App State hires new assistant GM

[appst89]

OK. So, what ideas do YOU have (that don’t involve gutting every other sport or violating Title IX six ways from Sunday) to cure the budget ills of App State Football?

I am not the one who complained. I have been the one asking others for ideas. A lot of tough decisions are going to be made. I don't want to violate Title IX but I am wondering if schools would have football separate from the school and just be sponsored so those scholarships don't count or if schools just drop to D3 to be non-scholarship? I do think these girls are going to sue their way into a situation they will not like eventually. ADs are openly talking about eventually having a CBA, which means it WILL happen. We know how the NFL works with it but I would imagine it would still be a little different with schools. This will be uncharted territory.

If non-revenue sports for men and women were really smart they would have just not sued and enjoyed having the opportunity. When you don't have games on TV and you can't attract more than 500 people to an event you can't expect to be treated the same as football. If the law says you have to be under the current system then something will be created to get around it and those non-revenue sports won't like what happens.

I know we have a few here who disagree with me but I bet if you polled every alumni and student the the majority of people would be fine with however other sports do as long as football and basketball (to smaller extent baseball) are championship caliber. For example, I wish women's and men's tennis luck but if they are the worst team in the league I won't be upset by it. I think these lawsuits are going to put colleges in a position that they might decide to just provide the opportunity to those sports but not really worry about how they do. The Michigan win in football did more for our school than 5 straight men's or women's national titles in tennis would do. Just a simple fact.

No one was complaining. What you took as complaining was in fact the reality of the current situation. Because it wasn’t what you wanted to hear, you called it complaining, or as others have used the term “excuses”. The “ideas” that you were asking for weren’t what you wanted to hear.

To keep things going we need to invent new revenue streams. It’s that simple. Giving football and basketball a larger piece of the pie isn’t making more pie, it’s just starving those that are losing what is already crumbs. Is that an option? Certainly. Is it a good option? No. What you are suggesting is a fan centric model. The Athletic Department and the University have to operate within rules and guidelines that mitigate the risk of losing federal and state funding.

I'm curious how you think the clash between Title IX and the the Sherman Act is going to play out. They cannot both be enforced at the same time.

Sure, they can, it might just not be how most fans want it to look. Those two acts are not mutually inconsistent with each other; in fact they could work together very easily. Just means women's sports gets the huge bump that football and men's basketball are getting. Which obviously lead to a lower level for both of those men's sports. It wont be pretty but they can work together.

I listened to a show about it this week and the attorneys on that broadcast said that it can't. That's what I based my question off of. Their position is that Title IX requires equal opportunity for females. If that is determined to include revenue sharing then football and basketball will have to give up revenue to satisfy Title IX, however, forced revenue sharing is a violation of Sherman because it is a restriction on their ability to earn in the market, so something would have to give. Their conclusion, as probably 95% of all the discussions I have listened to, is that House is probably not enforceable because it was not collectively bargained; and that SCOTUS, or Congress, will have to decide whether one statute outweighs the other or how they can be reconciled. And that an antitrust exemption and CBA for football, at the least, is inevitable.

[AppSt94]

No and if you look back I was not the one who said that our finances are a big problem. I was simply replying to AppSt94 saying that.

OK. So, what ideas do YOU have (that don’t involve gutting every other sport or violating Title IX six ways from Sunday) to cure the budget ills of App State Football?

I am not the one who complained. I have been the one asking others for ideas. A lot of tough decisions are going to be made. I don't want to violate Title IX but I am wondering if schools would have football separate from the school and just be sponsored so those scholarships don't count or if schools just drop to D3 to be non-scholarship? I do think these girls are going to sue their way into a situation they will not like eventually. ADs are openly talking about eventually having a CBA, which means it WILL happen. We know how the NFL works with it but I would imagine it would still be a little different with schools. This will be uncharted territory.

If non-revenue sports for men and women were really smart they would have just not sued and enjoyed having the opportunity. When you don't have games on TV and you can't attract more than 500 people to an event you can't expect to be treated the same as football. If the law says you have to be under the current system then something will be created to get around it and those non-revenue sports won't like what happens.

I know we have a few here who disagree with me but I bet if you polled every alumni and student the the majority of people would be fine with however other sports do as long as football and basketball (to smaller extent baseball) are championship caliber. For example, I wish women's and men's tennis luck but if they are the worst team in the league I won't be upset by it. I think these lawsuits are going to put colleges in a position that they might decide to just provide the opportunity to those sports but not really worry about how they do. The Michigan win in football did more for our school than 5 straight men's or women's national titles in tennis would do. Just a simple fact.

No one was complaining. What you took as complaining was in fact the reality of the current situation. Because it wasn’t what you wanted to hear, you called it complaining, or as others have used the term “excuses”. The “ideas” that you were asking for weren’t what you wanted to hear.

To keep things going we need to invent new revenue streams. It’s that simple. Giving football and basketball a larger piece of the pie isn’t making more pie, it’s just starving those that are losing what is already crumbs. Is that an option? Certainly. Is it a good option? No. What you are suggesting is a fan centric model. The Athletic Department and the University have to operate within rules and guidelines that mitigate the risk of losing federal and state funding.

I'm curious how you think the clash between Title IX and the the Sherman Act is going to play out. They cannot both be enforced at the same time.

It is a very interesting dilemma that is headed to an impasse. In the end, I believe that Title IX is going to win and here’s why. Both the Sherman Act and Title IX are federal law and they are tied to two completely different aspects of the law. The difference is that violating Title IX has a punitive cost that results in a loss of federal funding. If public universities start losing much needed funds because they are violating anti discriminatory laws because of athletes wanting more, then I can see them just gutting athletics as a whole and starting over which would not be a bad thing. No scholarships just the right to participate in a sport of choice on your dime.

I do not see a scenario where this wouldn’t be an all or nothing endeavor. Schools are already getting sued by female athletes because they are cutting sports. As I have stated before, the only winners here will be the lawyers.

