerds anyway (except Barrett, who's from Notre Dame, and Breyer (STanford)). So the P5 mystique doesn't cut a lot of ice with them

Agreed - cultural conservatism in politics is not necessarily the same as legal conservatism.

Plus, a conservative could validly view this as a free market issue and the colleges have been engaging in an illegal artificial restraint on compensation.

I've said before that breaking down the college sports compensation system (or lack thereof) is a perfect bipartisan issue: the liberal side gets to support uncompensated athletes (who disproportionately come from disadvantaged groups) and build a case for unionization, while the conservative side gets to support free market principles and point out the hypocrisy of the leaders of academia. I hope that universities have contingency plans because I don't think they're going to get any sympathy from either the courts or politicians regardless of ideology.

An overview of the oral arguments today in Alston. As earlier mentioned it doesn't seem the NCAA had a good day.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nc...821059001/

(03-31-2021 10:30 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-31-2021 09:40 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I'd say it's not looking good for the NCAA at all.

What constitutes losing if you are the NCAA? Aren't most scholarship athletes eligible to receive a stipend close to that $6,000 already?

Seems like it's about the loss of control on limits to maintain their definition of amateurism.

(03-31-2021 04:19 PM)ICThawk Wrote:  An overview of the oral arguments today in Alston. As earlier mentioned it doesn't seem the NCAA had a good day.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nc...821059001/

I posted these in another thread that may or may not add to this.

https://slate.com/culture/2021/03/ncaa-a...trust.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/31/us/su...-ncaa.html

Michael McCann gave his write-up for Sportico this afternoon.

[/quote]

The normal rule for lawyers is to not put too much stock in statements made in appellate oral arguments.

All lawyers have had cases where they thought they did really well (or poorly) in oral argument, only to be surprised by the ultimate ruling.

That said, I don't think that this is one of those times.

Look, back in 1918 Knute Rockne was a chemistry professor at ND. He had to be to make enough money as coaching salaries were very low.

ND had a wooden bleachers stadium then called Cartier Field.

Even then, college football was not really an "amateur" sport.

It sure as hell is not one now. No one can deny that billions flow through college athletic departments now.

Everyone involved is a professional making a salary...except the players.

The Justices seemed to believe that universities now pay their players (so not amateur), just not enough.

"Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. responded that some of the payments the association already allows had a similar character.

“Schools can pay up to $50,000 for a $10 million insurance policy to protect student-athletes for future earnings,” he said. “Now that sounds very much like pay for play.” very much like pay for play.”

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., drawing on briefs supporting the players, painted a bleak picture of athletes’ lives and futures.

“They face training requirements that leave little time or energy for study, constant pressure to put sports above study, pressure to drop out of hard majors and hard classes, really shockingly low graduation rates,” he said. “Only a tiny percentage ever go on to make any money in professional sports.”

“So the argument is they are recruited, they’re used up, and then they’re cast aside without even a college degree,” he said. “How can this be defended in the name of amateurism?”

Mr. Waxman said the alternative would be worse. “If you allow them to be paid,” he said, “they will be spending even more time on their athletics and devoting even less attention to academics.”

Justice Alito said the athletes were already paid. “They get lower admission standards,” he said. “They get tuition, room and board, and other things. That’s a form of pay. So the distinction is not whether they’re going to be paid. It’s the form in which they’re going to be paid and how much they’re going to be paid.”

(I found Justice Alito's question to be the crux of the entire matter, How can this be continually justified?)


https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/31/us/su...-ncaa.html

(03-31-2021 06:46 PM)TerryD Wrote:  The normal rule for lawyers is to not put too much stock in statements made in appellate oral arguments.

All lawyers have had cases where they thought they did really well (or poorly) in oral argument, only to be surprised by the ultimate ruling.

That said, I don't think that this is one of those times.

Look, back in 1918 Knute Rockne was a chemistry professor at ND. He had to be to make enough money as coaching salaries were very low.

ND had a wooden bleachers stadium then called Cartier Field.

Even then, college football was not really an "amateur" sport.

It sure as hell is not one now. No one can deny that billions flow through college athletic departments now.

Everyone involved is a professional making a salary...except the players.

The Justices seemed to believe that universities now pay their players (so not amateur), just not enough.

"Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. responded that some of the payments the association already allows had a similar character.

“Schools can pay up to $50,000 for a $10 million insurance policy to protect student-athletes for future earnings,” he said. “Now that sounds very much like pay for play.” very much like pay for play.”

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., drawing on briefs supporting the players, painted a bleak picture of athletes’ lives and futures.

“They face training requirements that leave little time or energy for study, constant pressure to put sports above study, pressure to drop out of hard majors and hard classes, really shockingly low graduation rates,” he said. “Only a tiny percentage ever go on to make any money in professional sports.”

“So the argument is they are recruited, they’re used up, and then they’re cast aside without even a college degree,” he said. “How can this be defended in the name of amateurism?”

Mr. Waxman said the alternative would be worse. “If you allow them to be paid,” he said, “they will be spending even more time on their athletics and devoting even less attention to academics.”

Justice Alito said the athletes were already paid. “They get lower admission standards,” he said. “They get tuition, room and board, and other things. That’s a form of pay. So the distinction is not whether they’re going to be paid. It’s the form in which they’re going to be paid and how much they’re going to be paid.”

(I found Justice Alito's question to be the crux of the entire matter, How can this be continually justified?)


https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/31/us/su...-ncaa.html

IMO, despite all the criticisms leveled at the NCAA in today's arguments, there seemed to be an undertone to some of the comments - by Roberts, Thomas and Breyer maybe - worrying about an anything-goes wild west situation if the NCAA suffers a smashing defeat. I suspect the NCAA will lose, and restrictions on what players can get will be loosened, but Roberts will craft a narrowly-tailored decision that doesn't fundamentally upend the status quo.

That's not what I hope, btw, I hope for a more sweeping pro-player opinion. But I suspect something more tempered will result. That seems to be the way lower courts have been ruling in recent years - the NCAA loses, and that's the headline the sports media talkingsphere immediately runs with, but on closer inspection the decisions are couched in cushioning language that leaves the basic edifice, while weakened, still standing.

(03-31-2021 07:54 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-31-2021 06:18 AM)TerryD Wrote:  "The Supreme Court will take up a case that could reshape college sports on Wednesday, pitting the NCAA and 11 conferences against a class of student athletes seeking compensation.

It comes as college sports raise billions of dollars from ticket sales, television contracts and merchandise and supporters of the students say they are being exploited and barred from the opportunity to monetize their talents.

In 2016, for example, the NCAA negotiated an eight-year extension of its broadcasting rights to March Madness, worth $1.1 billion annually.

The case thrusts the justices into the center of a debate -- for the first time since 1984 -- that is also playing out in Congress and state legislatures in an industry worth billions....

As things stand, schools are allowed to provide tuition and fees, room and board, books and other expenses related to the cost of attendance. They are permitted to make payments for certain athletic participation awards, tutoring, and study abroad expenses related to a course.

The student athletes behind the current lawsuit, led by former West Virginia football player Shawne Alston, initially sought to eliminate all other restrictions on payment.

A district court did not go that far. It preserved limits on compensation unrelated to education, but ruled that caps on some education related benefits violate anti-trust laws.

The ruling was largely upheld by the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals although the schools are waiting for the Supreme Court to act before making any changes.

If the ruling is upheld, it will mean that the NCAA must permit student athletes to receive unlimited non-cash "education-related benefits" including post-eligibility internships.

The students can also receive annual payments up to $6,000 if they maintain academic eligibility...."


https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/31/politics/...olitics%29

That doesn't sound as if it would have much impact compared to the current status quo. Not many athletes are going to opt for "non-cash education related benefits", and it sounds as if those would be permitted, but not required.

What happens if the ruling isn't upheld?

As I understand it, both sides are challenging the ruling. Both want it struck down and replaced with something more to their liking. If I understand this correctly---lol---if its upheld both sides "lose"---though its clearly a step forward for the players.

(03-31-2021 07:54 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-31-2021 06:18 AM)TerryD Wrote:  "The Supreme Court will take up a case that could reshape college sports on Wednesday, pitting the NCAA and 11 conferences against a class of student athletes seeking compensation.

It comes as college sports raise billions of dollars from ticket sales, television contracts and merchandise and supporters of the students say they are being exploited and barred from the opportunity to monetize their talents.

