Future of College Lacrosse

[Typical Lax Dad]

I just wonder if half the D1 athletics departments don’t just move to D3 by end of this decade give or take. I think the payoff is highly overrated vs all the various costs, many of which are long term in nature. You rock around half the sec states and it’s easy to understand why they may be fine with it but for most of the country the total loss of institutional control and tail wagging the dog just isn’t worth the benefits.

If I had to guess first to go will be broke ones whi don’t have existential considerations in the table (ie jax should probably drop athletics down but are hurting such that this may be a swing at survival for them) and the high quality schools that dont have certain millstones they’re carrying around - Vandy, Rice, Perhaps some of the UC systems schools not named Berkeley or LA, Wake, etc.

It’s going to be interesting for sure. I know I wouldn’t want to own NCAA long term revenue backed bonds sitting out there for sure.

If the choice is run a pro sports franchise or go D3, I believe the vast majority of colleges and universities will go D3. There are only about 25 schools where a pro model for basketball or football would make sense. I am afraid at the end of the day, we will end up with less opportunities for kids across the sports spectrum. Maybe kids will jump straight to the PLL instead of a college option.

[Typical Lax Dad]

New York, March 23, 2020 -- Moody's Investors Service has revised the outlook on the National Collegiate Athletic Association, IN (NCAA) to negative from stable. At the same time the Aa2 rating has been affirmed. The NCAA has $9.6 million of debt issued through the Indiana Finance Authority.
RATINGS RATIONALE
The outlook revision to negative is driven by the financial impact of the cancellation of the Division I men's and women's 2020 basketball tournaments, as well as all remaining winter and spring NCAA championships in response to the coronavirus pandemic. The social risk evidenced by the disruption of the public health emergency directly impacts the NCAA through the loss of television and marketing rights revenue it receives related to the Division I men's basketball championship. The projected revenue from its media partners for fiscal 2020 was $827 million. With the cancellation, the NCAA will receive 30% of the expected $827 million. The recovery plan from that loss will be aided by insurance recoveries, a reduction to Division I member distributions, expense savings and a likely draw on an operating line of credit. Operating performance will weaken materially in 2020 and likely turn mildly negative. Investment losses during the current year will also weigh on credit quality should they persist.
The affirmation of the Aa2 rating reflects the NCAA's reduced but still very strong liquidity compared to relatively low fixed costs and a very modest amount of debt outstanding. Availability of a potential line of credit adds to the association's ability to respond to near term shocks. Favorably, the association's governance and risk management has long recognized and planned based on its revenue reliance on the men's basketball championship. The NCAA will be guided by its Financial Recovery Plan in making expense adjustments following the revenue loss.
The rating also recognizes the NCAA's established role as a large and prominent membership organization with over $1 billion in operating revenue reported in fiscal year 2019, valuable multi-year media rights contracts, and normally breakeven operating performance. In addition to ongoing litigation risks, the rating is constrained by significant revenue concentration with more than 75% of revenue tied to a single, annual championship event. While the NCAA's role in intercollegiate athletics is well established, it also faces multi-faceted pressures including its enforcement role for complex safety and other rules and the perceived disconnect between the amateurism of student-athletes, as codified by the NCAA and the increasing commercial success of high profile college sports.
The rating and outlook incorporate Moody's current base case macroeconomic scenario, including that disruption in economic activity in the first half of the year will be followed by some recovery in the second half. However, uncertainty will remain for at least several months as to how long it will take to contain the spread of the virus and how businesses and households will cope with the resulting financial losses.
RATING OUTLOOK
The negative outlook incorporates expectations of weak operating performance in fiscal 2020 and potential increase in debt through an operating line of credit as the association responds to its event disruption revenue contraction through reduction to its Division I member distributions and other expenses. The outlook could return to stable following the receipt of 2021 basketball championship revenue especially if any amounts drawn on the line of credit are repaid and financial reserves remain relatively stable.
FACTORS THAT COULD LEAD TO AN UPGRADE
- Significant rebound in financial reserves to serve as a buffer for potential future shocks
- Favorable resolution of litigation risks and reduction in business model risks
FACTORS THAT COULD LEAD TO A DOWNGRADE
- Additional disruption in contractual payments from media agreements or marked decline in viewer demand
- Material erosion of financial reserves
- Unfavorable outcome of litigation or contingencies likely to translate into decline in financial resources of operating performance
LEGAL SECURITY
Bond repayment is a general unsecured obligation of the NCAA.
PROFILE
The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a voluntary membership organization for over 1,200 colleges, universities, athletic conferences and other members. The NCAA serves as the primary rule-making, enforcement, and sports certification body for intercollegiate athletics. The high profile of the Association is supported by its membership because the president of each participating college or university serves as the primary representative.
METHODOLOGY
The principal methodology used in this rating was Nonprofit Organizations (Other Than Healthcare and Higher Education) published in May 2019. Please see the Rating Methodologies page on www.moodys.com for a copy of this methodology.
REGULATORY DISCLOSURES
For ratings issued on a program, series, category/class of debt or security this announcement provides certain regulatory disclosures in relation to each rating of a subsequently issued bond or note of the same series, category/class of debt, security or pursuant to a program for which the ratings are derived exclusively from existing ratings in accordance with Moody's rating practices. For ratings issued on a support provider, this announcement provides certain regulatory disclosures in relation to the credit rating action on the support provider and in relation to each particular credit rating action for securities that derive their credit ratings from the support provider's credit rating. For provisional ratings, this announcement provides certain regulatory disclosures in relation to the provisional rating assigned, and in relation to a definitive rating that may be assigned subsequent to the final issuance of the debt, in each case where the transaction structure and terms have not changed prior to the assignment of the definitive rating in a manner that would have affected the rating. For further information please see the ratings tab on the issuer/entity page for the respective issuer on www.moodys.com.
Regulatory disclosures contained in this press release apply to the credit rating and, if applicable, the related rati