I’m not a lawyer nor did I stay in a Holiday Inn last night; but in my opinion, the Sherman Act has been applied both incorrectly and inconsistently. My opinion is that the Sherman Act was a law passed to protect the welfare of consumers. So are the athletes consumers or commodities? Are they both? Does the NCAA act in a way that would be considered in violation of the Sherman Act’s intent to protect consumers by protecting them from unfair competition and higher prices? Are they restricting trade?It seems like these athletes are selling themselves as a product which does not allow them the protection as a consumer. I’m not saying that what they are doing is wrong but a creative lawyer could argue that they are the commodity and not the consumer therefore Sherman doesn’t apply.

[appst89]

OK. So, what ideas do YOU have (that don’t involve gutting every other sport or violating Title IX six ways from Sunday) to cure the budget ills of App State Football?

I am not the one who complained. I have been the one asking others for ideas. A lot of tough decisions are going to be made. I don't want to violate Title IX but I am wondering if schools would have football separate from the school and just be sponsored so those scholarships don't count or if schools just drop to D3 to be non-scholarship? I do think these girls are going to sue their way into a situation they will not like eventually. ADs are openly talking about eventually having a CBA, which means it WILL happen. We know how the NFL works with it but I would imagine it would still be a little different with schools. This will be uncharted territory.

If non-revenue sports for men and women were really smart they would have just not sued and enjoyed having the opportunity. When you don't have games on TV and you can't attract more than 500 people to an event you can't expect to be treated the same as football. If the law says you have to be under the current system then something will be created to get around it and those non-revenue sports won't like what happens.

I know we have a few here who disagree with me but I bet if you polled every alumni and student the the majority of people would be fine with however other sports do as long as football and basketball (to smaller extent baseball) are championship caliber. For example, I wish women's and men's tennis luck but if they are the worst team in the league I won't be upset by it. I think these lawsuits are going to put colleges in a position that they might decide to just provide the opportunity to those sports but not really worry about how they do. The Michigan win in football did more for our school than 5 straight men's or women's national titles in tennis would do. Just a simple fact.

No one was complaining. What you took as complaining was in fact the reality of the current situation. Because it wasn’t what you wanted to hear, you called it complaining, or as others have used the term “excuses”. The “ideas” that you were asking for weren’t what you wanted to hear.

To keep things going we need to invent new revenue streams. It’s that simple. Giving football and basketball a larger piece of the pie isn’t making more pie, it’s just starving those that are losing what is already crumbs. Is that an option? Certainly. Is it a good option? No. What you are suggesting is a fan centric model. The Athletic Department and the University have to operate within rules and guidelines that mitigate the risk of losing federal and state funding.

I'm curious how you think the clash between Title IX and the the Sherman Act is going to play out. They cannot both be enforced at the same time.

It is a very interesting dilemma that is headed to an impasse. In the end, I believe that Title IX is going to win and here’s why. Both the Sherman Act and Title IX are federal law and they are tied to two completely different aspects of the law. The difference is that violating Title IX has a punitive cost that results in a loss of federal funding. If public universities start losing much needed funds because they are violating anti discriminatory laws because of athletes wanting more, then I can see them just gutting athletics as a whole and starting over which would not be a bad thing. No scholarships just the right to participate in a sport of choice on your dime.

I do not see a scenario where this wouldn’t be an all or nothing endeavor. Schools are already getting sued by female athletes because they are cutting sports. As I have stated before, the only winners here will be the lawyers.

I’m not a lawyer nor did I stay in a Holiday Inn last night; but in my opinion, the Sherman Act has been applied both incorrectly and inconsistently. My opinion is that the Sherman Act was a law passed to protect the welfare of consumers. So are the athletes consumers or commodities? Are they both? Does the NCAA act in a way that would be considered in violation of the Sherman Act’s intent to protect consumers by protecting them from unfair competition and higher prices? Are they restricting trade?It seems like these athletes are selling themselves as a product which does not allow them the protection as a consumer. I’m not saying that what they are doing is wrong but a creative lawyer could argue that they are the commodity and not the consumer therefore Sherman doesn’t apply.

Why wouldn't Sherman apply to college sports if it's already been applied to pro sports?

[t4pizza]

I am not the one who complained. I have been the one asking others for ideas. A lot of tough decisions are going to be made. I don't want to violate Title IX but I am wondering if schools would have football separate from the school and just be sponsored so those scholarships don't count or if schools just drop to D3 to be non-scholarship? I do think these girls are going to sue their way into a situation they will not like eventually. ADs are openly talking about eventually having a CBA, which means it WILL happen. We know how the NFL works with it but I would imagine it would still be a little different with schools. This will be uncharted territory.

If non-revenue sports for men and women were really smart they would have just not sued and enjoyed having the opportunity. When you don't have games on TV and you can't attract more than 500 people to an event you can't expect to be treated the same as football. If the law says you have to be under the current system then something will be created to get around it and those non-revenue sports won't like what happens.

I know we have a few here who disagree with me but I bet if you polled every alumni and student the the majority of people would be fine with however other sports do as long as football and basketball (to smaller extent baseball) are championship caliber. For example, I wish women's and men's tennis luck but if they are the worst team in the league I won't be upset by it. I think these lawsuits are going to put colleges in a position that they might decide to just provide the opportunity to those sports but not really worry about how they do. The Michigan win in football did more for our school than 5 straight men's or women's national titles in tennis would do. Just a simple fact.

No one was complaining. What you took as complaining was in fact the reality of the current situation. Because it wasn’t what you wanted to hear, you called it complaining, or as others have used the term “excuses”. The “ideas” that you were asking for weren’t what you wanted to hear.

To keep things going we need to invent new revenue streams. It’s that simple. Giving football and basketball a larger piece of the pie isn’t making more pie, it’s just starving those that are losing what is already crumbs. Is that an option? Certainly. Is it a good option? No. What you are suggesting is a fan centric model. The Athletic Department and the University have to operate within rules and guidelines that mitigate the risk of losing federal and state funding.

I'm curious how you think the clash between Title IX and the the Sherman Act is going to play out. They cannot both be enforced at the same time.

