I put my application in yesterday. Still haven't heard back.
According to this on the big boy level, sorta: https://www.cbssports.com/college-f...e-sports-enters-historic-revenue-sharing-era/
Don’t be surprised if Trump makes a push to challenge and end title IX. It would be a bridge too far, but that hasn’t stopped him before
What would be the gripe with Title IX? To me, it’s become one of the best things ever. Not just for women but for essentially doubling the number of people knowledgeable about and interested in sports in the US. And it has spilled over into the world.
Agree. Just look at how dominant U.S. women are in international sports.
Because the grandfather clause came late in the game. MSU didn't know that they would be able to have more than 105, so they stayed at 105. We weren't going to opt in, so we had 115. When the judge said that the cap doesn't apply in year one, we opted in. MSU was trying to get in under the roster cap and get on the ground floor of the settlement, but they ended up hamstringing themselves.
I avoid politics on here like the plague, but no, I really don't think he would challenge or end Title IX. His administration is explicitly relying on Title IX for some of their initiatives targeting states over trans athletes. It is pretty integral to some of what they have been doing, there is no indication that the current administration is coming after it, and it would set back some of the things that they already feel they have accomplished.
There are still scholarships. NIL and revenue sharing remain in addition to those. Whatever the conferences set as the scholarship limit will remain the limit in their conference, but schools can pay kids beyond that.
I'd say it's been "pay to play" for a loooonggggg time for a handful of programs that could do it - it's just now out in the open and now "everyone" has the opportunity to do it.
I'm assuming that wasn't a serious comment, just baying at the moon for some reason. As you are versed in employment law IIRC from other posts would various athletic departments given Title IX requires equal opportunities (which for the reasons you and Uncle Rico stated I heartily agree with) in athletics be allowed to mete out revenues collected by public institutions on an unequal basis. Numbers in news articles throw out numbers like 90% to FB and men's BB with maybe 5% to women's BB and the rest of the athletic department. I realize the NIL collectives as private entities are not under Title IX constraints, just seems to me as an armchair legal observer bringing them under school auspices changes that. I'm genuinely curious about this stuff and want to hear more from our board legal pros. Seems given the NCAA history (the president of it should walk around with a target stating Sue Me on his back) that the most likely result will be more employment opportunities for attorneys.
Rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Very little of the TV revenue Big Boy football trickles down to this level so not much. The G5 teams with a few exceptions like Boise State are in the same boat. I tend to think from what I've observed that when the Top Dawgs pare their ranks to their chosen 40 or 60 programs that flow of money to the upper level will get worse. Not so good for programs like this one, but that isn't really much different from where it is now. Same boat as peer programs with this one having far greater levels of local fan support.
I personally have liked that the FCS has felt more like the old college football recently and have become more of an FCS and less of an FBS fan as a result.
www.montanasports.com
Ditto. While I'll still watch non major FBS, for the major programs I'm watching less and replacing more with the NFL.
