Except they can't. Fournette, Cook, etal can't go the free agent route if they wanted to. Nor could any high school stud. So would you be in support of removing that restriction? I would.
Yes, SOS supports the concept of paying players, albeit a small amount, but nonetheless the willingness to support that idea makes the point valid or at least gives that opinion credibility (the opinion that there is a problem).
I understand the "other sports" argument and I agree that it is a huge challenge, but that doesnt mean we just ignore the problem and say "oh well". My thought, is that the major programs will eventually break away from the NCAA, form their own league/entity/whatever that will shield them from Title IX limitations.
Except they can't. Fournette, Cook, etal can't go the free agent route if they wanted to. Nor could any high school stud. So would you be in support of removing that restriction? I would.
Yes, SOS supports the concept of paying players, albeit a small amount, but nonetheless the willingness to support that idea makes the point valid or at least gives that opinion credibility (the opinion that there is a problem).
I understand the "other sports" argument and I agree that it is a huge challenge, but that doesnt mean we just ignore the problem and say "oh well". My thought, is that the major programs will eventually break away from the NCAA, form their own league/entity/whatever that will shield them from Title IX limitations.
I'm quite familiar with Title IX.
Never seen Steve desperate.Further clarity on the SOS comment.
Yes, he was talking about a stipend versus a salary but also, I don't believe he even meant what he said.
Steve said this when he was getting his a## kicked by doofus at Clemson and was simply sucking up to recruits.
People do stupid things when they are desperate.
Nope, I really don't think ya' are.
Your Shands example has absolutely nothing to do with how universities can or can't get around Title IX. I don't care what kind of legal entity they want to call themselves, if any school in this new entity that you propose in any way shape or form takes one dollar of federal money they fall under Title IX.
Here's a little case law to illustrate my point.
https://www.aauw.org/2010/10/12/private-schools/
I don't see the linkage of your case law example to my proposition. The citation refers to private schools still being held responsible for Title IX compliance. I have sat in many of a Title IX seminar, its about allowing equal access to education if the educational institution accepts federal funds. That's why there is increasing effort/education/policing about student rapes and their allegations because of the failure to create a safe educational environment.
If the athletic associations divest direct linkage to Universities ala UF Health (btw, its no longer called Shands) then Title IX does not apply.
Except they can't. Fournette, Cook, etal can't go the free agent route if they wanted to. Nor could any high school stud. So would you be in support of removing that restriction? I would.
Yes, SOS supports the concept of paying players, albeit a small amount, but nonetheless the willingness to support that idea makes the point valid or at least gives that opinion credibility (the opinion that there is a problem).
I understand the "other sports" argument and I agree that it is a huge challenge, but that doesnt mean we just ignore the problem and say "oh well". My thought, is that the major programs will eventually break away from the NCAA, form their own league/entity/whatever that will shield them from Title IX limitations.
I agree for the most part...especially the ones that are simply using college as a showcase/audition for the NFL. They are far from victims.Except they can. They just have to wait until they are 3 years removed from HS. They can go home and party for a year. Or get really heavy into cross fit. Whatever turns them on. Nothing says they have to stay in school and get free room and board from the "slave owners".
No argument. It is just that I saw Steve play, and I saw him poised in desperate situations.Ancient,
Calling SOS desperate was probably a reach on my part but Steve was losing support in Columbia due to recruiting and he did hold that news conference about negative recruiting about his age that didn't come off well.
My point being that he knew he was losing the players and I think he made the comments with recruiting in mind
You are confusing revenue with profit.I agree for the most part...especially the ones that are simply using college as a showcase/audition for the NFL. They are far from victims.
That said, the $500+ million take by the SEC is still an obscene amount of money.