Sure, they can, it might just not be how most fans want it to look. Those two acts are not mutually inconsistent with each other; in fact they could work together very easily. Just means women's sports gets the huge bump that football and men's basketball are getting. Which obviously lead to a lower level for both of those men's sports. It wont be pretty but they can work together.

I listened to a show about it this week and the attorneys on that broadcast said that it can't. That's what I based my question off of. Their position is that Title IX requires equal opportunity for females. If that is determined to include revenue sharing then football and basketball will have to give up revenue to satisfy Title IX, however, forced revenue sharing is a violation of Sherman because it is a restriction on their ability to earn in the market, so something would have to give. Their conclusion, as probably 95% of all the discussions I have listened to, is that House is probably not enforceable because it was not collectively bargained; and that SCOTUS, or Congress, will have to decide whether one statute outweighs the other or how they can be reconciled. And that an antitrust exemption and CBA for football, at the least, is inevitable.

I get the arguments, but if Title IX is ruled to apply (not sure it does) by the courts then no other court will claim that the shared revenue is monopolistic simply because it is court ordered. This isn't an independent act of the schools, it is forced by courts interpreting a federal statute. That fact alone should remove it from any scrutiny under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Again, I do agree that the House settlement is a violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act as it restricts trade. Without the women fighting the settlement, we would never know this answer because all parties agreed to settle the House case which means nobody would appeal. Now that the women are in it, there will most likely be an appeal either by them or the original party if the court now allows the women a larger share. It will be interesting to see. I agree, antitrust exemption is in the cards, still not sure of CBA.

[t4pizza]

OK. So, what ideas do YOU have (that don’t involve gutting every other sport or violating Title IX six ways from Sunday) to cure the budget ills of App State Football?

I am not the one who complained. I have been the one asking others for ideas. A lot of tough decisions are going to be made. I don't want to violate Title IX but I am wondering if schools would have football separate from the school and just be sponsored so those scholarships don't count or if schools just drop to D3 to be non-scholarship? I do think these girls are going to sue their way into a situation they will not like eventually. ADs are openly talking about eventually having a CBA, which means it WILL happen. We know how the NFL works with it but I would imagine it would still be a little different with schools. This will be uncharted territory.

If non-revenue sports for men and women were really smart they would have just not sued and enjoyed having the opportunity. When you don't have games on TV and you can't attract more than 500 people to an event you can't expect to be treated the same as football. If the law says you have to be under the current system then something will be created to get around it and those non-revenue sports won't like what happens.

I know we have a few here who disagree with me but I bet if you polled every alumni and student the the majority of people would be fine with however other sports do as long as football and basketball (to smaller extent baseball) are championship caliber. For example, I wish women's and men's tennis luck but if they are the worst team in the league I won't be upset by it. I think these lawsuits are going to put colleges in a position that they might decide to just provide the opportunity to those sports but not really worry about how they do. The Michigan win in football did more for our school than 5 straight men's or women's national titles in tennis would do. Just a simple fact.

No one was complaining. What you took as complaining was in fact the reality of the current situation. Because it wasn’t what you wanted to hear, you called it complaining, or as others have used the term “excuses”. The “ideas” that you were asking for weren’t what you wanted to hear.

To keep things going we need to invent new revenue streams. It’s that simple. Giving football and basketball a larger piece of the pie isn’t making more pie, it’s just starving those that are losing what is already crumbs. Is that an option? Certainly. Is it a good option? No. What you are suggesting is a fan centric model. The Athletic Department and the University have to operate within rules and guidelines that mitigate the risk of losing federal and state funding.

I'm curious how you think the clash between Title IX and the the Sherman Act is going to play out. They cannot both be enforced at the same time.

It is a very interesting dilemma that is headed to an impasse. In the end, I believe that Title IX is going to win and here’s why. Both the Sherman Act and Title IX are federal law and they are tied to two completely different aspects of the law. The difference is that violating Title IX has a punitive cost that results in a loss of federal funding. If public universities start losing much needed funds because they are violating anti discriminatory laws because of athletes wanting more, then I can see them just gutting athletics as a whole and starting over which would not be a bad thing. No scholarships just the right to participate in a sport of choice on your dime.

I do not see a scenario where this wouldn’t be an all or nothing endeavor. Schools are already getting sued by female athletes because they are cutting sports. As I have stated before, the only winners here will be the lawyers.

I’m not a lawyer nor did I stay in a Holiday Inn last night; but in my opinion, the Sherman Act has been applied both incorrectly and inconsistently. My opinion is that the Sherman Act was a law passed to protect the welfare of consumers. So are the athletes consumers or commodities? Are they both? Does the NCAA act in a way that would be considered in violation of the Sherman Act’s intent to protect consumers by protecting them from unfair competition and higher prices? Are they restricting trade?It seems like these athletes are selling themselves as a product which does not allow them the protection as a consumer. I’m not saying that what they are doing is wrong but a creative lawyer could argue that they are the commodity and not the consumer therefore Sherman doesn’t apply.

The Supremes said it applies to colleges sports and that is where the buck stops.

[hapapp]

I am not the one who complained. I have been the one asking others for ideas. A lot of tough decisions are going to be made. I don't want to violate Title IX but I am wondering if schools would have football separate from the school and just be sponsored so those scholarships don't count or if schools just drop to D3 to be non-scholarship? I do think these girls are going to sue their way into a situation they will not like eventually. ADs are openly talking about eventually having a CBA, which means it WILL happen. We know how the NFL works with it but I would imagine it would still be a little different with schools. This will be uncharted territory.

If non-revenue sports for men and women were really smart they would have just not sued and enjoyed having the opportunity. When you don't have games on TV and you can't attract more than 500 people to an event you can't expect to be treated the same as football. If the law says you have to be under the current system then something will be created to get around it and those non-revenue sports won't like what happens.

I know we have a few here who disagree with me but I bet if you polled every alumni and student the the majority of people would be fine with however other sports do as long as football and basketball (to smaller extent baseball) are championship caliber. For example, I wish women's and men's tennis luck but if they are the worst team in the league I won't be upset by it. I think these lawsuits are going to put colleges in a position that they might decide to just provide the opportunity to those sports but not really worry about how they do. The Michigan win in football did more for our school than 5 straight men's or women's national titles in tennis would do. Just a simple fact.

