Once the ramifications of the decision are implemented/felt, how will the true student athletes be effected.

Pick 1 from each pair

Do you mean in the main, or do you mean a few individuals and a couple teams will benefit?

In the main there will be zero benefit for Olympic Sports, in fact they will wind up paying taxes and other negative consequences, such as dropping sports in order to free up a pool of money to distribute to Football and Basketball players without reducing pay and benefits for the coaching staff and administrators of those sports.

But there will always be the the few athletes, who will benefit. Some will be brand celebrities, some will have high profile, such as some women basketball players at a few schools. Also can you now keep Tennis and Golf players from entering professional tournaments and earning money if they are allowed to make money in college? So yes a few will make money.

But I think over 90% will see a net negative and many will see their sports cut to reduce non-football and non-basketball expenses to help cover the cost of NIL. (I don't see additional money being spent by companies on college athletics, rather it will be distributed in some cases a little differently.)

One impact I see is that contracts from shoe and apparel companies will be more targeted toward specific sports and athletes rather than general, so schools wont have the luxury of spending on items that help all sports. That currently is the case because companies are not allowed to target individual athletes. so they sponsor the department.

Anyway it's a nuanced way of saying you could check off every option in the poll and be both correct and incorrect.

I was thinking generally. Thanks for the thorough breakdown. How will Title IX be effected by this?

I think it will be a huge negative. Many money losing sports are going to get cut and the athletes that whose programs aren’t cut are going to see very little financial gain

From my POV, a sport like women's bowling will benefit since the elite can maintain eligibility while signing ball contracts or being able to bowl in regional or national tournaments if a way for how any prize money is allocated.

(06-21-2021 01:59 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I think it will be a huge negative. Many money losing sports are going to get cut and the athletes that whose programs aren’t cut are going to see very little financial gain

Yes. When the colleges have to direct more of their expenditures to basketball and football, it means sports with actual student-athletes get cut.

(06-21-2021 03:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-21-2021 01:59 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I think it will be a huge negative. Many money losing sports are going to get cut and the athletes that whose programs aren’t cut are going to see very little financial gain

Yes. When the colleges have to direct more of their expenditures to basketball and football, it means sports with actual student-athletes get cut.

But Title IX prevents cutting female sports. That can't happen. A balance between scholly athletes, male-female must be maintained ... by law.

(06-21-2021 03:28 PM)Pervis_Griffith Wrote:  

(06-21-2021 03:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-21-2021 01:59 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I think it will be a huge negative. Many money losing sports are going to get cut and the athletes that whose programs aren’t cut are going to see very little financial gain

Yes. When the colleges have to direct more of their expenditures to basketball and football, it means sports with actual student-athletes get cut.

But Title IX prevents cutting female sports. That can't happen. A balance between scholly athletes, male-female must be maintained ... by law.

Not necessarily. San Diego State cut women's rowing because they had too many female athletes compared to the rest of their student population. IOW, they were out of Title IX compliance due to having more women athletes than men proportionally.

At some point there is nothing left to cut on the men's side, so it will have to be women's sports.

JD: how common is that? It would be great if that began to happen regularly (because it means women are playing more sports)

(06-21-2021 03:28 PM)Pervis_Griffith Wrote:  

(06-21-2021 03:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-21-2021 01:59 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I think it will be a huge negative. Many money losing sports are going to get cut and the athletes that whose programs aren’t cut are going to see very little financial gain

Yes. When the colleges have to direct more of their expenditures to basketball and football, it means sports with actual student-athletes get cut.

But Title IX prevents cutting female sports. That can't happen. A balance between scholly athletes, male-female must be maintained ... by law.

Yes, so they cut men's AND women's golf.
Some are cutting track.

Bullet: that may be more Covid than Title IX

Pay for play is not likely under this SCOTUS decision. It just means an academic stipend, IMO.

The real money will be with NIL. And women will benefit from NIL more than men. Hot female athletes often have lots of Instagram or Tik Tok followers, now they can monetize that.

This SCOTUS decision will have minimal impact on anybody. Future lawsuits may have an impact, and SCOTUS has sent a shot across the bow by signaling that they aren't sympathetic to the NCAA or the concept of amateurism in general.

(06-21-2021 04:45 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Pay for play is not likely under this SCOTUS decision. It just means an academic stipend, IMO.

The real money will be with NIL. And women will benefit from NIL more than men. Hot female athletes often have lots of Instagram or Tik Tok followers, now they can monetize that.

I remember seeing something to this effect during the women's bball tournament. Seven of the top 10 college athletes Instagram pages were female.

(06-21-2021 05:02 PM)UpStreamRedTeam Wrote:  

(06-21-2021 04:45 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Pay for play is not likely under this SCOTUS decision. It just means an academic stipend, IMO.

The real money will be with NIL. And women will benefit from NIL more than men. Hot female athletes often have lots of Instagram or Tik Tok followers, now they can monetize that.

I remember seeing something to this effect during the women's bball tournament. Seven of the top 10 college athletes Instagram pages were female.

Yes, e.g. here's one of the star players on Baylor's women's hoops team. She has like 120,000 Instagram followers. Money can be made there:

https://www.instagram.com/dijonai__/?hl=en

At the higher revenue schools a plus. They have more money than they know what to do with, if they’re allowed to offer more they will across the board. Especially with things such as post grad opportunities that will entice Olympic and female athletes more so and not be a huge burden on the University or athletic department. As you go down the line less so but I don’t think it will hurt them. Just a greater division between haves and havenots

(06-21-2021 03:28 PM)Pervis_Griffith Wrote:  But Title IX prevents cutting female sports. That can't happen. A balance between scholly athletes, male-female must be maintained ... by law.

Not so fast, my friend.

If a school (say, for example, Florida), farmed out its athletics department to a separate company (Florida Athletics LLC) and licensed its IP from the university, Title IX would not apply.

(06-21-2021 04:00 PM)Erictelevision Wrote:  JD: how common is that? It would be great if that began to happen regularly (because it means women are playing more sports)

Not common. However, unless the NCAA reduces the minimum men's sports requirements then it will happen more frequently.

As I also said before: at some point there are no more men's sports that can be cut for some schools. So that leaves only women's sports.

(06-21-2021 04:45 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Pay for play is not likely under this SCOTUS decision. It just means an academic stipend, IMO.

The real money will be with NIL. And women will benefit from NIL more than men. Hot female athletes often have lots of Instagram or Tik Tok followers, now they can monetize that.

The devil in the details will happen next summer when SCOTUS is set to rule on the legality of caps on stipends. If caps are upheld there will be little change. If they remove caps (which is looking more likely) then it is a big deal that can alter the entire college sports landscape.

This rulling also go into effect for all D1, D2 and D3 NCAA schools. We might start seeing mostly private schools start dropping their athletics department instead of paying the athletes.