Thanks for posting, good read. I found this very telling for where we are heading. And for the future, because if these guys are eventually considered employees, then the University is going to pay them, watch out of the fall of college athletics at many places.

"Lest anyone think NIL wasn’t a factor in picking the Jayhawks, Dickinson acknowledged as much when he addressed angry Michigan fans on his “Roundball” podcast in May: “The people hating on me would leave their job right now for a $10,000 (pay) increase,“ he said. ”I got, at Michigan, less than six figures. I got less than six figures at Michigan for the year.”"

I understand this is a common sentiment, but I'm not sure I understand why. There's no guarantee that employment extends to all athletes and isn't just confined to "revenue sports", or that there's a distinction between paid athletics and amateur that's driven by factors like time commitment, revenue, etc. and schools can choose which levels they want to compete at.

It just feels like there are far too many unknowns here to conclude that this is going to result in many schools no longer participating in sports. We don't even know what type of employee they'd be, how their scholarship would be factored into prevailing wage, etc.

Why does it necessarily apply to all sports? I'm not sure I understand why that's a given. It's not as though this legislation would eliminate the ability for people to play sports and not get paid for it. The option for amateur athletics will still be there.

The legislation isn't written, and the policies haven't been created, and we have no idea what the NCAA will be in a decade. And we have no idea if the P5 will be part of it in football and basketball.

Anybody who pretends they know doesn't.

Kavanaugh didn't seem particularly concerned about Title IX, and for good reason.

You're so hung up on how things are now, that you're assuming that the future state looks like the current state, and that the same schools and governing bodies are involved. I think that's far from a given


For instance, it wouldn't surprise me to see the top 30 football programs break off to form a "Premier League" and make players employees. How is Title IX relevant to them in that case.

Title XI treats athletics as educational programs. If the players are employees, not "student-athletes" there's no guarantee Title IX applies as those athletic programs are far less likely to be considered educational programs.

As I said, nobody knows what this is going to look like, which schools will be involved, which won't, how things will be structured, and if the top programs will even be considered intercollegiate athletics anymore. All we know is that we don't know anything.

Edit: It also seems like the case law dealing with Title IX and pay has generally determined that Title IX doesn't require equal pay. That's why Jeff Boals can make more than our women's coach. There's specific case law about that (involving USC), and the determining factor was that one program created more revenue than the other, and therefore it was not a Title IX violation for a men's coach to be paid more than a women's coach.

The legal side of all of this is very plain and obvious. The NCAA knows it and so does everybody else. It doesn't take a towering intellect to see what Kavanaugh saw.

It depends what money you're talking about. I'm no accountant, but it doesn't seem to be hard to find ~30k/year for every member of the basketball team.

But the broader point, is that Ohio isn't going to find this money. Instead, this is going to force OU to be honest about what our athletic department is and the level we can compete at.