Ducks Attack Message Board Forum

Embedded Tweet

Embedded Tweet

As I read it, it would make pay to play essentially legal for those schools who step up into "D-1 Premier" or whatever they'd call it, D1 Haves and D1 Have-Nots.

I predicted this as a plausible scenario with this last round of conference realignment and the demise of the PAC 12.

There was opportunity to build it around the remaining major conferences (Big 10, SEC, ACC, Big 12), but the best of the Big 12 has been poached, so what makes the most sense is for the SEC & Big 10 to continue to expand to the desired number of teams and form the premier division.

The upside is that we might get a real and equitable playoff.

The downside is that it could have been done with all (most) of the old conferences with less drastic adjustments, if certain conferences didn't try to put all the eggs in their basket.

duckpoint wrote:I predicted this as a plausible scenario with this last round of conference realignment and the demise of the PAC 12.

There was opportunity to build it around the remaining major conferences (Big 10, SEC, ACC, Big 12), but the best of the Big 12 has been poached, so what makes the most sense is for the SEC & Big 10 to continue to expand to the desired number of teams and form the premier division.

The upside is that we might get a real and equitable playoff.

The downside is that it could have been done with all (most) of the old conferences with less drastic adjustments, if certain conferences didn't try to put all the eggs in their basket.

It could also ruin college athletics and end up with laughable stuff in the future like Arkansas needing municipal bonds to pay off debt payments for NIL deals to HS kids. Most schools are public institutions now taking on Private, FOR-Profit endeavors.

This is the worst idea possible, in reality they should keep NIL and just be on top of it with NIL caps, not letting boosters give out whatever they want.

Also as a grad student at UofO I was able to see some insight to the UofO athletic department finances, they don’t have much money, if at all, to pay football Andor basketball players. It’s the boosters and companies like Nike and Adidas that should be the ones paying players. College football may be getting destroyed right before our eyes. I’m not against players getting paid, but not like this. What we need as the NCAA to be completely replaced with a true college oversight board that will actually do their job, not create a new super league with no checks and balances.

They are trying to remove any semblances of tradition and history. Kind of like the direction of America as a whole. What a disaster.

Duck07 wrote:

duckpoint wrote:I predicted this as a plausible scenario with this last round of conference realignment and the demise of the PAC 12.

There was opportunity to build it around the remaining major conferences (Big 10, SEC, ACC, Big 12), but the best of the Big 12 has been poached, so what makes the most sense is for the SEC & Big 10 to continue to expand to the desired number of teams and form the premier division.

The upside is that we might get a real and equitable playoff.

The downside is that it could have been done with all (most) of the old conferences with less drastic adjustments, if certain conferences didn't try to put all the eggs in their basket.

It could also ruin college athletics and end up with laughable stuff in the future like Arkansas needing municipal bonds to pay off debt payments for NIL deals to HS kids. Most schools are public institutions now taking on Private, FOR-Profit endeavors.

FWIW, I never thought it was a good idea, just what appeared to be the direction things were headed. It could also become a failed experiment.

This is just another chapter in the evolution of certain teams trying to horde the best talent and money. Remember before the scholarship limits, rich schools like USC had more talent on their bench than most teams could put on the field?

Another prediction I had, is that Title IX would attempt to throw a wrench in NIL. By throwing a wrench, I mean to demand the same money...

Duck07 wrote:

Embedded Tweet

Embedded Tweet

As I read it, it would make pay to play essentially legal for those schools who step up into "D-1 Premier" or whatever they'd call it, D1 Haves and D1 Have-Nots.

Step 1 to D1 schools having to decide if a sport that loses money is worth keeping. I have a feeling in 5 years a lot of sports will be gone from most schools.

The title IX issue is a massive one. One should assume that whatever gets paid to the men gets paid to the women.

StevensTechU wrote:The title IX issue is a massive one. One should assume that whatever gets paid to the men gets paid to the women.

No way do 90% other athletes even deserve the pay what football gets paid. It’s not even women or men, it’s profit or loses money.

StevensTechU wrote:The title IX issue is a massive one. One should assume that whatever gets paid to the men gets paid to the women.

Are you talking about the $ that universities generate from CFB? I am wrong in believing that $ falls outside the scope of IX?

buckmarkduck wrote:

StevensTechU wrote:The title IX issue is a massive one. One should assume that whatever gets paid to the men gets paid to the women.

No way do 90% other athletes even deserve the pay what football gets paid. It’s not even women or men, it’s profit or loses money.

How long have they been trying to get the WNBA & USWNT to comprehend that?

dd10snoop28 wrote:

StevensTechU wrote:The title IX issue is a massive one. One should assume that whatever gets paid to the men gets paid to the women.

Are you talking about the $ that universities generate from CFB? I am wrong in believing that $ falls outside the scope of IX?

I believe the way the Courts would see it is that as public institutions paying athletes different wages would be like paying different rates to the students behind the desk at the rec center and not a US mens soccer vs women's soccer pay differential based upon ratings etc.

I'm not sure which schools WANT these changes really vs keeping NIL to the boosters and out of State Budgets. Although maybe a year of the Texas and Florida legislatures arguing over NIL distributions would be hilarious to watch.

There have been many Title IX rulings over the decades, and consistently it's been ruled that equality across male and female sports has to be upheld. There's a suit RIGHT NOW against Oregon for having subpar facilities for women's volleyball when compared to other sports. NIL gets to operate outside this standard of equality because it's not the university providing that money, but if this idea comes to fruition, it's much more likely than not that if 85 football players get $100k apiece, the school will have to pay the same $8.5M to female athletes.

Duck07 wrote:

dd10snoop28 wrote:

StevensTechU wrote:The title IX issue is a massive one. One should assume that whatever gets paid to the men gets paid to the women.

Are you talking about the $ that universities generate from CFB? I am wrong in believing that $ falls outside the scope of IX?

I believe the way the Courts would see it is that as public institutions paying athletes different wages would be like paying different rates to the students behind the desk at the rec center and not a US mens soccer vs women's soccer pay differential based upon ratings etc.

I'm not sure which schools WANT these changes really vs keeping NIL to the boosters and out of State Budgets. Although maybe a year of the Texas and Florida legislatures arguing over NIL distributions would be hilarious to watch.

OREGON WOMEN’S ATHLETES SUING UNIVERSITY FOR TITLE IX VIOLATIONS OVER NIL MONEY DISTRIBUTION
by IAN MILLER
December 1, 2023, 5:16 pmupdated December 2, 2023, 7:36 am

https://www.outkick.com/oregon-womens-a ... tribution/

Yeah, Title IX is a strange bird. I totally get why the law is in place and why it's necessary. But, like so many rules/laws/codes/Constitutional Amendments/etc. it's clear that Title IX is in need of an update. For example: Totally get it that universities should commit equal efforts toward updating men's and women's facitilies. But it's simply nonsensical to believe that because Phil Knight wants to donate millions toward upgrading football facilities then equal (public?) money should be spent on volleyball facilities. (Follow that through to its logical conclusion and you'd have to conclude that every single sports program should have its own massive campus infrastructure.)

Even great laws that were completely sensible when created need tweaking over time. Society changes, the financials change, but powerbrokers are often so reluctant to adjust laws accordingly.

I kind of feel like any further seismic changes to college football should focus on what Chip Kelly said... find a way to break off football from all other sports and treat it as its own separate thing. I'd add to that by saying football shouldn't be a consideration in a university's Title IX spending. Again, I get why some folks would argue it should be part of the equation, but football is an outlier sport with such massive resource needs compared with anything else.