In 2016, for example, the NCAA negotiated an eight-year extension of its broadcasting rights to March Madness, worth $1.1 billion annually.

The case thrusts the justices into the center of a debate -- for the first time since 1984 -- that is also playing out in Congress and state legislatures in an industry worth billions....

As things stand, schools are allowed to provide tuition and fees, room and board, books and other expenses related to the cost of attendance. They are permitted to make payments for certain athletic participation awards, tutoring, and study abroad expenses related to a course.

The student athletes behind the current lawsuit, led by former West Virginia football player Shawne Alston, initially sought to eliminate all other restrictions on payment.

A district court did not go that far. It preserved limits on compensation unrelated to education, but ruled that caps on some education related benefits violate anti-trust laws.

The ruling was largely upheld by the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals although the schools are waiting for the Supreme Court to act before making any changes.

If the ruling is upheld, it will mean that the NCAA must permit student athletes to receive unlimited non-cash "education-related benefits" including post-eligibility internships.

The students can also receive annual payments up to $6,000 if they maintain academic eligibility...."


https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/31/politics/...olitics%29

That doesn't sound as if it would have much impact compared to the current status quo. Not many athletes are going to opt for "non-cash education related benefits", and it sounds as if those would be permitted, but not required.

What happens if the ruling isn't upheld?

(03-31-2021 11:35 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-31-2021 11:00 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-31-2021 10:44 AM)Wedge Wrote:  If the justices' comments as reported are an accurate reflection, then the most important thing might be that they seem to think the NCAA's limitations on athlete compensation are unsustainable.

Even if that's not the direct issue in this case -- if that's what comes across in the court's ruling, it becomes an open invitation for other courts and state legislatures to dismantle the whole thing if they want to.

Does that mean they think the limits are unreasonably low, or that there should be no limits at all? I can't imagine SCOTUS saying a $6K limit isn't OK but $20K is. I think they would be more likely to say that setting limits (or not) is a matter for legislation and passing the buck to Congress.

We will find out what they say (in writing) whenever they get around to saying it...

(03-31-2021 12:08 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-31-2021 11:50 AM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(03-31-2021 10:44 AM)Wedge Wrote:  If the justices' comments as reported are an accurate reflection, then the most important thing might be that they seem to think the NCAA's limitations on athlete compensation are unsustainable.

Even if that's not the direct issue in this case -- if that's what comes across in the court's ruling, it becomes an open invitation for other courts and state legislatures to dismantle the whole thing if they want to.

And not just the fact of their saying it but the fact of who's saying it. Kavanaugh and Gorsuch are two of the more-conservative jurists on the Court. Perhaps this board is an anomaly and there's always exceptions, but at least anecdotally, conservatives seem more likely to push back against anything that challenges student-athlete amateurism, while liberals seem more likely to press it forward. If that holds on the Court, the right case could burst the dam like a nuclear warhead that detonates at the base of the Hoover.

Legal conservatives aren't always the same breed as regular American conservatives. They place a very high priority in their lives on ideological consistency (even if they come in different ideological flavors).

And, as someone who I forget pointed out on twitter, the SCOTUS justices are all Ivy League nerds anyway (except Barrett, who's from Notre Dame, and Breyer (STanford)). So the P5 mystique doesn't cut a lot of ice with them

(03-31-2021 07:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-31-2021 06:46 PM)TerryD Wrote:  The normal rule for lawyers is to not put too much stock in statements made in appellate oral arguments.

All lawyers have had cases where they thought they did really well (or poorly) in oral argument, only to be surprised by the ultimate ruling.

That said, I don't think that this is one of those times.

Look, back in 1918 Knute Rockne was a chemistry professor at ND. He had to be to make enough money as coaching salaries were very low.

ND had a wooden bleachers stadium then called Cartier Field.

Even then, college football was not really an "amateur" sport.

It sure as hell is not one now. No one can deny that billions flow through college athletic departments now.

Everyone involved is a professional making a salary...except the players.

The Justices seemed to believe that universities now pay their players (so not amateur), just not enough.

"Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. responded that some of the payments the association already allows had a similar character.

