NCAA a "house of cards"?

[improbus]

It's kind of like Democracy...it's the worst system except for all the others

Except that this is communism...

[Sea Ray]

But you see, that's just it. Being "all about the money" could be interpreted many different ways. I simply like to better understand what it is you're discussing.

If what you're saying is specific to financial aid then it's an easy fix. There must be equal amounts spent on men's and women's programs with regard to financial aid. That uses a cost of attendance calculation which has already been established and accepted by everyone involved.

Anything above and beyond that Cost of attendance financial aid is salary paid to the players in whatever sport they'd like.

Also, on a side note, the argument that any payment system will encourage lawsuits is somewhat beside the point. The current (non) payment of athletes in revenue producing sports is producing lawsuits.

Let me simplify it for you. Let's assume that every school is currently in compliance and that equal amount of $$ is spent on financial aid to men's student athletes and to women. Now you're going to start paying some men a stipend. That means that now the men are getting more money coming their way and there is again an imbalance. How are you going to balance that payment to the women so that the numbers are equal once again?

[Assembly Hall]

Let me simplify it for you. Let's assume that every school is currently in compliance and that equal amount of $$ is spent on financial aid to men's student athletes and to women. Now you're going to start paying some men a stipend. That means that now the men are getting more money coming their way and there is again an imbalance. How are you going to balance that payment to the women so that the numbers are equal once again?

Title IX has nothing to do with paying athletes at the collegiate level.

[Hoosier Red]

Let me simplify it for you. Let's assume that every school is currently in compliance and that equal amount of $$ is spent on financial aid to men's student athletes and to women. Now you're going to start paying some men a stipend. That means that now the men are getting more money coming their way and there is again an imbalance. How are you going to balance that payment to the women so that the numbers are equal once again?

I appreciate you simplifying it but again I think you're missing my point.

There's an established amount of money/student athlete that is considered financial aid for a university. Anything paid above that amount to any student athlete is no longer part of a financial aid(scholarship) package.

Now there are other ramifications that would have to be worked out, but Title IX isn't really relevant.

[Sea Ray]

I appreciate you simplifying it but again I think you're missing my point.

There's an established amount of money/student athlete that is considered financial aid for a university. Anything paid above that amount to any student athlete is no longer part of a financial aid(scholarship) package.

Now there are other ramifications that would have to be worked out, but Title IX isn't really relevant.

No, we're just not agreeing. As per that NY Times article I posted:

Under Title IX, the total amount of financial aid available to male and female athletes must be “substantially proportionate” to their overall participation rates. Paychecks would presumably be held to the same standard

Title IX has nothing to do with paying athletes at the collegiate level.

We have a gentlemen's disagreement. I am of the opinion that stipends would be part of Title IX; you say it does not

[Assembly Hall]

SR.........the rule/law does not apply to paying college athletes as it is written for stipends. I understand it can be a can of worms if the NCAA allowed such payments to happen. I really dont know what the answer/answers are, it is just conjecture on my part. It is unchartered water. Another thing to think about is there are schools out there that have more than 2 big money making sports that probably make bunches of money. I am sure the UConn's women's b-ball team does quite well as does the Minnesota hockey team. All factors to consider.

[improbus]

There are a ton of articles that talk about Title IX being an obstacle, but I found the one below interesting. It was written by a lawyer using actual case histories. It isn't definitive by any stretch, but it brings up some interesting case law.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/marcedel...pink-elephant/

[Sea Ray]

SR.........the rule/law does not apply to paying college athletes as it is written for stipends. I understand it can be a can of worms if the NCAA allowed such payments to happen. I really dont know what the answer/answers are, it is just conjecture on my part. It is unchartered water. Another thing to think about is there are schools out there that have more than 2 big money making sports that probably make bunches of money. I am sure the UConn's women's b-ball team does quite well as does the Minnesota hockey team. All factors to consider.

Are you making a distinction between a salary and a stipend?

How does the U Conn women's team get paid and not their opponents? I haven't seen any workable system that's better than what we have.

[Assembly Hall]

How does the U Conn women's team get paid and not their opponents? I haven't seen any workable system that's better than what we have.

No, I am just saying there are schools out there that have sports that generate revenue other than football or men's basketball.

[Sea Ray]

No, I am just saying there are schools out there that have sports that generate revenue other than football or men's basketball.

No doubt. That fact complicates things and helps the cause of the status quo folks.

I don't think athletes need any more pay than their current benefits. A few stars get screwed but many more benefit. Sure it's communism to a certain extent but it's only a few yrs. Getting around this is just too complicated and opens up too many unintended consequences

[improbus]

No doubt. That fact complicates things and helps the cause of the status quo folks.

I don't think athletes need any more pay than their current benefits. A few stars get screwed but many more benefit. Sure it's communism to a certain extent but it's only a few yrs. Getting around this is just too complicated and opens up too many unintended consequences

What makes it wrong is that the coaches and AD's (the adults) are making out like bandits. If it had the financial structure of high school sports (or even earlier college sports), it would be different.

Every other industry in the world has figured out some way to compensate their employess. I'm sure big smart universities could do the same.

[Assembly Hall]

Every other industry in the world has figured out some way to compensate their employess. I'm sure big smart universities could do the same.

You would like to think so.....but this is a slippery slope. It could open up bidding wars for potential athletes and who is gonna monitor it?

[improbus]

You would like to think so.....but this is a slippery slope. It could open up bidding wars for potential athletes and who is gonna monitor it?

Why does someone have to monitor it? Markets work themselves out.

I'm yet to hear a good argument on how this will negatively impact the product on the field.

[Assembly Hall]

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoot...yers-are-paid-

[improbus]

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoot...yers-are-paid-

I don't particularly trust the NCAA's view on this specific issue. Of course the owner of the sweat shop will claim that the world will end if they have to give their employees raises.