No one was complaining. What you took as complaining was in fact the reality of the current situation. Because it wasn’t what you wanted to hear, you called it complaining, or as others have used the term “excuses”. The “ideas” that you were asking for weren’t what you wanted to hear.

To keep things going we need to invent new revenue streams. It’s that simple. Giving football and basketball a larger piece of the pie isn’t making more pie, it’s just starving those that are losing what is already crumbs. Is that an option? Certainly. Is it a good option? No. What you are suggesting is a fan centric model. The Athletic Department and the University have to operate within rules and guidelines that mitigate the risk of losing federal and state funding.

I'm curious how you think the clash between Title IX and the the Sherman Act is going to play out. They cannot both be enforced at the same time.

It is a very interesting dilemma that is headed to an impasse. In the end, I believe that Title IX is going to win and here’s why. Both the Sherman Act and Title IX are federal law and they are tied to two completely different aspects of the law. The difference is that violating Title IX has a punitive cost that results in a loss of federal funding. If public universities start losing much needed funds because they are violating anti discriminatory laws because of athletes wanting more, then I can see them just gutting athletics as a whole and starting over which would not be a bad thing. No scholarships just the right to participate in a sport of choice on your dime.

I do not see a scenario where this wouldn’t be an all or nothing endeavor. Schools are already getting sued by female athletes because they are cutting sports. As I have stated before, the only winners here will be the lawyers.

I’m not a lawyer nor did I stay in a Holiday Inn last night; but in my opinion, the Sherman Act has been applied both incorrectly and inconsistently. My opinion is that the Sherman Act was a law passed to protect the welfare of consumers. So are the athletes consumers or commodities? Are they both? Does the NCAA act in a way that would be considered in violation of the Sherman Act’s intent to protect consumers by protecting them from unfair competition and higher prices? Are they restricting trade?It seems like these athletes are selling themselves as a product which does not allow them the protection as a consumer. I’m not saying that what they are doing is wrong but a creative lawyer could argue that they are the commodity and not the consumer therefore Sherman doesn’t apply.

Why wouldn't Sherman apply to college sports if it's already been applied to pro sports?

But, could a school independently decided to follow Title IX in revenue sharing without violating the Sherman Act? Whereas the NCAA might be in violation if it established a rule that requires colleges to follow Title IX in revenue sharing, but an individual school might be able to do so on its own. Isn't it the collective nature that would violate Sherman?

[t4pizza]

No one was complaining. What you took as complaining was in fact the reality of the current situation. Because it wasn’t what you wanted to hear, you called it complaining, or as others have used the term “excuses”. The “ideas” that you were asking for weren’t what you wanted to hear.

To keep things going we need to invent new revenue streams. It’s that simple. Giving football and basketball a larger piece of the pie isn’t making more pie, it’s just starving those that are losing what is already crumbs. Is that an option? Certainly. Is it a good option? No. What you are suggesting is a fan centric model. The Athletic Department and the University have to operate within rules and guidelines that mitigate the risk of losing federal and state funding.

I'm curious how you think the clash between Title IX and the the Sherman Act is going to play out. They cannot both be enforced at the same time.

It is a very interesting dilemma that is headed to an impasse. In the end, I believe that Title IX is going to win and here’s why. Both the Sherman Act and Title IX are federal law and they are tied to two completely different aspects of the law. The difference is that violating Title IX has a punitive cost that results in a loss of federal funding. If public universities start losing much needed funds because they are violating anti discriminatory laws because of athletes wanting more, then I can see them just gutting athletics as a whole and starting over which would not be a bad thing. No scholarships just the right to participate in a sport of choice on your dime.

I do not see a scenario where this wouldn’t be an all or nothing endeavor. Schools are already getting sued by female athletes because they are cutting sports. As I have stated before, the only winners here will be the lawyers.

I’m not a lawyer nor did I stay in a Holiday Inn last night; but in my opinion, the Sherman Act has been applied both incorrectly and inconsistently. My opinion is that the Sherman Act was a law passed to protect the welfare of consumers. So are the athletes consumers or commodities? Are they both? Does the NCAA act in a way that would be considered in violation of the Sherman Act’s intent to protect consumers by protecting them from unfair competition and higher prices? Are they restricting trade?It seems like these athletes are selling themselves as a product which does not allow them the protection as a consumer. I’m not saying that what they are doing is wrong but a creative lawyer could argue that they are the commodity and not the consumer therefore Sherman doesn’t apply.

Why wouldn't Sherman apply to college sports if it's already been applied to pro sports?

But, could a school independently decided to follow Title IX in revenue sharing without violating the Sherman Act? Whereas the NCAA might be in violation if it established a rule that requires colleges to follow Title IX in revenue sharing, but an individual school might be able to do so on its own. Isn't it the collective nature that would violate Sherman?

I think a school could decided to follow it independently, but there are already lawsuits so there will be court orders sooner or later and then appeals and then a final decision at least on that issue. I am not sure Title IX applies to revenue sharing at all, will be interesting to see what the courts say.

[AppStFan1]

OK. So, what ideas do YOU have (that don’t involve gutting every other sport or violating Title IX six ways from Sunday) to cure the budget ills of App State Football?

I am not the one who complained. I have been the one asking others for ideas. A lot of tough decisions are going to be made. I don't want to violate Title IX but I am wondering if schools would have football separate from the school and just be sponsored so those scholarships don't count or if schools just drop to D3 to be non-scholarship? I do think these girls are going to sue their way into a situation they will not like eventually. ADs are openly talking about eventually having a CBA, which means it WILL happen. We know how the NFL works with it but I would imagine it would still be a little different with schools. This will be uncharted territory.

If non-revenue sports for men and women were really smart they would have just not sued and enjoyed having the opportunity. When you don't have games on TV and you can't attract more than 500 people to an event you can't expect to be treated the same as football. If the law says you have to be under the current system then something will be created to get around it and those non-revenue sports won't like what happens.