“Schools can pay up to $50,000 for a $10 million insurance policy to protect student-athletes for future earnings,” he said. “Now that sounds very much like pay for play.” very much like pay for play.”

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., drawing on briefs supporting the players, painted a bleak picture of athletes’ lives and futures.

“They face training requirements that leave little time or energy for study, constant pressure to put sports above study, pressure to drop out of hard majors and hard classes, really shockingly low graduation rates,” he said. “Only a tiny percentage ever go on to make any money in professional sports.”

“So the argument is they are recruited, they’re used up, and then they’re cast aside without even a college degree,” he said. “How can this be defended in the name of amateurism?”

Mr. Waxman said the alternative would be worse. “If you allow them to be paid,” he said, “they will be spending even more time on their athletics and devoting even less attention to academics.”

Justice Alito said the athletes were already paid. “They get lower admission standards,” he said. “They get tuition, room and board, and other things. That’s a form of pay. So the distinction is not whether they’re going to be paid. It’s the form in which they’re going to be paid and how much they’re going to be paid.”

(I found Justice Alito's question to be the crux of the entire matter, How can this be continually justified?)


https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/31/us/su...-ncaa.html

IMO, despite all the criticisms leveled at the NCAA in today's arguments, there seemed to be an undertone to some of the comments - by Roberts, Thomas and Breyer maybe - worrying about an anything-goes wild west situation if the NCAA suffers a smashing defeat. I suspect the NCAA will lose, and restrictions on what players can get will be loosened, but Roberts will craft a narrowly-tailored decision that doesn't fundamentally upend the status quo.

That's not what I hope, btw, I hope for a more sweeping pro-player opinion. But I suspect something more tempered will result. That seems to be the way lower courts have been ruling in recent years - the NCAA loses, and that's the headline the sports media talkingsphere immediately runs with, but on closer inspection the decisions are couched in cushioning language that leaves the basic edifice, while weakened, still standing.

This is merely one more step in the journey, Quo.

The future trend is not in favor of the "basic edifice", I believe.

Has there been any mention of title nine? Kinda a big deal if we are talking about athletes being employees who should benefit from the revenue they generate.

(03-31-2021 10:06 PM)nodak651 Wrote:  Has there been any mention of title nine? Kinda a big deal if we are talking about athletes being employees who should benefit from the revenue they generate.

And that where the logic of all this breaks down. The logic seems to be that a school cannot have an amateur league if there is significant revenue---even if it doesnt result in a profit. OK--so we are looking at college sports teams it as a business. Got it. But that would ignore that the same court forces the schools to engage in an equal number of womens sports teams that make NO money--just so women can have the same number of opportunities as the men. So--its not a business--rather its an equal opportunity student activity thats part of the university? If we are going to use anti-trust free market principals to say that the players should be paid---how can we then toss those principals aside 5 seconds later and say that a womens rowing team member (a sport that makes NO money and who players basically have no economic value) MUST make the same money as a football quarterback or a mens basketball star in order to comply with Title 9?

As much as we would like to say how badly the NCAA has fouled things up---the court system has mucked things up just as much. None of this makes any sense or has any consistency with respect to free market principals. To me---it all starts and ends with the definition of what college sports is. If its a business---then it should be treated as a business in all respects by the courts. If its a just an overgrown student activity thats part of the educational experience of the university---then it should be treated as a student activity in all respects.

Coog: so you'd get rid of Title IX? (NOT a "gotcha", I'm genuinely curious)

(03-31-2021 11:50 AM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(03-31-2021 10:44 AM)Wedge Wrote:  If the justices' comments as reported are an accurate reflection, then the most important thing might be that they seem to think the NCAA's limitations on athlete compensation are unsustainable.

Even if that's not the direct issue in this case -- if that's what comes across in the court's ruling, it becomes an open invitation for other courts and state legislatures to dismantle the whole thing if they want to.

And not just the fact of their saying it but the fact of who's saying it. Kavanaugh and Gorsuch are two of the more-conservative jurists on the Court. Perhaps this board is an anomaly and there's always exceptions, but at least anecdotally, conservatives seem more likely to push back against anything that challenges student-athlete amateurism, while liberals seem more likely to press it forward. If that holds on the Court, the right case could burst the dam like a nuclear warhead that detonates at the base of the Hoover.