Thanks. You notice that BCS football was not mentioned. The college basketball tournament runs college athletics for the most part. The NCAA tournament will draw eyeball matter who is in the tournament….it’s a casual fan play. Chancellors and Presidents should draw a hard line in the sand. You want to be a pro? There is the G-League and the new Overtime League for kids that don’t want to go to college….. “we movin’on”. That would be my suggestion…give the guys $2-$3k a month and provide a post graduation nest egg. Won’t have to worry about a student loan, should have a job lined up and a nest egg. More than 99% of what college kids get now. You don’t want to take advantage of the opportunity? I can’t help you.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics ... caa-money/

[Farfromgeneva]

Old OS

https://emma.msrb.org/EP422820-EP332181-EP728477.pdf

[OSVAlacrosse]

I just wonder if half the D1 athletics departments don’t just move to D3 by end of this decade give or take. I think the payoff is highly overrated vs all the various costs, many of which are long term in nature. You rock around half the sec states and it’s easy to understand why they may be fine with it but for most of the country the total loss of institutional control and tail wagging the dog just isn’t worth the benefits.

If I had to guess first to go will be broke ones whi don’t have existential considerations in the table (ie jax should probably drop athletics down but are hurting such that this may be a swing at survival for them) and the high quality schools that dont have certain millstones they’re carrying around - Vandy, Rice, Perhaps some of the UC systems schools not named Berkeley or LA, Wake, etc.

It’s going to be interesting for sure. I know I wouldn’t want to own NCAA long term revenue backed bonds sitting out there for sure.

This makes sense. Most schools will not become professional clubs. It only makes sense for the few that already are large professional organizations. This is driven by the fact that they now need to pay athletes out in the open. However now that they do need to distribute money back to the players the current sports model does not work for big time college sports. Fans of AL football could care less if the school can no longer afford women’s tennis

[Typical Lax Dad]

I just wonder if half the D1 athletics departments don’t just move to D3 by end of this decade give or take. I think the payoff is highly overrated vs all the various costs, many of which are long term in nature. You rock around half the sec states and it’s easy to understand why they may be fine with it but for most of the country the total loss of institutional control and tail wagging the dog just isn’t worth the benefits.

If I had to guess first to go will be broke ones whi don’t have existential considerations in the table (ie jax should probably drop athletics down but are hurting such that this may be a swing at survival for them) and the high quality schools that dont have certain millstones they’re carrying around - Vandy, Rice, Perhaps some of the UC systems schools not named Berkeley or LA, Wake, etc.

