NCAA reorg imminent

[pcowlax]

Coming back to this only because it is lax relevant and interesting. Any school that takes federal money must indeed abide by Title IX. But, at least as per my understanding, Title IX only regulates percentages of male and female athletes slots taken by NCAA athletes. This is why, if you are currently in balance, you can’t add a male lax team and balance it by adding a female ultimate frisbee team. If these universities withdraw from the NCAA for football, I don’t think their football players would count anymore towards a school’s Title IX bean counting. Though the school would indeed still have to abide by Title IX, these players by the rules wouldn’t count. This would free up a huge number of slots for new men’s NCAA sports, such as lax. Who wants to join up for a lax tailgate at The Grove?

[ggait]

ND can get a big increase from a new NBC contract. But it wouldn't ever get to the level of what a B10 or SEC payout would be. Thing is, ND doesn't need the money.

They have a $12B endowment -- larger than UMich's endowment and a fraction of the school size. On a per student basis in the P5, it is second only to Stanford, and is well ahead of Duke and Vandy. They have sooo much dough already that they are one of the few schools in the P5 that actually SENDS money from the athletic department to support the academic side. So more than any other school in this game of musical chairs, ND can literally do whatever it wants to do regardless of finances.

The real question in all of this is whether the ACC GOR and the existing ACC/ESPN deal will keep the ACC together through this round of realignment. The ACC has (from the school perspective) a terrible TV contract. Which means that said contract is GREAT from ESPN's side. So it would seem more likely that ESPN would fight to keep its sweetheart deal in place. Not work to blow it up so that it would have to pay more. But no one really knows.

In the shorter term, I think the action will be a re-ordering out West with the Pac-12 and Big 12. I'm betting my CU Buffaloes will revert to the Big 12 along with the other three "four corners" schools -- ASU, UA, UU.

Seems like the eventual outcome with be North (B10), South (SEC) and West (B12 as a distant 3rd). With maybe some NW schools (UW, UO, Cal, Stanford) winding up in the North/B10.

If I'm UVA or UNC and had the choice, I'd take the SEC in a heartbeat. SEC is high dough and is a much more consistent footprint and brand -- southern college towns. And a throwback. After all, the big southern schools (including UVA and UNC) all used to be in the same Southern Conference, until the Southern broke up and the SEC and ACC were founded.

B10 might turn out to be higher dough, but seems bolted-together and unwieldy. Rutgers and USC is just weird.

[OCanada]

Endowments are comprised of unrestricted funds and restricted funds. Depending on the mix there may be more or less flexibility. Not for profits are required to file a Form 990. Anyone can google and access them. I am certain that includes educational institutions unless they are for profit

[LongIslandLacks]

Coming back to this only because it is lax relevant and interesting. Any school that takes federal money must indeed abide by Title IX. But, at least as per my understanding, Title IX only regulates percentages of male and female athletes slots taken by NCAA athletes. This is why, if you are currently in balance, you can’t add a male lax team and balance it by adding a female ultimate frisbee team. If these universities withdraw from the NCAA for football, I don’t think their football players would count anymore towards a school’s Title IX bean counting. Though the school would indeed still have to abide by Title IX, these players by the rules wouldn’t count. This would free up a huge number of slots for new men’s NCAA sports, such as lax. Who wants to join up for a lax tailgate at The Grove?

Title IX is not tied to the NCAA. It applies to every institution that receives federal funding and operates or sponsors athletic teams. The regulations apply to recipients of federal funds (think research grants, etc) who operate or sponsor interscholastic, intercollegiate, club or intramural athletics and require equal athletic opportunity for members of both sexes. The idea that a school avoids the application of Title IX by leaving the NCAA is wrong. Now the institution decided to no longer be a recipient of federal funds, that might work. Of course, that’s a complete non-starter.

[pcowlax]

Coming back to this only because it is lax relevant and interesting. Any school that takes federal money must indeed abide by Title IX. But, at least as per my understanding, Title IX only regulates percentages of male and female athletes slots taken by NCAA athletes. This is why, if you are currently in balance, you can’t add a male lax team and balance it by adding a female ultimate frisbee team. If these universities withdraw from the NCAA for football, I don’t think their football players would count anymore towards a school’s Title IX bean counting. Though the school would indeed still have to abide by Title IX, these players by the rules wouldn’t count. This would free up a huge number of slots for new men’s NCAA sports, such as lax. Who wants to join up for a lax tailgate at The Grove?

Title IX is not tied to the NCAA. It applies to every institution that receives federal funding and operates or sponsors athletic teams. The regulations apply to recipients of federal funds (think research grants, etc) who operate or sponsor interscholastic, intercollegiate, club or intramural athletics and require equal athletic opportunity for members of both sexes. The idea that a school avoids the application of Title IX by leaving the NCAA is wrong. Now the institution decided to no longer be a recipient of federal funds, that might work. Of course, that’s a complete non-starter.

