rico Posted May 21, 2019 Report Share Posted May 21, 2019 4 minutes ago, IU Scott said: It is not that I don't want change it is I don't think there needs to be a change That is fine. And there are many out there that feel the same way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotIThatLives Posted May 21, 2019 Report Share Posted May 21, 2019 51 minutes ago, rico said: Can I ask you how would you distribute the money? I don't know. I'm definitely not smart enough. Like you said above, it's very complex. Not sure it's even possible. I just think the right lawyers, eventually the way it is will fail in court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IUFLA Posted May 21, 2019 Report Share Posted May 21, 2019 I'm with IU Scott on this one. If an education worth over $100K, training and medical facilities second to none, and providing a great stage to showcase your talent isn't enough, then I don't know what to say... And as far as major sports paying the way for other non-revenue producers, the way young adults are embracing wealth redistribution (and that is NOT a political statement, rather a statement of statistical fact) you'd think they'd be happy to give their fellow students a hand... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobSaccamanno Posted May 21, 2019 Report Share Posted May 21, 2019 I am not a Title IX expert, but it may need to be navigated. It's pushing 50 years old and does not allow for discrimination against women in the realm of college athletics. So, if you're handing out some 80 schollies for football, you have to find some women schollies too. This is obviously completely divorced from market value. Now, if you try to bring in a market value aspect, the question is are you within Title IX or not. If Title IX is not based on market value, and you gave a stipend to football players in a high revenue sport, then do you have to give the stipend to the women's lacrosse team that is running a deficit? Perhaps, if that is how you structure it. Even within basketball and football, it is laughable to say that all players are worth the same. Not picking on anyone, but to make the point, Clifton Moore, Tim Priller, and Jake Forrester did not bring in a single fan or get a jersey sold, etc. Any human handed that jersey would attach to that same revenue. If anything, like the women's lacrosse player, Moore and Foorester are not worth the dollar value of their scholly which is what, $50k plus? They are freeloading a windfall out of it. If the players want to argue market value, these types of facts would be a cold splash of water to the vast majority of players. The same is not true for Romeo Langford or Zion Williamson, who do directly impact revenue. They would have excess value relative to their scholly. So, how do you apply the money fairly? It's complicated, obviously. Perhaps one way to get Title IX out of there is to allow market forces to take hold. Perhaps you allow players to reap money from particularly sanctioned sponsorship deals, and let the market decide. This way, Zion gets paid but Forrester doesn't. Neither does the women's lacrosse player who has negative market value relative to the economic value of her scholly. Before everyone gets frustrated, I am not sure there is a program that would benefit more than IU. With rare exceptions, IU is not landing the bonus baby players, who get their dough from the Kansas/Kentucky/UNC/Duke/Arizona/Louisville type of schools. IU would then be allowed in on such players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IU Scott Posted May 21, 2019 Report Share Posted May 21, 2019 38 minutes ago, IUFLA said: I'm with IU Scott on this one. If an education worth over $100K, training and medical facilities second to none, and providing a great stage to showcase your talent isn't enough, then I don't know what to say... And as far as major sports paying the way for other non-revenue producers, the way young adults are embracing wealth redistribution (and that is NOT a political statement, rather a statement of statistical fact) you'd think they'd be happy to give their fellow students a hand... I am pretty sure all of those graduates from Moorhouse that had their college debt paid for is grateful for not having debt after graduating college. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milehiiu Posted May 22, 2019 Report Share Posted May 22, 2019 2 hours ago, IU Scott said: I am pretty sure all of those graduates from Moorhouse that had their college debt paid for is grateful for not having debt after graduating college. And the man who paid off their college debt grew up in Denver, Colorado. At the time when Denver , and the state of Colorado gave students a choice as to what school they could attend. Much like De'Ron Davis, who lived in Denver , but chose to go to school in Aurora, Colorado, instead. To be coached by his AAU mentor. In the case of Moorhouse.... the man attributes his success... is to be able to chose a school of his choice in high school that led him to a path of success. He now is a billionaire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feathery Posted May 22, 2019 Report Share Posted May 22, 2019 4 hours ago, BobSaccamanno said: I am not a Title IX expert, but it may need to be navigated. It's pushing 50 years old and does not allow for discrimination against women in the realm of college athletics. So, if you're handing out some 80 schollies for football, you have to find some women schollies too. This is obviously completely divorced from market value. Now, if you try to bring in a market value aspect, the question is are you within Title IX or not. If Title IX is not based on market value, and you gave a stipend to football players in a high revenue sport, then do you have to give the stipend to the women's lacrosse team that is running a deficit? Perhaps, if that is how you structure it. Even within basketball and football, it is laughable to say that all players are worth the same. Not picking on anyone, but to make the point, Clifton Moore, Tim Priller, and Jake Forrester did not bring in a single fan or get a jersey sold, etc. Any human handed that jersey would attach to that same revenue. If anything, like the women's lacrosse player, Moore and Foorester are not worth the dollar value of their scholly which is what, $50k plus? They are freeloading a windfall out of it. If the players want to argue market value, these types of facts would be a cold splash of water to the vast majority of players. The same is not true for Romeo Langford or Zion Williamson, who do directly impact revenue. They would have excess value relative to their scholly. So, how do you apply the money fairly? It's complicated, obviously. Perhaps one way to get Title IX out of there is to allow market forces to take hold. Perhaps you allow players to reap money from particularly sanctioned sponsorship deals, and let the market decide. This way, Zion gets paid but Forrester doesn't. Neither does the women's lacrosse player who has negative market value relative to the economic value of her scholly. Before everyone gets frustrated, I am not sure there is a program that would benefit more than IU. With rare exceptions, IU is not landing the bonus baby players, who get their dough from the Kansas/Kentucky/UNC/Duke/Arizona/Louisville type of schools. IU would then be allowed in on such players. Make the basketball and football players university employees. This bypasses title IX. Might end some non profit sports, but honestly I don’t care about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milehiiu Posted May 26, 2019 Report Share Posted May 26, 2019 Torch not passed directly from Knight to Miller, but maybe Miller is finally the right coach Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.