It’s going to be interesting for sure. I know I wouldn’t want to own NCAA long term revenue backed bonds sitting out there for sure.

This makes sense. Most schools will not become professional clubs. It only makes sense for the few that already are large professional organizations. This is driven by the fact that they now need to pay athletes out in the open. However now that they do need to distribute money back to the players the current sports model does not work for big time college sports. Fans of AL football could care less if the school can no longer afford women’s tennis

Where have you seen that “schools” “now need to pay kids out in the open”?

[Farfromgeneva]

I just wonder if half the D1 athletics departments don’t just move to D3 by end of this decade give or take. I think the payoff is highly overrated vs all the various costs, many of which are long term in nature. You rock around half the sec states and it’s easy to understand why they may be fine with it but for most of the country the total loss of institutional control and tail wagging the dog just isn’t worth the benefits.

If I had to guess first to go will be broke ones whi don’t have existential considerations in the table (ie jax should probably drop athletics down but are hurting such that this may be a swing at survival for them) and the high quality schools that dont have certain millstones they’re carrying around - Vandy, Rice, Perhaps some of the UC systems schools not named Berkeley or LA, Wake, etc.

It’s going to be interesting for sure. I know I wouldn’t want to own NCAA long term revenue backed bonds sitting out there for sure.

If the choice is run a pro sports franchise or go D3, I believe the vast majority of colleges and universities will go D3. There are only about 25 schools where a pro model for basketball or football would make sense. I am afraid at the end of the day, we will end up with less opportunities for kids across the sports spectrum. Maybe kids will jump straight to the PLL instead of a college option.

Maybe you are correct but having followed the D3 model closely from the football side for roughly 20yrs now I think it provides more opportunities not less. There’s a very limited amount of uber talented kids who can be carried through a college degree and aren’t just going pro anyways (maybe they go back like a Vince Carter but the guys colleges will invest lock stock in for up to four years can’t be more than 250/yr nationally between BB & FB I would guess). I look at it more like D3 being akin to the suny model where there isn’t a state champion university but four very strong solidly funded ones backed up by a number of solid non SUNY center colleges vs states where resources are focused on a single or two institutions and if you go to any other odds are you’re getting four years of a community college style education. This is to say I see d3 as spreading more educational opportunities at the expense of having the most elite in this (or any) extracurricular activity on campus generally focused on their craft but also obtaining a very valuable (imo) education that would otherwise be unattainable even if they have little intention of using said degree.

But I may be wrong in this.

[Farfromgeneva]

