We could be shifting the footballl operating budget to revenue sharing for players...
Or to increasing the number of scholarships offered. Money has to come from somewhere.
They aren't going to increase football scholarships. That would require an increase in kind of women's scholarships to stay Title IX compliant. The name of the game is revenue sharing up to the settlement limit of 20.5 million. This way it acts as loophole to get around Title IX. Scholarships also have problems such as eligibility, cost of attendance etc.
Direct pay of revenue sharing would also fall under Title IX, and now that NIL can be paid by Universities directly, that will be a Title IX issue. Each University can decide what they want to do, but fact is, they can give up to 105 scholarships, either whole or partial now.
How much of that $20.5 Million do you think OHIO will give out? Where do you think this money comes from? $140k per football (max) is a big chunk of change.
Title IX covers equal athletic opportunity, not equal athletic compensation.
Examples of the types of discrimination that are covered under Title IX include but are not limited to: sex-based harassment; sexual violence; pregnancy discrimination; the failure to provide equal athletic opportunity; sex-based discrimination in a school's science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) courses and programs; discriminatory application of dress code policies and/or enforcement; and retaliation.
https://www.ed.gov/laws-and-policy/civil-rights-laws/titl...This is why P4 programs have come out in support of spending 90% of revenue on men's basketball and football (because they can). This is why they want to cap roster sizes at 105 from the 130+ some of them were at previously to maximize the amount they can give per roster player. Walk-ons up to the 105 roster cap can receive revenue sharing. They want to continue to have a walk-on program where players earn a scholarship as a gray zone but with the possibility of some payment.
BYU is an example of a push to pay the whole roster. 123 in 2023 but that will have to be trimmed down to 105 next year. It can be in the form of paying tuition but it won't be in the form of a structured university scholarship.
https://kslsports.com/504185/byu-nil-collective-the-royal... /
A university athletic scholarship equals an opportunity whereas NIL to a student athlete is a payment.
As far as what OHIO will give out on revenue share my guess (this is just my guess) is whatever it is across all sports will be less than 5 million as the only MAC school I know of doing anywhere close to that is UMass (3 million in football alone). I wouldn't be surprised to see that amount as low as 500k to start as each sport feels out what they'll need to be competitive at the mid-major level before they go down the path of upping the ante.
For instance is that much in NIL/revenue sharing required to land a quality player in 2025 with the P4 having to cut their rosters back to 105? What revenue sharing will a conference like the MAC settle in at? I'd say take small steps first until the market sets in. It may not be possilbe to take small steps in basketball if the entire D1 is ploughing money into the players. Football due to the number of players and multiple competitive levels should take more time to figure out.
Not sure where you get your train of thought that Title IX will not apply to revenue sharing but……
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/40567726/t... https://trahan.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?Documen... https://www.insightintodiversity.com/ocr-title-ix-applies... /
https://www.athleticbusiness.com/operations/governing-bod... Literally everyone says you are wrong, but o.k.
Are you even reading the articles that you are sending over? Everyone supports what I've been saying.
When it comes to revenue share dollars provided directly by the schools, athletic department officials have told ESPN they don't know whether they must give a proportionally equal amount of money to men and women or if equitable treatment means that they can allocate the roughly $20 million based on each athlete's value in the NIL market.
If schools decide to view the new revenue sharing money as financial aid akin to the scholarships or cost-of-living stipends they already provide to athletes, roughly half of that money will need to go to women athletes on most campuses. In that case, a football team would collectively receive, at most, $10 million in revenue share — or even less at schools that want to be competitive in basketball or other men's sports.
Some schools are exploring potential plans to spend 75% or more of the new $20 million revenue-sharing fund on football players, according to multiple athletic department officials. Those schools are using the last three years of NIL deals to show that football players receive 75% of the money in the current market for athletes, according to data collected by companies such as Opendorse and Basepath. This formula would lead to roughly $15 million flowing to a school's football team, which would likely lead to an increased income for some players.
https://www.athleticbusiness.com/operations/governing-bod...1. We agree (at least in this thread, elswhere you said the courts will strike down) that Title IX is a relavent factor.
2. Revenue sharing distribution poportionality for men/women is NOT part of the house settlement.
3. Any compensation financial aid related is subject to Title IX.
The conclusion I draw is then different than yours based on these facts.
My conclusion is that because increased financial aid will have to be Title IX balanced that universities will elect to keep scholarship numbers stable while distributing the revenue sharing money electively toward the money sports. This is the plan P4's are leading with.
Texas Tech (article dated 12/16/24)
74% to football players.
17%-18% to mens basketball.
2% to women's basketball.
1.9% to Olympic sports.
https://www.lubbockonline.com/story/sports/college/red-ra... /
You OTOH think a school like Ohio which is already struggling with the terms of the settlement is going to start by....increasing football scholarships to 105 which then has to be matched by adding 20 women's scholarships. This is where I completely disagree.
1. Increasing scholarships would be a cost on top of a) OU's required settlement and b) on top of its revenue sharing expense.
2. Staying at 85 scholarships but 105 roster allows the continuance of a decent walk-on program. If the university moves to 105 football scholarships where does that walk-on program go?
3. Not even the richest conference in the country the SEC is trying to move beyond 85 scholarships for a variety of reasons. They were influential in passing the roster limit rule to 105. Smaller roster to better concentrate NIL and revenue sharing.