I’m not sure who’s on which side. DavidSt, for example, is one of the biggest liberals on the site, but he is simultaneously the most outspoken in opposing college athlete compensation.

If student-athletes get paid, I'd kick them off campus. They don't want to be treated like students, they can't live or be like students.

(04-01-2021 12:01 AM)Erictelevision Wrote:  Coog: so you'd get rid of Title IX? (NOT a "gotcha", I'm genuinely curious)

What im saying is I don’t see how the same court can argue against the laws of supply and demand in college athletics (title 9) while at the same time the arguing that the NCAA has committed anti trust violations by violating the natural of laws supply and demand. The courts overall position on college athletics is every bit as inconsistent and hypocritical as the schools.

They need to define whether they want to treat college sports as a business or as a student activity sponsored by an educational institution. Once you have defined what college athletics is—-then the courts need to treat college athletics as defined in all disputes.

That said, I prefer the status quo—but I doubt thats an option.

Coog: I suspected that's what you meant. And I totally agree.

(03-31-2021 11:16 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-31-2021 10:06 PM)nodak651 Wrote:  Has there been any mention of title nine? Kinda a big deal if we are talking about athletes being employees who should benefit from the revenue they generate.

And that where the logic of all this breaks down. The logic seems to be that a school cannot have an amateur league if there is significant revenue---even if it doesnt result in a profit. OK--so we are looking at college sports teams it as a business. Got it. But that would ignore that the same court forces the schools to engage in an equal number of womens sports teams that make NO money--just so women can have the same number of opportunities as the men. So--its not a business--rather its an equal opportunity student activity thats part of the university? If we are going to use anti-trust free market principals to say that the players should be paid---how can we then toss those principals aside 5 seconds later and say that a womens rowing team member (a sport that makes NO money and who players basically have no economic value) MUST make the same money as a football quarterback or a mens basketball star in order to comply with Title 9?

As much as we would like to say how badly the NCAA has fouled things up---the court system has mucked things up just as much. None of this makes any sense or has any consistency with respect to free market principals. To me---it all starts and ends with the definition of what college sports is. If its a business---then it should be treated as a business in all respects by the courts. If its a just an overgrown student activity thats part of the educational experience of the university---then it should be treated as a student activity in all respects.

Wouldn't it be a logical middle ground to declare that some sports (football and men's basketball) are primarily businesses, while others are primarily student activities part of the educational experience of the university, and apply different requirements for each?

Title IX would be satisfied by providing the same educational opportunities to women through athletic scholarships as the men, while the revenue sports would also be subjected to the same free market compensation rules and regulations as any business.

(03-31-2021 11:16 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-31-2021 10:06 PM)nodak651 Wrote:  Has there been any mention of title nine? Kinda a big deal if we are talking about athletes being employees who should benefit from the revenue they generate.

And that where the logic of all this breaks down. The logic seems to be that a school cannot have an amateur league if there is significant revenue---even if it doesnt result in a profit. OK--so we are looking at college sports teams it as a business. Got it. But that would ignore that the same court forces the schools to engage in an equal number of womens sports teams that make NO money--just so women can have the same number of opportunities as the men. So--its not a business--rather its an equal opportunity student activity thats part of the university? If we are going to use anti-trust free market principals to say that the players should be paid---how can we then toss those principals aside 5 seconds later and say that a womens rowing team member (a sport that makes NO money and who players basically have no economic value) MUST make the same money as a football quarterback or a mens basketball star in order to comply with Title 9?

I was following you until the last sentence. Just because Title IX compels schools to provide women with equal scholarships - in terms of quantity and value - as men does not IMO imply that in a pay-for-play model the women would have to make the same "salary" as the men. It doesn't even imply that all males athletes would get paid the same. The logic of the pay-for-play argument being advanced in court, and seemingly endorsed by several justices if their comments are to be believed, is that of a "free market" model, compensating players above and beyond the scholarship. In that model, we wouldn't expect Clemson's third-string OG to get paid as much as Travis Etienne, and we wouldn't expect the backup women's 200m track runner to get paid as much as the third-string OG. Same with the NIL stuff. Players would get compensated based on what the market demand for them was.