New York, March 23, 2020 -- Moody's Investors Service has revised the outlook on the National Collegiate Athletic Association, IN (NCAA) to negative from stable. At the same time the Aa2 rating has been affirmed. The NCAA has $9.6 million of debt issued through the Indiana Finance Authority.
RATINGS RATIONALE
The outlook revision to negative is driven by the financial impact of the cancellation of the Division I men's and women's 2020 basketball tournaments, as well as all remaining winter and spring NCAA championships in response to the coronavirus pandemic. The social risk evidenced by the disruption of the public health emergency directly impacts the NCAA through the loss of television and marketing rights revenue it receives related to the Division I men's basketball championship. The projected revenue from its media partners for fiscal 2020 was $827 million. With the cancellation, the NCAA will receive 30% of the expected $827 million. The recovery plan from that loss will be aided by insurance recoveries, a reduction to Division I member distributions, expense savings and a likely draw on an operating line of credit. Operating performance will weaken materially in 2020 and likely turn mildly negative. Investment losses during the current year will also weigh on credit quality should they persist.
The affirmation of the Aa2 rating reflects the NCAA's reduced but still very strong liquidity compared to relatively low fixed costs and a very modest amount of debt outstanding. Availability of a potential line of credit adds to the association's ability to respond to near term shocks. Favorably, the association's governance and risk management has long recognized and planned based on its revenue reliance on the men's basketball championship. The NCAA will be guided by its Financial Recovery Plan in making expense adjustments following the revenue loss.
The rating also recognizes the NCAA's established role as a large and prominent membership organization with over $1 billion in operating revenue reported in fiscal year 2019, valuable multi-year media rights contracts, and normally breakeven operating performance. In addition to ongoing litigation risks, the rating is constrained by significant revenue concentration with more than 75% of revenue tied to a single, annual championship event. While the NCAA's role in intercollegiate athletics is well established, it also faces multi-faceted pressures including its enforcement role for complex safety and other rules and the perceived disconnect between the amateurism of student-athletes, as codified by the NCAA and the increasing commercial success of high profile college sports.
The rating and outlook incorporate Moody's current base case macroeconomic scenario, including that disruption in economic activity in the first half of the year will be followed by some recovery in the second half. However, uncertainty will remain for at least several months as to how long it will take to contain the spread of the virus and how businesses and households will cope with the resulting financial losses.
RATING OUTLOOK
The negative outlook incorporates expectations of weak operating performance in fiscal 2020 and potential increase in debt through an operating line of credit as the association responds to its event disruption revenue contraction through reduction to its Division I member distributions and other expenses. The outlook could return to stable following the receipt of 2021 basketball championship revenue especially if any amounts drawn on the line of credit are repaid and financial reserves remain relatively stable.
FACTORS THAT COULD LEAD TO AN UPGRADE
- Significant rebound in financial reserves to serve as a buffer for potential future shocks
- Favorable resolution of litigation risks and reduction in business model risks
FACTORS THAT COULD LEAD TO A DOWNGRADE
- Additional disruption in contractual payments from media agreements or marked decline in viewer demand
- Material erosion of financial reserves
- Unfavorable outcome of litigation or contingencies likely to translate into decline in financial resources of operating performance
LEGAL SECURITY
Bond repayment is a general unsecured obligation of the NCAA.
PROFILE
The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a voluntary membership organization for over 1,200 colleges, universities, athletic conferences and other members. The NCAA serves as the primary rule-making, enforcement, and sports certification body for intercollegiate athletics. The high profile of the Association is supported by its membership because the president of each participating college or university serves as the primary representative.
METHODOLOGY
The principal methodology used in this rating was Nonprofit Organizations (Other Than Healthcare and Higher Education) published in May 2019. Please see the Rating Methodologies page on www.moodys.com for a copy of this methodology.
REGULATORY DISCLOSURES
For ratings issued on a program, series, category/class of debt or security this announcement provides certain regulatory disclosures in relation to each rating of a subsequently issued bond or note of the same series, category/class of debt, security or pursuant to a program for which the ratings are derived exclusively from existing ratings in accordance with Moody's rating practices. For ratings issued on a support provider, this announcement provides certain regulatory disclosures in relation to the credit rating action on the support provider and in relation to each particular credit rating action for securities that derive their credit ratings from the support provider's credit rating. For provisional ratings, this announcement provides certain regulatory disclosures in relation to the provisional rating assigned, and in relation to a definitive rating that may be assigned subsequent to the final issuance of the debt, in each case where the transaction structure and terms have not changed prior to the assignment of the definitive rating in a manner that would have affected the rating. For further information please see the ratings tab on the issuer/entity page for the respective issuer on www.moodys.com.
Regulatory disclosures contained in this press release apply to the credit rating and, if applicable, the related rati

Thanks. You notice that BCS football was not mentioned. The college basketball tournament runs college athletics for the most part. The NCAA tournament will draw eyeball matter who is in the tournament….it’s a casual fan play. Chancellors and Presidents should draw a hard line in the sand. You want to be a pro? There is the G-League and the new Overtime League for kids that don’t want to go to college….. “we movin’on”. That would be my suggestion…give the guys $2-$3k a month and provide a post graduation nest egg. Won’t have to worry about a student loan, should have a job lined up and a nest egg. More than 99% of what college kids get now. You don’t want to take advantage of the opportunity? I can’t help you.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics ... caa-money/

We seem to agree on most of this.

[Farfromgeneva]

IMO it seems as though the NCAA should revisit split division institutions if they want to maintain institutional (meaning the NCAA entity itself which currently generates over $1Bn a year in revenue) competitiveness in thai new environment. We will see but that would be at least one smart step in marinating status as a player in college athletics going forward.

