Hang on. It's going to be a bumpy ride.
One thing that hasn't even been addressed yet is what happens to
women's sports under Title IX if colleges start paying large salaries to
football players.What if some judge somewhere decides that
women's lacrosse players should be paid as much as football players?
With the abomination that is Title 9 looming over their heads it won't
surprise me one bit if the only mens sports left are football and basketball and
all other sports are womens sports to make the title 9 mandated
"equality" mandate. Football and mens' basketball pay
all of the bills so in order to have any sports at all those 2 will have to be
kept otherwise no sports will exist. No one outside of family members cares
about any womens sports and minor mens sports so they cannot survive on their
own. Title 9 requires womens sports be equal in scholarships to mens sports and
since football and mens basketball are the money makers it will be the
men's minor sports that get eliminated first followed by whatever womens
sports need to be eliminated to give them an even number of scholarships to
football and mens basketball.
If they think the law suits are bad now wait until everything changes. These
power 5 schools will not be able to defend all of the law suits headed their
I think Men's "minor" sports have suffered the most from Title IX
Tyranny. Many schools have eliminated wrestling and gymnastics, and what was a
pleasant afternoon at a men's track meet is now an overly long ordeal with
the inclusion of the women's teams.A possible solution would be
to establish "club" sports with private foundations sponsoring the
coaches and renting space from the university. These clubs could form their own
associations, like the AAU and while there wouldn't be a National Title,
there could be show-case tournaments to high-light competitions. Booster clubs
could raise tuition assistance and even hire tutors if needed. Usually the
student-athletes I mean athlete, some time students who need the tutoring are on
the "Big Two" squads, the other sports seem to have participants who
manage to attend classes and graduate on their own.The
participant's GPA would not be an issue, in fact the whole event could be
off-campus, renting other venues for practice and performance and the
Universities and NCAA could watch, or not as they want.Baseball
isn't the only sport where participants would play for the "love of the
As a former college athlete I can tell you a lot of nickle and dime cheating
goes on and a lot of guys just flat out starve depending on how much talent they
have. A coach makes hundreds of thousands or even millions at bigger schools
while a kid that helps feed his salary has to bum food off classmates.
I've seen it. I've done it. Yes, I was not very good. Anyway, I
hope they will now take care of the kids basic needs. That's the positive
from this. The negatives are too numerous to list.
It was recently announced that of the 65 "top" football schools, only 25
of them operate under budget. Most, if not all,pour all the $100 of MILLIONs
they make back into their sports programs. Very, very little is used to support
what the universities mission is supposed to be: educating students. None of the
top programs pay their football coaches less than the university president. In
fact, an unbelievable number pay their coaches 10X what the presidents make.The coming financial crisis is of their own making.
It's unfortunate that things are turning this way. As a duck fan watching
the ridiculous amounts of money poured into athletics, none of this is
surprising to me (and shouldn't be to anyone else). Economics 101, if you
can't make more than you take out you go deeper in debt or you die. RIP
many of the Olympic collegiate sports. It's the unfortunate reality of the
greed and selfishness of the power players in CFB, not the student athletes who
only want what they need to get by as slugmaster pointed out above.
Stop blaming Title IV for the problems in intercollegiate sports. I love
college football, but do FBS football teams really need 85 scholarships and 100+
players on the roster? The NFL seems to get by with 53 players and plays more
games. Does Oregon really need Brazilian hardwood floors in its weight room and
individually ventilated lockers? The Olympic sports cost next to nothing. And
seriously, most college football programs are not self-sustaining. Only the
largest programs truly pay their own way and the rest are subsidized by student
fees and tax dollars just like the olympic sports..
Two words (so to speak): BYU Idaho.
65tosspowertrapYou're simply wrong. Football pays all the bills
for just about everything else with only mens basketball paying its own way at
most schools. The womens sports and the other mens sports are takers, not
contributors, financially. I'm not saying that doesn't make them
worthwhile but it does mean they are a burden financially. Title 9
mandates that the womens sports, which are all a financial burden and loser,
have to be treated equally with the mens sports so that hamstrings things. You
may not like the reality of it but it is a reality.
Title 9 is in the same league as affirmative action. The intent was to open the
doors of opportunity to everyone regardless of sex, race, etc. The problem is
that when one group is guaranteed a spot at the table, regardless of what they
bring to that table, everyone seated at that table will suffer. More important,
in a country that prides itself on the free enterprise system... if you have a
product people want to consume they'll spend their money and beat a path to
your door. If you don't, you'll go out of business. What the
lib's want is to force us all to attend WNBA games, women's collegiate
softball games (though, those girls can really play. I saw one of the best
women's fastpitch softball pitchers strike out one of the most talented MLB
hitters. It was awesome). The point is, whenever you try and
legislate behavior it is doomed to fail from the start. Title 9 may have had
good intentions, but, it suffers from unintended consequences... the loss of
more popular men's sports.
Duckhunter:I understand the system with all its warts. What guys
like you don't understand is that very few football programs are self
sustaining, and I don't care - I still love college football. But most
football programs are subsidized by the school just like womens sports.
That's the reality that most football fans don't want to hear. Title
IV requirements could be more easily met with less disruption if FBS teams
didn't scarf up 83 schollies. Jason Whitlock once referred to olympic
sport athletes as "welfare" athletes since their sports don't pay
their own way. Whitlock played football at Ball State. Do you honestly think
that Ball State football is self sustaining? If so, I have car to sell you that
runs on cold fusion.
Could this all be eliminated if: 1) Football scholarships were limited to
55 players?2) Walk-ons limited to 20 players?3) Miles traveled per
season for every team limited--reviving regional rivalries and regional
recruiting? (Exceptions for post season play)4) A formula for
non-tuition/non-book compensation to athletes which is equal amongst all schools
(taking into account costs of living etc)?All programs need to limit
costs. That is the problem: costs. If you do not allow the wealthier programs to
leverage their wealth in these areas, or perhaps charge wealthier teams an NCAA
"luxury tax" for certain types of unnecessary spending (stadiums, locker
rooms, boxes, etc), then you can bring sanity back.Encourage
regional rivalries, regional recruiting, regional playoffs, national playoffs
qualifying from each region...and college football will survive.
College football is changing, and not for the better. It looks like the P5 want
to create their own league and their own rules. Are we dealing with
a University's football program or a football organization affiliated with
a university? Is the dog wagging the tail or vice versa?Which is
more important in the eyes of a University president? When will the headache
created by athletics become too much? When will taxpayers decide they've
had enough and convince their elected representatives P5 football
"programs" no longer require taxpayer funding? They're
making themselves out to be some king of semi-professional league. More and
more the system resembles a professional sport with paid players.