I know we have a few here who disagree with me but I bet if you polled every alumni and student the the majority of people would be fine with however other sports do as long as football and basketball (to smaller extent baseball) are championship caliber. For example, I wish women's and men's tennis luck but if they are the worst team in the league I won't be upset by it. I think these lawsuits are going to put colleges in a position that they might decide to just provide the opportunity to those sports but not really worry about how they do. The Michigan win in football did more for our school than 5 straight men's or women's national titles in tennis would do. Just a simple fact.

No one was complaining. What you took as complaining was in fact the reality of the current situation. Because it wasn’t what you wanted to hear, you called it complaining, or as others have used the term “excuses”. The “ideas” that you were asking for weren’t what you wanted to hear.

To keep things going we need to invent new revenue streams. It’s that simple. Giving football and basketball a larger piece of the pie isn’t making more pie, it’s just starving those that are losing what is already crumbs. Is that an option? Certainly. Is it a good option? No. What you are suggesting is a fan centric model. The Athletic Department and the University have to operate within rules and guidelines that mitigate the risk of losing federal and state funding.

I'm curious how you think the clash between Title IX and the the Sherman Act is going to play out. They cannot both be enforced at the same time.

It is a very interesting dilemma that is headed to an impasse. In the end, I believe that Title IX is going to win and here’s why. Both the Sherman Act and Title IX are federal law and they are tied to two completely different aspects of the law. The difference is that violating Title IX has a punitive cost that results in a loss of federal funding. If public universities start losing much needed funds because they are violating anti discriminatory laws because of athletes wanting more, then I can see them just gutting athletics as a whole and starting over which would not be a bad thing. No scholarships just the right to participate in a sport of choice on your dime.

I do not see a scenario where this wouldn’t be an all or nothing endeavor. Schools are already getting sued by female athletes because they are cutting sports. As I have stated before, the only winners here will be the lawyers.

I’m not a lawyer nor did I stay in a Holiday Inn last night; but in my opinion, the Sherman Act has been applied both incorrectly and inconsistently. My opinion is that the Sherman Act was a law passed to protect the welfare of consumers. So are the athletes consumers or commodities? Are they both? Does the NCAA act in a way that would be considered in violation of the Sherman Act’s intent to protect consumers by protecting them from unfair competition and higher prices? Are they restricting trade?It seems like these athletes are selling themselves as a product which does not allow them the protection as a consumer. I’m not saying that what they are doing is wrong but a creative lawyer could argue that they are the commodity and not the consumer therefore Sherman doesn’t apply.

A lot of us said at first that women's sports would be the first to go. You rarely see a school cut football or basketball but all other sports are on the table to cut and only a few schools in the last 40 years have dropped football. Total mess for sure.

[AppSt94]

I am not the one who complained. I have been the one asking others for ideas. A lot of tough decisions are going to be made. I don't want to violate Title IX but I am wondering if schools would have football separate from the school and just be sponsored so those scholarships don't count or if schools just drop to D3 to be non-scholarship? I do think these girls are going to sue their way into a situation they will not like eventually. ADs are openly talking about eventually having a CBA, which means it WILL happen. We know how the NFL works with it but I would imagine it would still be a little different with schools. This will be uncharted territory.

If non-revenue sports for men and women were really smart they would have just not sued and enjoyed having the opportunity. When you don't have games on TV and you can't attract more than 500 people to an event you can't expect to be treated the same as football. If the law says you have to be under the current system then something will be created to get around it and those non-revenue sports won't like what happens.

I know we have a few here who disagree with me but I bet if you polled every alumni and student the the majority of people would be fine with however other sports do as long as football and basketball (to smaller extent baseball) are championship caliber. For example, I wish women's and men's tennis luck but if they are the worst team in the league I won't be upset by it. I think these lawsuits are going to put colleges in a position that they might decide to just provide the opportunity to those sports but not really worry about how they do. The Michigan win in football did more for our school than 5 straight men's or women's national titles in tennis would do. Just a simple fact.

No one was complaining. What you took as complaining was in fact the reality of the current situation. Because it wasn’t what you wanted to hear, you called it complaining, or as others have used the term “excuses”. The “ideas” that you were asking for weren’t what you wanted to hear.

To keep things going we need to invent new revenue streams. It’s that simple. Giving football and basketball a larger piece of the pie isn’t making more pie, it’s just starving those that are losing what is already crumbs. Is that an option? Certainly. Is it a good option? No. What you are suggesting is a fan centric model. The Athletic Department and the University have to operate within rules and guidelines that mitigate the risk of losing federal and state funding.

I'm curious how you think the clash between Title IX and the the Sherman Act is going to play out. They cannot both be enforced at the same time.

It is a very interesting dilemma that is headed to an impasse. In the end, I believe that Title IX is going to win and here’s why. Both the Sherman Act and Title IX are federal law and they are tied to two completely different aspects of the law. The difference is that violating Title IX has a punitive cost that results in a loss of federal funding. If public universities start losing much needed funds because they are violating anti discriminatory laws because of athletes wanting more, then I can see them just gutting athletics as a whole and starting over which would not be a bad thing. No scholarships just the right to participate in a sport of choice on your dime.

I do not see a scenario where this wouldn’t be an all or nothing endeavor. Schools are already getting sued by female athletes because they are cutting sports. As I have stated before, the only winners here will be the lawyers.

I’m not a lawyer nor did I stay in a Holiday Inn last night; but in my opinion, the Sherman Act has been applied both incorrectly and inconsistently. My opinion is that the Sherman Act was a law passed to protect the welfare of consumers. So are the athletes consumers or commodities? Are they both? Does the NCAA act in a way that would be considered in violation of the Sherman Act’s intent to protect consumers by protecting them from unfair competition and higher prices? Are they restricting trade?It seems like these athletes are selling themselves as a product which does not allow them the protection as a consumer. I’m not saying that what they are doing is wrong but a creative lawyer could argue that they are the commodity and not the consumer therefore Sherman doesn’t apply.

Why wouldn't Sherman apply to college sports if it's already been applied to pro sports?