[a fan]

T9 nominally applies to clubs. But in a way so that it is a complete non-issue that no one cares about.

So as a practical matter, saying T9 only applies to varsity sports is fairly accurate though technically incorrect.

Under T9, varsity sports are apples, club sports are oranges, and intramural sports are pears.

So the male and female varsity sports have to be gendered balanced against each other. That's the only thing that matters, because varsity sports are where the major revenues and expenses are. What happens with club and intramurals has no bearing on varsity sport T9 compliance.

No one much cares or has much difficulty providing club and intramural opportunities for both genders. If the guys want an ultimate frisbee club, school says fine. If the gals want one, that's fine too. If some kids want co-ed ultimate, school says fine whatever.

The university GC does not lose sleep at night about potential T9 lawsuits over club/intramural sports. They do worry about varsity sports lawsuits.

Someone is going to care when football and basketball are set up as “clubs” in a SPV.

My precise point. If they try and use "club" status to get around Title IX, it's not going to fly.

So yes, RIGHT NOW, no one cares.

[Typical Lax Dad]

I just wonder if half the D1 athletics departments don’t just move to D3 by end of this decade give or take. I think the payoff is highly overrated vs all the various costs, many of which are long term in nature. You rock around half the sec states and it’s easy to understand why they may be fine with it but for most of the country the total loss of institutional control and tail wagging the dog just isn’t worth the benefits.

If I had to guess first to go will be broke ones whi don’t have existential considerations in the table (ie jax should probably drop athletics down but are hurting such that this may be a swing at survival for them) and the high quality schools that dont have certain millstones they’re carrying around - Vandy, Rice, Perhaps some of the UC systems schools not named Berkeley or LA, Wake, etc.

It’s going to be interesting for sure. I know I wouldn’t want to own NCAA long term revenue backed bonds sitting out there for sure.

If the choice is run a pro sports franchise or go D3, I believe the vast majority of colleges and universities will go D3. There are only about 25 schools where a pro model for basketball or football would make sense. I am afraid at the end of the day, we will end up with less opportunities for kids across the sports spectrum. Maybe kids will jump straight to the PLL instead of a college option.

Maybe you are correct but having followed the D3 model closely from the football side for roughly 20yrs now I think it provides more opportunities not less. There’s a very limited amount of uber talented kids who can be carried through a college degree and aren’t just going pro anyways (maybe they go back like a Vince Carter but the guys colleges will invest lock stock in for up to four years can’t be more than 250/yr nationally between BB & FB I would guess). I look at it more like D3 being akin to the suny model where there isn’t a state champion university but four very strong solidly funded ones backed up by a number of solid non SUNY center colleges vs states where resources are focused on a single or two institutions and if you go to any other odds are you’re getting four years of a community college style education. This is to say I see d3 as spreading more educational opportunities at the expense of having the most elite in this (or any) extracurricular activity on campus generally focused on their craft but also obtaining a very valuable (imo) education that would otherwise be unattainable even if they have little intention of using said degree.

But I may be wrong in this.

I agree. I should have stated that if colleges start negotiating contracts with athletes and paying them a salary, we will end up with less opportunities. A D3 model makes the most sense if the alternative is paying a college student $500k to play football.

[a fan]

I agree. I should have stated that if colleges start negotiating contracts with athletes and paying them a salary, we will end up with less opportunities.

How can they negotiate contracts with individual players, without running afoul of Title IX? I don't see how they can pull that off.

To me, that means that the players have to unionize, and everyone--regardless of D1 sport---- will get paid the exact same amount. I can't square it landing any other way. Maybe someone else can?

[Typical Lax Dad]

I agree. I should have stated that if colleges start negotiating contracts with athletes and paying them a salary, we will end up with less opportunities.

How can they negotiate contracts with individual players, without running afoul of Title IX? I don't see how they can pull that off.

To me, that means that the players have to unionize, and everyone--regardless of D1 sport---- will get paid the exact same amount. I can't square it landing any other way. Maybe someone else can?

I don’t either. If the litigation becomes a headache, I would go D3 and focus on my core business if I were in charge. Offer merit and FA and call it a day.

[OSVAlacrosse]

I agree. I should have stated that if colleges start negotiating contracts with athletes and paying them a salary, we will end up with less opportunities.