So I believe what is being proposed is a hybrid model, where athletes receive a scholarship to cover educational expenses, and this is where Title IX demands equality. But pay above and beyond that would be market-based.

The implications for a hybrid model would seem to be two-fold: Universities in D1 would need to come up with more money to be competitive. Part of that would come from a leveling out of coaches salaries. Coach salaries have been artificially inflated because there is an excess supply of money available to be spent because it cannot be spent on players, so the question of "who is worth more to Clemson, Dabo or Trevor" has been a moot one. But now, in effect, Dabo will have to compete salary-wise with Lawrence at Clemson, just as an NBA coach's salary in effect competes with Lebron James for team dollars.

The other could be impossible pressure on G5 schools. The whole G5 model right now is a "striver" model, a model of duplicating what the P5 do in order to "stay in touch" and "be in the same league" with them. But they try to do this without the same revenues. That has been made up for by soaking their students with $25 million in annual fees to make up for the lack of media deal and other revenue. When Houston soaks its students with a $25m fee, when you combine that with the $6m from its actual AAC media deal, you have the equivalent of a $31m media deal, which is P5 level, and this allows them an athletic budget which is close enough to be "in touch" with P5 standards and thus compete for players and coaches and have adequate facilities. But if paying players adds many millions to expenses, G5 are in a bind, because the student fee well is pretty much tapped out, so how do you stay in touch? FCS and below won't face nearly the same strain because the pay for the players they try to recruit will be much lower, and they aren't trying to spend at a level that is in touch with P5 in any area.

But hey, maybe I'm confused, LOL.

(04-01-2021 01:12 AM)Erictelevision Wrote:  If student-athletes get paid, I'd kick them off campus. They don't want to be treated like students, they can't live or be like students.

So, what would that gain the university?

Transfer portal?

(04-01-2021 08:01 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-31-2021 11:16 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-31-2021 10:06 PM)nodak651 Wrote:  Has there been any mention of title nine? Kinda a big deal if we are talking about athletes being employees who should benefit from the revenue they generate.

And that where the logic of all this breaks down. The logic seems to be that a school cannot have an amateur league if there is significant revenue---even if it doesnt result in a profit. OK--so we are looking at college sports teams it as a business. Got it. But that would ignore that the same court forces the schools to engage in an equal number of womens sports teams that make NO money--just so women can have the same number of opportunities as the men. So--its not a business--rather its an equal opportunity student activity thats part of the university? If we are going to use anti-trust free market principals to say that the players should be paid---how can we then toss those principals aside 5 seconds later and say that a womens rowing team member (a sport that makes NO money and who players basically have no economic value) MUST make the same money as a football quarterback or a mens basketball star in order to comply with Title 9?

As much as we would like to say how badly the NCAA has fouled things up---the court system has mucked things up just as much. None of this makes any sense or has any consistency with respect to free market principals. To me---it all starts and ends with the definition of what college sports is. If its a business---then it should be treated as a business in all respects by the courts. If its a just an overgrown student activity thats part of the educational experience of the university---then it should be treated as a student activity in all respects.

Wouldn't it be a logical middle ground to declare that some sports (football and men's basketball) are primarily businesses, while others are primarily student activities part of the educational experience of the university, and apply different requirements for each?

Title IX would be satisfied by providing the same educational opportunities to women through athletic scholarships as the men, while the revenue sports would also be subjected to the same free market compensation rules and regulations as any business.

I think the either/or thinking in this thread w/regard to Title IX and free market is based on an assumption that a pay model would replace the current scholarship model. I don't think that's what's being contemplated.

Heck, if it was, most D1 football players would lose money, because most of them are not worth the value of the scholarships they receive. Even on Alabama, the 80th guy on the roster probably isn't worth the $40,000 in scholarship value he's getting. For Ole Miss that's probably true of the 50th guy. For the vast majority of college athletes, including the majority of D1 "revenue sports" male athletes, they aren't worth any more, and most are worth less, on the market than what they get in scholarships.

So I think the model that is implicitly being proposed is an above-and-beyond model. Scholarships remain - and by Title IX this basic compensation must be equal across men and women - but then some athletes can be paid more than that based on market demand.

Title IX is an interesting side point, isn't it?

In a purely market-driven sports world, do women's sports even pay enough to cover tuition?