I’m not saying that. I’m speaking in terms of it in terms of the athletes. don’t see where the consumer protection, which is the intent of the law, applies to the athlete. The athlete is the sole proprietor of their NIL. As such, without the restrictions to transfer they are no longer restrained to enter the marketplace and go to the highest bidder or better situation. This in no way harms the consumer and thus doesn’t apply to the law.

[appst89]

I'm curious how you think the clash between Title IX and the the Sherman Act is going to play out. They cannot both be enforced at the same time.

It is a very interesting dilemma that is headed to an impasse. In the end, I believe that Title IX is going to win and here’s why. Both the Sherman Act and Title IX are federal law and they are tied to two completely different aspects of the law. The difference is that violating Title IX has a punitive cost that results in a loss of federal funding. If public universities start losing much needed funds because they are violating anti discriminatory laws because of athletes wanting more, then I can see them just gutting athletics as a whole and starting over which would not be a bad thing. No scholarships just the right to participate in a sport of choice on your dime.

I do not see a scenario where this wouldn’t be an all or nothing endeavor. Schools are already getting sued by female athletes because they are cutting sports. As I have stated before, the only winners here will be the lawyers.

I’m not a lawyer nor did I stay in a Holiday Inn last night; but in my opinion, the Sherman Act has been applied both incorrectly and inconsistently. My opinion is that the Sherman Act was a law passed to protect the welfare of consumers. So are the athletes consumers or commodities? Are they both? Does the NCAA act in a way that would be considered in violation of the Sherman Act’s intent to protect consumers by protecting them from unfair competition and higher prices? Are they restricting trade?It seems like these athletes are selling themselves as a product which does not allow them the protection as a consumer. I’m not saying that what they are doing is wrong but a creative lawyer could argue that they are the commodity and not the consumer therefore Sherman doesn’t apply.

Why wouldn't Sherman apply to college sports if it's already been applied to pro sports?

But, could a school independently decided to follow Title IX in revenue sharing without violating the Sherman Act? Whereas the NCAA might be in violation if it established a rule that requires colleges to follow Title IX in revenue sharing, but an individual school might be able to do so on its own. Isn't it the collective nature that would violate Sherman?

I think a school could decided to follow it independently, but there are already lawsuits so there will be court orders sooner or later and then appeals and then a final decision at least on that issue. I am not sure Title IX applies to revenue sharing at all, will be interesting to see what the courts say.

I've heard folks, particularly Rick Neuheisel, who vehemently do not believe that Title IX applies to revenue sharing. He makes a very compelling argument and I am inclined to agree with him, and you.

[appst89]

No one was complaining. What you took as complaining was in fact the reality of the current situation. Because it wasn’t what you wanted to hear, you called it complaining, or as others have used the term “excuses”. The “ideas” that you were asking for weren’t what you wanted to hear.

To keep things going we need to invent new revenue streams. It’s that simple. Giving football and basketball a larger piece of the pie isn’t making more pie, it’s just starving those that are losing what is already crumbs. Is that an option? Certainly. Is it a good option? No. What you are suggesting is a fan centric model. The Athletic Department and the University have to operate within rules and guidelines that mitigate the risk of losing federal and state funding.

I'm curious how you think the clash between Title IX and the the Sherman Act is going to play out. They cannot both be enforced at the same time.

It is a very interesting dilemma that is headed to an impasse. In the end, I believe that Title IX is going to win and here’s why. Both the Sherman Act and Title IX are federal law and they are tied to two completely different aspects of the law. The difference is that violating Title IX has a punitive cost that results in a loss of federal funding. If public universities start losing much needed funds because they are violating anti discriminatory laws because of athletes wanting more, then I can see them just gutting athletics as a whole and starting over which would not be a bad thing. No scholarships just the right to participate in a sport of choice on your dime.

I do not see a scenario where this wouldn’t be an all or nothing endeavor. Schools are already getting sued by female athletes because they are cutting sports. As I have stated before, the only winners here will be the lawyers.

I’m not a lawyer nor did I stay in a Holiday Inn last night; but in my opinion, the Sherman Act has been applied both incorrectly and inconsistently. My opinion is that the Sherman Act was a law passed to protect the welfare of consumers. So are the athletes consumers or commodities? Are they both? Does the NCAA act in a way that would be considered in violation of the Sherman Act’s intent to protect consumers by protecting them from unfair competition and higher prices? Are they restricting trade?It seems like these athletes are selling themselves as a product which does not allow them the protection as a consumer. I’m not saying that what they are doing is wrong but a creative lawyer could argue that they are the commodity and not the consumer therefore Sherman doesn’t apply.

Why wouldn't Sherman apply to college sports if it's already been applied to pro sports?

I’m not saying that. I’m speaking in terms of it in terms of the athletes. don’t see where the consumer protection, which is the intent of the law, applies to the athlete. The athlete is the sole proprietor of their NIL. As such, without the restrictions to transfer they are no longer restrained to enter the marketplace and go to the highest bidder or better situation. This in no way harms the consumer and thus doesn’t apply to the law.

I get your point, but as t4P said above, SCOTUS has already said it applies in the Alston ruling, so probably a moot point now.

[AppSt94]

I am not the one who complained. I have been the one asking others for ideas. A lot of tough decisions are going to be made. I don't want to violate Title IX but I am wondering if schools would have football separate from the school and just be sponsored so those scholarships don't count or if schools just drop to D3 to be non-scholarship? I do think these girls are going to sue their way into a situation they will not like eventually. ADs are openly talking about eventually having a CBA, which means it WILL happen. We know how the NFL works with it but I would imagine it would still be a little different with schools. This will be uncharted territory.

If non-revenue sports for men and women were really smart they would have just not sued and enjoyed having the opportunity. When you don't have games on TV and you can't attract more than 500 people to an event you can't expect to be treated the same as football. If the law says you have to be under the current system then something will be created to get around it and those non-revenue sports won't like what happens.

I know we have a few here who disagree with me but I bet if you polled every alumni and student the the majority of people would be fine with however other sports do as long as football and basketball (to smaller extent baseball) are championship caliber. For example, I wish women's and men's tennis luck but if they are the worst team in the league I won't be upset by it. I think these lawsuits are going to put colleges in a position that they might decide to just provide the opportunity to those sports but not really worry about how they do. The Michigan win in football did more for our school than 5 straight men's or women's national titles in tennis would do. Just a simple fact.