I would really love to hear an answer to my question but we seem to be talking past each other. I am NOT talking about the school leaving the NCAA. Title IX is not "tied" to the NCAA but it relies on the NCAA (and NAIA) for designating who is an athlete. While Title IX applies to any school that offers interscholastic, intercollegiate, club, or intramural athletics, as far as I know the actual Title IX bean counts are based on the number of interscholastic NCAA/NAIA male and female athletes at each school. This is inherent in every Title IX discussion you have ever heard, if adding a interscholastic sport for males you must add one with proportionally equivalent spots for females. They do not bring intramural or non-accredited sports into the mix. If the football teams withdraw from the NCAA it seems to me they might no longer count, any more than the IM broomball players do. The equal opportunity, based on counts, does NOT include intramurals or, as far as I know, any non-NCAA sanctioned sports. It can't, otherwise a school could just say we are going to call "theater" a sport even though the NCAA won't recognize it and get all the girls there counted towards their athlete list or start women's juggling. Now, it may well be that in order for the new organization that would house football to get accredited it would then have to get added to the list of what counts for Title IX (and in fact probably would) but I don't know that they automatically would.

[ggait]

the actual Title IX bean counts are based on the number of interscholastic NCAA male and athletes at each school.

Not exactly.

Some schools sponsor sports that are not NCAA sponsored. For example, womens rowing is an NCAA sponsored sport but mens rowing is not. Mrowing operates under some non-NCAA governance structure. For T9, that distinction does not matter. At Harvard, the men and women rowers would both count since both crew teams are school sponsored activities.

T9 actually does apply to all school activities, not just interscholastic sports. But since most activities are co-ed and/or available to all (like intramurals and club sports) there's not going to be a T9 problem. No schools today, like they did in the olden days, would restrict female enrollment into physics or engineering classes. But if they did, that would violate T9. Those types of things were the primary focus of T9 actually. The sports angle was really an after thought.

T9 is now mostly known as a sports thing because educational opportunities (outside of sports) have long since been made available equally to both sexes. But since sports typically involves gender restricted teams, you have to do the head counting and proportionality stuff.

The only way football might cease to count (maybe) is if it was completely separated from the school/educational activities. Like Bama licenses the brand to a separate business that hires employee non-student players and operates Bama Football LLC. No one is even close to doing that.

[Farfromgeneva]

Depends on the administration philosophy (and lean of Congress) but you can’t possibly believe the federal courts would allow the lack of an SRO designation to offer colleagues and end run around title 9? That’s insane. At beat it could be pulled off for a year before being shut down.

A licensing structure could work but it’ll dilute the product and value to networks long run if they go that path.

[HooDat]

If this turns out to be true. Duke gets hit the worst. They need a home for bball, and have to make it work without Coach K. Men’s lacrosse at Duke gets dropped into a conference with much weaker lacrosse. UVA men’s lacrosse needs to find a home as well.

Nothing about the ACC to SEC rumors are true at this point. Reputable sources have been saying that this report has no legs. Too many people jumping to conclusions. Duke will always have a place in college athletics, regardless of what happens with this latest round of realignment.

Bball made Duke. If Duke bball fades like Georgetown bball faded after John Thompson’s runs with Ewing, Iverson, then Duke will forego millions of dollars to fund other sports. The “rumors” may be true or not. They make sense, frankly. ACC is weak compared to the dominant Big 10 and SEC. It’s clear now that the networks are driving the bus here.

The Big East would be a very nice spot for Duke if the ACC ceases to exist.

De-emphasize football like UConn did, and drop into the BE for a great hoops conference and a very strong conference for non-revs.

While I think Duke could also easily get an offer to join the B1G, the Big East actually makes more sense for them across the board. A Duke / Georgetown rivalry could really get some legs.

[Farfromgeneva]

These colleges do have to try to think long term. If it’s just creating a minor league for NFL, because the talent and quality isn’t the same level across the board, then without a strong direct tie to college, such as in a licensing outs or really any system that pulls football away from the student body day to day, is going to make the product worth less. The value of college football is the regional and cultural differences but a couple of superconferences dilutes and homogenized it such that it’s not worth billions anymore. It’s worth a discount of probably 35-60% of the NFL contracts down the road.

[LongIslandLacks]

Coming back to this only because it is lax relevant and interesting. Any school that takes federal money must indeed abide by Title IX. But, at least as per my understanding, Title IX only regulates percentages of male and female athletes slots taken by NCAA athletes. This is why, if you are currently in balance, you can’t add a male lax team and balance it by adding a female ultimate frisbee team. If these universities withdraw from the NCAA for football, I don’t think their football players would count anymore towards a school’s Title IX bean counting. Though the school would indeed still have to abide by Title IX, these players by the rules wouldn’t count. This would free up a huge number of slots for new men’s NCAA sports, such as lax. Who wants to join up for a lax tailgate at The Grove?