How can they negotiate contracts with individual players, without running afoul of Title IX? I don't see how they can pull that off.

To me, that means that the players have to unionize, and everyone--regardless of D1 sport---- will get paid the exact same amount. I can't square it landing any other way. Maybe someone else can?

I can’t see it landing the way you just stated. Not enough money for all. Big time college athletes could command a lot. Spreading the wealth does not recruit. A top player can bring millions to a school. What changes is that the school can avoid NCAA regulations and the title IX compliance issues by not funding the sport at all. The team then has to raise their own funds. Why would a school do this? I think the answer for an SEC school is easy. Saben is the most important person at the school. I don’t think any of us could name the university president. Lacrosse is in a better position than many sports in this scenario as participants don’t rely on athletic scholarships to attend the school

[a fan]

I can’t see it landing the way you just stated. Not enough money for all. Big time college athletes could command a lot.

Command a lot from whom? Are you talking about players getting money directly from each school?

Schools can't do that. Not without Title IX problems.

Spreading the wealth does not recruit. A top player can bring millions to a school. What changes is that the school can avoid NCAA regulations and the title IX compliance issues by not funding the sport at all.

Incorrect. See below.

The team then has to raise their own funds. Why would a school do this? I think the answer for an SEC school is easy. Saben is the most important person at the school

I don't think you understand Title IX. Every single SEC school gets Federal Funding. That is the sole mechanism that brings Title IX into play. They cannot avoid it...not without refusing Federal funds. And UAlabama would last all of ten minutes without Federal Funding. At last count, UAlabama gets nearly a half a billion per year in direct Federal Funding. And that leaves out indirect funding, like student loans and things like Pell Grants.

Schools can't sidestep Title IX by claiming "this is a club sport".

[Typical Lax Dad]

I agree. I should have stated that if colleges start negotiating contracts with athletes and paying them a salary, we will end up with less opportunities.

How can they negotiate contracts with individual players, without running afoul of Title IX? I don't see how they can pull that off.

To me, that means that the players have to unionize, and everyone--regardless of D1 sport---- will get paid the exact same amount. I can't square it landing any other way. Maybe someone else can?

I can’t see it landing the way you just stated. Not enough money for all. Big time college athletes could command a lot. Spreading the wealth does not recruit. A top player can bring millions to a school. What changes is that the school can avoid NCAA regulations and the title IX compliance issues by not funding the sport at all. The team then has to raise their own funds. Why would a school do this? I think the answer for an SEC school is easy. Saben is the most important person at the school. I don’t think any of us could name the university president. Lacrosse is in a better position than many sports in this scenario as participants don’t rely on athletic scholarships to attend the school

Which of these guys would bring in millions if you signed them out of high school?

https://www.elite11.com/2012elite11

https://www.elite11.com/2014elite11

There is a reason pros are pros.

[a fan]

I can’t see it landing the way you just stated. Not enough money for all. Big time college athletes could command a lot. Spreading the wealth does not recruit.

Never said it did recruit. It doesn't matter if that money winds up being $500 per student athlete. They can't give out money unevenly.

UAlabama can't pay UAlabama's QB $100,000.....while giving UAlabama's Softball pitcher $500. Title IX says that's a no-no.

[OSVAlacrosse]

I can’t see it landing the way you just stated. Not enough money for all. Big time college athletes could command a lot. Spreading the wealth does not recruit.

Never said it did recruit. It doesn't matter if that money winds up being $500 per student athlete. They can't give out money unevenly.

UAlabama can't pay UAlabama's QB $100,000.....while giving UAlabama's Softball pitcher $500. Title IX says that's a no-no.

https://www.npr.org/2021/06/21/10003100 ... row-ruling

In a blistering concurring opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh added that the sports traditions near and dear to alumni and others "cannot justify the NCAA's decision to build a massive money-raising enterprise on the backs of student athletes who are not fairly compensated. Nowhere else in America can businesses get away with agreeing not to pay their workers a fair market rate," he said, adding: "The NCAA is not above the law."

I have never stated that the school would be paying athletes. Instead, they can now be paid by Nike or ESPN. However if a player or players' organization negotiates a contract for sponsorship less money will go to the NCAA and directly to the school. How would title IX mandate ESPN to pay a soft ball pitcher the same as a QB?