No one was complaining. What you took as complaining was in fact the reality of the current situation. Because it wasn’t what you wanted to hear, you called it complaining, or as others have used the term “excuses”. The “ideas” that you were asking for weren’t what you wanted to hear.

To keep things going we need to invent new revenue streams. It’s that simple. Giving football and basketball a larger piece of the pie isn’t making more pie, it’s just starving those that are losing what is already crumbs. Is that an option? Certainly. Is it a good option? No. What you are suggesting is a fan centric model. The Athletic Department and the University have to operate within rules and guidelines that mitigate the risk of losing federal and state funding.

I'm curious how you think the clash between Title IX and the the Sherman Act is going to play out. They cannot both be enforced at the same time.

It is a very interesting dilemma that is headed to an impasse. In the end, I believe that Title IX is going to win and here’s why. Both the Sherman Act and Title IX are federal law and they are tied to two completely different aspects of the law. The difference is that violating Title IX has a punitive cost that results in a loss of federal funding. If public universities start losing much needed funds because they are violating anti discriminatory laws because of athletes wanting more, then I can see them just gutting athletics as a whole and starting over which would not be a bad thing. No scholarships just the right to participate in a sport of choice on your dime.

I do not see a scenario where this wouldn’t be an all or nothing endeavor. Schools are already getting sued by female athletes because they are cutting sports. As I have stated before, the only winners here will be the lawyers.

I’m not a lawyer nor did I stay in a Holiday Inn last night; but in my opinion, the Sherman Act has been applied both incorrectly and inconsistently. My opinion is that the Sherman Act was a law passed to protect the welfare of consumers. So are the athletes consumers or commodities? Are they both? Does the NCAA act in a way that would be considered in violation of the Sherman Act’s intent to protect consumers by protecting them from unfair competition and higher prices? Are they restricting trade?It seems like these athletes are selling themselves as a product which does not allow them the protection as a consumer. I’m not saying that what they are doing is wrong but a creative lawyer could argue that they are the commodity and not the consumer therefore Sherman doesn’t apply.

A lot of us said at first that women's sports would be the first to go. You rarely see a school cut football or basketball but all other sports are on the table to cut and only a few schools in the last 40 years have dropped football. Total mess for sure.

Female athletes at SFA are suing the school for eliminating their sports. Hate to say this but for regional schools like App, you could definitely see football cut. It’s the biggest expense and cutting it keeps the federal funding flowing. Cutting sports and stying Division 1 would require a repeal of the NCAA rule to maintain 14 sports.

[AppStFan1]

No one was complaining. What you took as complaining was in fact the reality of the current situation. Because it wasn’t what you wanted to hear, you called it complaining, or as others have used the term “excuses”. The “ideas” that you were asking for weren’t what you wanted to hear.

To keep things going we need to invent new revenue streams. It’s that simple. Giving football and basketball a larger piece of the pie isn’t making more pie, it’s just starving those that are losing what is already crumbs. Is that an option? Certainly. Is it a good option? No. What you are suggesting is a fan centric model. The Athletic Department and the University have to operate within rules and guidelines that mitigate the risk of losing federal and state funding.

I'm curious how you think the clash between Title IX and the the Sherman Act is going to play out. They cannot both be enforced at the same time.

It is a very interesting dilemma that is headed to an impasse. In the end, I believe that Title IX is going to win and here’s why. Both the Sherman Act and Title IX are federal law and they are tied to two completely different aspects of the law. The difference is that violating Title IX has a punitive cost that results in a loss of federal funding. If public universities start losing much needed funds because they are violating anti discriminatory laws because of athletes wanting more, then I can see them just gutting athletics as a whole and starting over which would not be a bad thing. No scholarships just the right to participate in a sport of choice on your dime.

I do not see a scenario where this wouldn’t be an all or nothing endeavor. Schools are already getting sued by female athletes because they are cutting sports. As I have stated before, the only winners here will be the lawyers.

I’m not a lawyer nor did I stay in a Holiday Inn last night; but in my opinion, the Sherman Act has been applied both incorrectly and inconsistently. My opinion is that the Sherman Act was a law passed to protect the welfare of consumers. So are the athletes consumers or commodities? Are they both? Does the NCAA act in a way that would be considered in violation of the Sherman Act’s intent to protect consumers by protecting them from unfair competition and higher prices? Are they restricting trade?It seems like these athletes are selling themselves as a product which does not allow them the protection as a consumer. I’m not saying that what they are doing is wrong but a creative lawyer could argue that they are the commodity and not the consumer therefore Sherman doesn’t apply.

A lot of us said at first that women's sports would be the first to go. You rarely see a school cut football or basketball but all other sports are on the table to cut and only a few schools in the last 40 years have dropped football. Total mess for sure.

Female athletes at SFA are suing the school for eliminating their sports. Hate to say this but for regional schools like App, you could definitely see football cut. It’s the biggest expense and cutting it keeps the federal funding flowing. Cutting sports and stying Division 1 would require a repeal of the NCAA rule to maintain 14 sports.

I would think schools could force the NCAA to lower the required sports with the threat of just leaving the NCAA. The NCAA is not on a winning streak so I would not expect them to push back if schools by and large are pushing for it to be lowered.

Usually it is schools below FBS that have cut football but it would not shock me if some regional schools do. I think App will fight hard to keep it and do anything, even if lowering expenses for non-revenue sports, but I won't be shocked if it all happens. I wonder if in 20-25 years from now there will be a lot of athletes, coaches, fans, etc who will wish we went back to what we had prior to 2020? I would not be shocked.

Honestly, I would be completely fine with schools just shutting down all athletics and telling the athletes, lawyers, NCAA, etc getting their acts together and just completely starting over without scholarships like you said. I think most of us find ourselves not caring as much and perhaps people would appreciate what they had a lot more if the whole thing was taken away for a while.

[AppSt94]

I'm curious how you think the clash between Title IX and the the Sherman Act is going to play out. They cannot both be enforced at the same time.

