A Sea Of Red

I thought about placing this inside the Realignment Megathread but decided it warranted its own thread.

CBS Sports wrote:NCAA proposal would put power in hands of BCS conferences
January 10, 2014 12:42 pm ET

DENNIS DODD
Senior College Football Columnist

A new NCAA governance structure favoring the Division I power institutions has been distributed to membership in advance of next week's NCAA convention.

At its core, the proposed structure would give "legislative autonomy" to the five BCS or power conferences that consider themselves the main stakeholders of big-time college sports: the SEC, Big Ten, Pac-12, ACC and Big 12.

Those schools would define the structure for a stipend paid to athletes, according to documents obtained by CBSSports.com. The Chronicle of Higher Education first reported the existence of the proposals from Wake Forest president Nathan Hatch, the Division I board chair.

And here's more that could potentially impact us ...

Those 65 schools may not get their way unless they control a majority (at least 50.1 percent) of the voting process. Anything less may be viewed as the same old system. The current NCAA voting process among Division I schools is described here.

If those power schools don't get their way, they have hinted at a Division 4 breakaway from the NCAA. But that possibility seems less and less likely.

Click Here for Full Story

Eventually, either the NCAA will put them in their own division or they will be some pay system for all of the current BCS. Some major change like that is inevitable regardless of if the other schools want it or not.

So, will Title IX not be a factor when it comes to paying athletes?

This just seems like it's opening these schools up to all kinds of issues and inequality litigation.

Even without formally creating another tier, it creates a distinct barrier between schools in the power conferences and those on the outside. It will make it even more difficult to move up as it will tilt recruiting advantages even further towards the power conferences. They should allow groups that are not part of one of the 5 conferences to declare an independent status to provide stipends to student athletes. Or .. they should adopt the European soccer model with conferences dropping the bottom performers annually and the top performers in other conferences moving up ..

ALUmnus wrote:So, will Title IX not be a factor when it comes to paying athletes?

This just seems like it's opening these schools up to all kinds of issues and inequality litigation.

Title IX might not apply as strictly here, unless have been completely misinformed, you don't have to spend an equal amount of $ on sports if it can be shown certain sports bring in more money. Hence why men's basketball coaches generally have bigger contracts than women's basketball coaches and why football and men's basketball teams generally have bigger budgets than their respective women's team.

BuryYourDuke wrote:Not trying to be a jerk, but none of what you said relates to Title IX at all.

The pay of college coaches most certainly does relate to Title IX. Are you disagreeing with that?

Actually the interpretation has changed to include compensation and staffing


https://www.womenssportsfoundation.org/ ... rsity-case

Here are the important parts

Additional Coaching Positions.
Instead of one coach for three teams, Quinnipiac will provide its women’s cross country and track and field teams with the maximum number of paid coaches permitted by NCAA rules.

Increased Compensation for Coaches of Women’s Teams
Quinnipiac will increase the salaries of the coaches of women’s teams to no less than the median salaries in their sports in their conference. Quinnipiac recognizes that this will be at least $450,000 per year.

BuryYourDuke wrote:Also worth noting that this was a settlement, not a ruling by a judge.

Understandable. But it goes without saying that this 'settlement' will be used as precedent from here on out. 'You don't want to go to court? Here's what Quinnipiac did...'

You also had the Pat Summit situation where she basically said 'I have how many National Titles and you are going to bring a Mens coach in making more money? Let's re think that"

BuryYourDuke wrote:Title IX doesn't have anything to do with $$ spent.

Just do a Google search for "title IX" + "equity of pay" or "equity of spending." Money spent is quite a large portion of Title IX compliance...

One particular website http://www.nwlc.org/resource/title-ix-s ... omic-times

College B decides that it cannot afford to provide as many benefits and services to its athletes as it has in previous years, so it chooses to cut back on benefits in the areas of travel, equipment, and publicity for all teams except football, whose players constitute 30% of all male athletes. This decision disadvantages a greater percentage of women (100% of female athletes) than men (70% of male athletes) and would violate Title IX.

High School C, which provides equal benefits and services to its girls’ and boys’ teams, decides that because of budget woes, it will not install lights and batting cages for its softball and baseball fields as it had planned. An outside donor informs the school that it will contribute these amenities for the baseball field. If High School C allows the donor to do this without finding a way to provide the same benefits to the softball team, it would be in violation of Title IX. While schools may accept gifts and other outside funding or support for their athletics programs, they are responsible for treating their male and female athletes equally and may not evade this responsibility by pointing to outside sources as the cause of unequal treatment.

you should change the title under your name to "title IX expert...or maybe not"

BuryYourDuke wrote:I definitely don't consider myself an expert, but I'm not wrong either. Pulling a women's rights group's website, and their interpretation of the law doesn't really prove much, except that their view of Title IX is broader than it has been applied by the courts.

Title IX is still being hashed out in the court system, and I'm sure the application will evolve. However, what people desire it to mean and what it has, so far, meant are two different things.

I just pulled that because it was the easiest for people to understand. Coaches salaries and staffing have been a refuge to avoid Title IX compliance. I know this from first hand experience. Schools will say we offer the programs but can't get people interested. Well part of that is they are paying a substandard wage to the coaches. The 'dirty little secret' is that as salaries for coaching Women's sports has risen, the interest level among men to coach women's sports has also risen. Sorta defeating the concept in a way

BuryYourDuke wrote:I actually wasn't referring to your post Purple. Although it did come from a similar source.

All posts are about me!

Purple Haize wrote:

BuryYourDuke wrote:I actually wasn't referring to your post Purple. Although it did come from a similar source.

All posts are about me!

Read and acknowledged

NCAA and Panel discussing pay for play amongst other things. Most notable part of the conversation is the last 3-5 minutes.

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/med ... ssociation