[a fan]

https://www.npr.org/2021/06/21/10003100 ... row-ruling

In a blistering concurring opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh added that the sports traditions near and dear to alumni and others "cannot justify the NCAA's decision to build a massive money-raising enterprise on the backs of student athletes who are not fairly compensated. Nowhere else in America can businesses get away with agreeing not to pay their workers a fair market rate," he said, adding: "The NCAA is not above the law."

You missed the first few pages of discussion on this topic. We went over this ground, if you're interested to have a look.

I have never stated that the school would be paying athletes. Instead, they can now be paid by Nike or ESPN.

No. You just implied that they would when you said "that doesn't recruit". ESPN can't recruit players. Nor can Nike.

How would title IX mandate ESPN to pay a soft ball pitcher the same as a QB?

The law, as I understand it, wouldn't.

But politicians are fickle creatures. And the Federal Government has every single one of these "power" schools by the shorts.

I'm with you on this line of thinking, because it's where I started in evaluated this new landscape. But the politics of doing what you are suggesting are complicated.

Financially? Alabama could do without Football. They couldn't survive without Federal money. The whole thing is a mess.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.npr.org/2021/06/21/10003100 ... row-ruling

In a blistering concurring opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh added that the sports traditions near and dear to alumni and others "cannot justify the NCAA's decision to build a massive money-raising enterprise on the backs of student athletes who are not fairly compensated. Nowhere else in America can businesses get away with agreeing not to pay their workers a fair market rate," he said, adding: "The NCAA is not above the law."

You missed the first few pages of discussion on this topic. We went over this ground, if you're interested to have a look.

I have never stated that the school would be paying athletes. Instead, they can now be paid by Nike or ESPN.

No. You just implied that they would when you said "that doesn't recruit". ESPN can't recruit players. Nor can Nike.

How would title IX mandate ESPN to pay a soft ball pitcher the same as a QB?

The law, as I understand it, wouldn't.

But politicians are fickle creatures. And the Federal Government has every single one of these "power" schools by the shorts.

I'm with you on this line of thinking, because it's where I started in evaluated this new landscape. But the politics of doing what you are suggesting are complicated.

Financially? Alabama could do without Football. They couldn't survive without Federal money. The whole thing is a mess.

Everyone glosses over this:

https://www.sportico.com/law/analysis/2 ... 234632592/

Kessler could have lost the case if he asked for more. Remember, only Justice Kavanaugh is a sure bet to support the broader dismantling of amateurism. During the oral argument, several other justices notably expressed trepidation about using antitrust litigation to force athletics-related reforms. Justice Breyer opined that he “worried about judges getting into the business of amateur sports” while Chief Justice John Roberts warned of the game of Jenga, where “all of a sudden the whole thing comes crashing down.”

[Farfromgeneva]

I can’t see it landing the way you just stated. Not enough money for all. Big time college athletes could command a lot.

Command a lot from whom? Are you talking about players getting money directly from each school?

Schools can't do that. Not without Title IX problems.

Spreading the wealth does not recruit. A top player can bring millions to a school. What changes is that the school can avoid NCAA regulations and the title IX compliance issues by not funding the sport at all.

Incorrect. See below.

The team then has to raise their own funds. Why would a school do this? I think the answer for an SEC school is easy. Saben is the most important person at the school

I don't think you understand Title IX. Every single SEC school gets Federal Funding. That is the sole mechanism that brings Title IX into play. They cannot avoid it...not without refusing Federal funds. And UAlabama would last all of ten minutes without Federal Funding. At last count, UAlabama gets nearly a half a billion per year in direct Federal Funding. And that leaves out indirect funding, like student loans and things like Pell Grants.

Schools can't sidestep Title IX by claiming "this is a club sport".

I bet a university could buy 7-10yrs by trying some legal/regulatory/statutory arbitrage that may be strong or shaky but if challenged by the govt could keep the funding in place via a stay through numerous appeals so if they wanted to take a bellicose approach to buy time to make a more strategic plan I could see that working. May be better than the velocity of change that doing nothing organically will afford these schools.