It is a very interesting dilemma that is headed to an impasse. In the end, I believe that Title IX is going to win and here’s why. Both the Sherman Act and Title IX are federal law and they are tied to two completely different aspects of the law. The difference is that violating Title IX has a punitive cost that results in a loss of federal funding. If public universities start losing much needed funds because they are violating anti discriminatory laws because of athletes wanting more, then I can see them just gutting athletics as a whole and starting over which would not be a bad thing. No scholarships just the right to participate in a sport of choice on your dime.

I do not see a scenario where this wouldn’t be an all or nothing endeavor. Schools are already getting sued by female athletes because they are cutting sports. As I have stated before, the only winners here will be the lawyers.

I’m not a lawyer nor did I stay in a Holiday Inn last night; but in my opinion, the Sherman Act has been applied both incorrectly and inconsistently. My opinion is that the Sherman Act was a law passed to protect the welfare of consumers. So are the athletes consumers or commodities? Are they both? Does the NCAA act in a way that would be considered in violation of the Sherman Act’s intent to protect consumers by protecting them from unfair competition and higher prices? Are they restricting trade?It seems like these athletes are selling themselves as a product which does not allow them the protection as a consumer. I’m not saying that what they are doing is wrong but a creative lawyer could argue that they are the commodity and not the consumer therefore Sherman doesn’t apply.

A lot of us said at first that women's sports would be the first to go. You rarely see a school cut football or basketball but all other sports are on the table to cut and only a few schools in the last 40 years have dropped football. Total mess for sure.

Female athletes at SFA are suing the school for eliminating their sports. Hate to say this but for regional schools like App, you could definitely see football cut. It’s the biggest expense and cutting it keeps the federal funding flowing. Cutting sports and stying Division 1 would require a repeal of the NCAA rule to maintain 14 sports.

I would think schools could force the NCAA to lower the required sports with the threat of just leaving the NCAA. The NCAA is not on a winning streak so I would not expect them to push back if schools by and large are pushing for it to be lowered.

Usually it is schools below FBS that have cut football but it would not shock me if some regional schools do. I think App will fight hard to keep it and do anything, even if lowering expenses for non-revenue sports, but I won't be shocked if it all happens. I wonder if in 20-25 years from now there will be a lot of athletes, coaches, fans, etc who will wish we went back to what we had prior to 2020? I would not be shocked.

Honestly, I would be completely fine with schools just shutting down all athletics and telling the athletes, lawyers, NCAA, etc getting their acts together and just completely starting over without scholarships like you said. I think most of us find ourselves not caring as much and perhaps people would appreciate what they had a lot more if the whole thing was taken away for a while.

Here is something to ponder. Does the NFL get involved at some point? If there is an entity that stands to lose the most from a total shutdown, it’s them. Every other sport has a feeder system to the professional ranks but football. Even their so called minor league system has failed. They need college football to feed their product.

[Stonewall]

I , speaking only for myself, welcome the arrival of our subterranean, reptilian, overlords.

[AppStFan1]

It is a very interesting dilemma that is headed to an impasse. In the end, I believe that Title IX is going to win and here’s why. Both the Sherman Act and Title IX are federal law and they are tied to two completely different aspects of the law. The difference is that violating Title IX has a punitive cost that results in a loss of federal funding. If public universities start losing much needed funds because they are violating anti discriminatory laws because of athletes wanting more, then I can see them just gutting athletics as a whole and starting over which would not be a bad thing. No scholarships just the right to participate in a sport of choice on your dime.

I do not see a scenario where this wouldn’t be an all or nothing endeavor. Schools are already getting sued by female athletes because they are cutting sports. As I have stated before, the only winners here will be the lawyers.

I’m not a lawyer nor did I stay in a Holiday Inn last night; but in my opinion, the Sherman Act has been applied both incorrectly and inconsistently. My opinion is that the Sherman Act was a law passed to protect the welfare of consumers. So are the athletes consumers or commodities? Are they both? Does the NCAA act in a way that would be considered in violation of the Sherman Act’s intent to protect consumers by protecting them from unfair competition and higher prices? Are they restricting trade?It seems like these athletes are selling themselves as a product which does not allow them the protection as a consumer. I’m not saying that what they are doing is wrong but a creative lawyer could argue that they are the commodity and not the consumer therefore Sherman doesn’t apply.

A lot of us said at first that women's sports would be the first to go. You rarely see a school cut football or basketball but all other sports are on the table to cut and only a few schools in the last 40 years have dropped football. Total mess for sure.

Female athletes at SFA are suing the school for eliminating their sports. Hate to say this but for regional schools like App, you could definitely see football cut. It’s the biggest expense and cutting it keeps the federal funding flowing. Cutting sports and stying Division 1 would require a repeal of the NCAA rule to maintain 14 sports.

I would think schools could force the NCAA to lower the required sports with the threat of just leaving the NCAA. The NCAA is not on a winning streak so I would not expect them to push back if schools by and large are pushing for it to be lowered.

Usually it is schools below FBS that have cut football but it would not shock me if some regional schools do. I think App will fight hard to keep it and do anything, even if lowering expenses for non-revenue sports, but I won't be shocked if it all happens. I wonder if in 20-25 years from now there will be a lot of athletes, coaches, fans, etc who will wish we went back to what we had prior to 2020? I would not be shocked.

Honestly, I would be completely fine with schools just shutting down all athletics and telling the athletes, lawyers, NCAA, etc getting their acts together and just completely starting over without scholarships like you said. I think most of us find ourselves not caring as much and perhaps people would appreciate what they had a lot more if the whole thing was taken away for a while.

Here is something to ponder. Does the NFL get involved at some point? If there is an entity that stands to lose the most from a total shutdown, it’s them. Every other sport has a feeder system to the professional ranks but football. Even their so called minor league system has failed. They need college football to feed their product.

That is exactly what I think would be good to happen. I had told a couple people in DM recently that my idea, assuming it is all legal, would be for the colleges and NFL to have an agreement because the NFL needs college football and players need a steady place to go before the NFL. 18-20 year olds on average are just not physically ready for the NFL.