Kansas Crimson

and even if it did happen, it wouldn’t be because of the opportunity but because of the players’ irresponsibility

just like being late to practice because someone overslept, was hungover, got arrested, etc

Yeah, players are less marketable if they make it less about the game.

If I'm a CS major and all of a sudden I get a lucrative project outside of school, I may decide to just go and work on that and say FU school.

I would like that to be able to happen by opening up the professional venues - G League and NBA - rather than making college athletics a dirty mix of both.

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 12:27 pm 2. The Title IX argument never made sense to me when discussing N/I/L for the reasons cited above.

You say this as if you believe that Sherman's interpretation of Title IX will be accepted as the standard interpretation.

That would make sense, of course. But nothing about Title IX enforcement has ever made much sense.

Title IX reads, in its entirety: No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

From that, over the course of nearly five decades, we've had all sorts of judicial and regulatory interpretations, involving everything from shuttering men's wrestling teams because not enough women want to play softball to dictating to universities about who may to the bathroom where.

I hope you're right, but I have little faith in the process.

It'd be interesting if the NCAA just set a cap for all sports.

Say football, you split up $5,000,000 between 80 scholarship players in football. Average of $62,500 for all players, some get considerably more, some get considerably less.

Basketball you get $750,000 for 12 scholarships for both men and women's. Same average number.

Track, Baseball, Softball, Volleyball all get less as they are significantly less than or non-revenue sports.

The money is there for this to happen. So instead of worrying about growing facilities and nap pods in locker rooms, you focus now on giving cash to the players.

I know that exact layout just wouldn't work, but the point remains that a cap could work for the sports and paying.

Sherman is right to single out volleyball players. Volleyball is now a revenue generator (granted, at a vanishingly small number of schools) and would, likely, be able to generate endorsement deals/dollars as well.

Salary cap in college.
Lovely.

it won’t work if the schools of the ncaa are footing the bill directly, imo

i don’t even really see a way, realistically, that either entity looses out in revenue with NIL

Yeah, the schools would not directly foot the bill. The NCAA makes plenty between TV money, revenue and other things.

It'd be close to a 50/50 split if at all possible.

Again, don't know the logistics, but something to think about.

I just don't think there's any need to create fancy caps and rules and exceptions and provisos etc.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 4:19 pm I just don't think there's any need to create fancy caps and rules and exceptions and provisos etc.

probably not out of the gate, but it would no doubt evolve to that, as lawyers became involved

Damn lawyers.

By the time Kansas gets punished, most of money things with college athletes will be legal. Damn it.

I just think that the most powerful force for change in college basketball will be the most powerful group in college basketball: the coaches.

we’ll see what k and roi have to say

we know what cal thinks

The thing is, once a certain critical mass of coaches comes out neutral/favorable to N/I/L, being against it will kill you in recruiting.

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 10:56 am we’ll see what k and roi have to say

we know what cal thinks

Is it sad that I expect K to have a better grasp of the reality of the situation and a more genuine interest in seeing these things handled reasonably than I do Roy?

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 11:10 am

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 10:56 am we’ll see what k and roi have to say

we know what cal thinks

Is it sad that I expect K to have a better grasp of the reality of the situation and a more genuine interest in seeing these things handled reasonably than I do Roy?

Boeheim is in favor of N/I/L. If he is...who in the world wouldn't be?

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 2:55 pm

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 12:27 pm 2. The Title IX argument never made sense to me when discussing N/I/L for the reasons cited above.

You say this as if you believe that Sherman's interpretation of Title IX will be accepted as the standard interpretation.

That would make sense, of course. But nothing about Title IX enforcement has ever made much sense.

Title IX reads, in its entirety: No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

From that, over the course of nearly five decades, we've had all sorts of judicial and regulatory interpretations, involving everything from shuttering men's wrestling teams because not enough women want to play softball to dictating to universities about who may to the bathroom where.

I hope you're right, but I have little faith in the process.

The wrestling scholarships at least makes some logical sense. The bathroom thing seems like they're using the wrong law.

But, how in the world can a public institution restrain a benefit that they are not providing?