Coming soon: NCAA v. California

Football isn't the only sport, tough guy. And only a little more than 0% of the NCAA revenue comes from football. So why should football players get any? That leaves individual institutions to share. When the likes of the MAC wind up finding out they can no longer compete -- at any level -- many will drop sports. Because when they can't compete, even at the pipe-dream level, local interest and revenue will quickly disappear. This will cost scores of underprivileged kids, 99.9 percent of whom have no shot at making money in a sport but who could make a lot of money with a degree, a shot at a college education. It's not all about Ohio State, Alabama and Texas for fuck's sake.

 

The number of unwarranted and unproven assertions in your post almost equals the number of words. I would like to see how many women hockey players or male tennis players make a nickel from the use of their images in the course of the NCAA year. All this law does is keep colleges from using the image, words, etc. of a student-athlete for revenue without said athlete getting a cut. It's only a primal threat to the status quo in your head. There's not much more dishonesty in sports than the argument college sports will die if its revenues are shared with the athletes. Personally, I believe if that's true college sports should die. I realize that's an extreme view, but at least it's not paranoid fantasy.

 

I'm with Gee completely on this. And by the way - If you allow schools to spend money on players, I think it's more likely that competition *increases* from the current college status quo. If you've invested X dollars into a player, it's harder to move on from him, even if it's a sunk cost. Look at how awful professional GMs are when it comes to free agency. I don't think college "GMs" would be any better, and the talent would disperse more.

 

My assertions are unproven because they haven't happened yet. So no shit. But they aren't unwarranted. I'm sure no male tennis players will make money. But some female hockey (or insert other sport) players are going to be lawyering up if there isn't a dollar going to a female for every dollar that goes to a male. And these cases are going to be very costly. Who's going to pay for them? My point wasn't that sharing revenues with athletes will kill the sports. The lack of interests that outside interests paying -- or in the case of 95 percent of the schools and programs, not paying -- are what will cause them to shrivel up. Interest is already minimal at mid-majors. If you drive that down to next-to-none, why would these schools continue having the programs?

 

If a school is using a woman's imager without compensation, she's got a case. She has no case if she's an Alabama golfer to have a share of Tua's image revenue. It's HIS name, HIS face.

 

Where's that money coming from? If it's from the university, yeah, then everyone should get an equal cut. (Key word: should.) However, if the money comes from outside the university -- local car dealer, hobby store that sells cards, shoe store...whatever -- then there's not a case to be had.

 

That sounds like sound reasoning. Except that reasoning is never sound. Tua's opportunity only arises from being an athlete at that university. Therefore, if a woman golfer cannot have the same opportunity, she's going to sue. And there will be lawyers lining up to take those cases because of how deep the pockets are at the schools and the NCAA.

 

I think it's naive to believe that. The money comes from the opportunity, which comes from the school. That's how cases will be argued. Schools will not be able to afford to settle all of them, let alone defend them. And if one woman wins, that's it for everyone. I might be wrong about the outcome, but I'm 100 percent certain the first dollar spent will be followed by a line female athletes and their lawyers.

 

Nope. Private businesses are under no obligation to follow Title IX. Just because a car dealer wants to have the star QB sign autographs at the dealership doesn’t mean he has to also bring along a women’s volleyball player.

 

No, Tua’s opportunity comes before he becomes a college athlete, hence, the reason for recruiting. He, other athletes, and the woman golfer, all have a certain amount of value before they even step on campus. That value is determined by the free market. They then can either enhance or reduce their value on the field while in college, also dependent on the free market.

They have the same opportunity. It’s what is valued that is different.

Take, for instance, a school such as UConn. One could easily see that a woman’s basketball star will earn more than a football player. They have the same opportunity, but it’s how the private sponsors value them is what will be the factor.

 

It's not the car dealership who will be scrutinized. It's the quarterback.

 

Tua may be enticed before he becomes a college athlete, and in that case, let him make all he can. But once he's making money as a representative of the school, title IX will kick in. At least there will be lawyers who say it should kick in.

But as for being enticed before he gets there, that all but ensures that the have-not programs have zero chance of landing top-tier talent.