Title IX is not tied to the NCAA. It applies to every institution that receives federal funding and operates or sponsors athletic teams. The regulations apply to recipients of federal funds (think research grants, etc) who operate or sponsor interscholastic, intercollegiate, club or intramural athletics and require equal athletic opportunity for members of both sexes. The idea that a school avoids the application of Title IX by leaving the NCAA is wrong. Now the institution decided to no longer be a recipient of federal funds, that might work. Of course, that’s a complete non-starter.

I would really love to hear an answer to my question but we seem to be talking past each other. I am NOT talking about the school leaving the NCAA. Title IX is not "tied" to the NCAA but it relies on the NCAA (and NAIA) for designating who is an athlete. While Title IX applies to any school that offers interscholastic, intercollegiate, club, or intramural athletics, as far as I know the actual Title IX bean counts are based on the number of interscholastic NCAA/NAIA male and female athletes at each school. This is inherent in every Title IX discussion you have ever heard, if adding a interscholastic sport for males you must add one with proportionally equivalent spots for females. They do not bring intramural or non-accredited sports into the mix. If the football teams withdraw from the NCAA it seems to me they might no longer count, any more than the IM broomball players do. The equal opportunity, based on counts, does NOT include intramurals or, as far as I know, any non-NCAA sanctioned sports. It can't, otherwise a school could just say we are going to call "theater" a sport even though the NCAA won't recognize it and get all the girls there counted towards their athlete list or start women's juggling. Now, it may well be that in order for the new organization that would house football to get accredited it would then have to get added to the list of what counts for Title IX (and in fact probably would) but I don't know that they automatically would.

Your question was, who wants to join up for a lax tailgate at the Grove? I do not.

I was responding to your incorrect understanding of Title IX where you wrote, “Title IX only regulates percentage of male and female slots taken by NCAA athletes.” Then you posited that withdrawing from the NCAA for football might be a work around and “free up slots for new men’s NCAA sports.” That’s just a non-starter as an idea. If the university is putting the players through school as part of a deal to play athletics, the Title IX regs will still capture those players and require equality for the opposite sex.

We have arrived at two solutions to evade Title IX here and righteously provide disproportionately more opportunities to males: (1) stop taking ALL federal funds, or (2) set up a non-student team under a separate corporation or limited liability company that plays for the glory of the university on Saturdays. We can probably stop at these and see if any college administrators are reading this board and follow our excellent advice!

[MDlaxfan76]

Depends on the administration philosophy (and lean of Congress) but you can’t possibly believe the federal courts would allow the lack of an SRO designation to offer colleagues and end run around title 9? That’s insane. At beat it could be pulled off for a year before being shut down.

A licensing structure could work but it’ll dilute the product and value to networks long run if they go that path.

I think he means/said a scenario in which the players are not students, not otherwise connected to the educational activities. Professionals just with a brand license...

Thus not relevant to proportionality of educational access.

Otherwise, Title IX applies.

[Farfromgeneva]

Depends on the administration philosophy (and lean of Congress) but you can’t possibly believe the federal courts would allow the lack of an SRO designation to offer colleagues and end run around title 9? That’s insane. At beat it could be pulled off for a year before being shut down.

A licensing structure could work but it’ll dilute the product and value to networks long run if they go that path.

I think he means/said a scenario in which the players are not students, not otherwise connected to the educational activities. Professionals just with a brand license...

Thus not relevant to proportionality of educational access.

Otherwise, Title IX applies.

I considered that but has anyone thought about the value of non student, professional players never on campus or around, in and out more rapidly, in an inferior product to the NFL (a national professional league with college logos is homogenous and inferior ultimately like any other business)? It’s value will diminish rapidly. Like wining a G league team at best. Not worth $50-$75mm/per team per year.

[MDlaxfan76]

Depends on the administration philosophy (and lean of Congress) but you can’t possibly believe the federal courts would allow the lack of an SRO designation to offer colleagues and end run around title 9? That’s insane. At beat it could be pulled off for a year before being shut down.

A licensing structure could work but it’ll dilute the product and value to networks long run if they go that path.

I think he means/said a scenario in which the players are not students, not otherwise connected to the educational activities. Professionals just with a brand license...

Thus not relevant to proportionality of educational access.

Otherwise, Title IX applies.

I considered that but has anyone thought about the value of non student, professional players never on campus or around, in and out more rapidly, in an inferior product to the NFL (a national professional league with college logos is homogenous and inferior ultimately like any other business)? It’s value will diminish rapidly. Like wining a G league team at best. Not worth $50-$75mm/per team per year.

Indeed problematic at best, however I don't think ggait is predicting such an option would be adopted, nor is he advising anyone to hold their breath , just explaining a scenario that would meet/avoid the Title IX requirements...anything where the players are actually associated with the educational institution, no dice.

[Farfromgeneva]

Depends on the administration philosophy (and lean of Congress) but you can’t possibly believe the federal courts would allow the lack of an SRO designation to offer colleagues and end run around title 9? That’s insane. At beat it could be pulled off for a year before being shut down.

A licensing structure could work but it’ll dilute the product and value to networks long run if they go that path.

I think he means/said a scenario in which the players are not students, not otherwise connected to the educational activities. Professionals just with a brand license...

Thus not relevant to proportionality of educational access.

Otherwise, Title IX applies.

I considered that but has anyone thought about the value of non student, professional players never on campus or around, in and out more rapidly, in an inferior product to the NFL (a national professional league with college logos is homogenous and inferior ultimately like any other business)? It’s value will diminish rapidly. Like wining a G league team at best. Not worth $50-$75mm/per team per year.

Indeed problematic at best, however I don't think ggait is predicting such an option would be adopted, nor is he advising anyone to hold their breath , just explaining a scenario that would meet/avoid the Title IX requirements...anything where the players are actually associated with the educational institution, no dice.

That’s where I think this all breaks down ultimately is preserving the “franchise value” of college football while bifurcation got from all meaningful aspects of the universities they represent. There’s no obvious solution to that now. A recession may force the answer via the steaming/cable providers but may not. It’s a ten year issue.

[wgdsr]

good article in the athletic from someone who is actually "in the room".
sorry for the paywall and i can't copy and paste.
https://theathletic.com/news/iowa-big-t ... 5OSWdC66R/

essentially, saying the b1g is not seeking members, although they're fielding calls and updating ad's when that happens. he semi-contradicts that later by saying notre dame has been on the hit list for a year since texas/oklahoma.

some spice quotes:
"i don't envision (expansion).
if i were predicting, i'm not predicting that we would be adding any more in the near future. we'll see."

also was paraphrased that he and the iowa prez will not be forced to make a decision on further expansion this summer. but reiterated he doesn't have a crystal ball.

for b1g fans, says he expects no more divisions after 2023-24 and plane travel many sports will be charter.

so as it turns out, there may be more than one possible outcome. at least according to an ad in the b1g.

[OCanada]

ND AD Swarbrick

Three reasons they might join a conference

https://www.si.com/college/2022/07/08/n ... conference

[wgdsr]

ND AD Swarbrick

Three reasons they might join a conference

https://www.si.com/college/2022/07/08/n ... conference

the b1g is up on negotiations for the 2023 season. notre dame is locked into theirs through 2025? that's either 2 or 3 more years than the b1g.

all of the major conferences are up for new deals prior to the irish, save for the acc. that's the bad news.

the good news football is king in live sports and not only do the old linear tv networks need some programming, amazon and now apple may be trying to get seats at the table.
https://michigan.rivals.com/news/apple- ... dia-rights
they also may take spots that the networks would have prior to their own deal and notre dame wins downstream. and if networks are going to be paying big money for what's a handful of slots on a weekend, what's a high 8 figure amount for a team like notre dame that drives eyeballs (8th nationally)? and actually has been decent at football lately.

the expanded playoff, which no doubt the b1g and sec want, also works in nd's favor as an independent. arguably moreso for them than as part of a conference, as long as the b1g and sec don't take their ball and go home. given the old saying don't fix what ain't broke, not sure if i see those conferences breaking off the cfp in the intermediate term.

[laxpert]

for b1g fans, says he expects no more divisions after 2023-24 and plane travel many sports will be charter.

Is it possible that the Super Conferences use their power to reduce the minimum number of sponsored teams? Currently NCAA D1 programs must sponsor a minimum of 14 teams consisting of 7M and7W or 6M and 8W. I could see Super Conference schools sponsoring only revenue producing men’s teams and the needed number of women’s teams to meet proportionality. All other teams would be based more on the European Club model. Title IX concerns could be satisfied by the interests and abilities clause of the three-prong test.
Football is driving force behind conference realignment and those empowered by Title IX will never let proportionality out of the equation.

[Farfromgeneva]

Had this thought that this may allow higher ed to go to the “payment model” of pricing with everything al a Carte. Can claim they aren’t raising tuition by feeing uo extracurricular activities while still increasing cost of attendance

[a fan]

Had this thought that this may allow higher ed to go to the “payment model” of pricing with everything al a Carte. Can claim they aren’t raising tuition by feeing uo extracurricular activities while still increasing cost of attendance

By "feeing up", do you mean charging massive fees to play a varsity sport?