- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 1/17/25 at 5:08 am to GumboPot
Does each sport get an allotment too? Where does this slush fund come from, graduate fees paid by students?
Posted on 1/17/25 at 5:31 am to SOSFAN
quote:
It should be any sport, male or female, that brings in positive revenue gets to share.
It should be based on what it is: money generated on a player's name, image or likeness. Your jersey isn't selling?
Posted on 1/17/25 at 5:40 am to GumboPot
quote:I don't see that passing legal muster.
Joe Biden’s administration says NIL payments from schools to athletes must be given evenly to men and women’s athletes to comply with Title IX
Posted on 1/17/25 at 6:10 am to GumboPot
That’s fricking garbage - people’s name, image and likeness are inherently worth different amounts of money.
Posted on 1/17/25 at 6:12 am to GumboPot
What a shite show.
Might adopt me an FCS or DIV II team to follow...
Might adopt me an FCS or DIV II team to follow...
Posted on 1/17/25 at 6:18 am to Havoc
This isn't nil and Travis shouldn’t have said nil. This is about the revenue sharing that is to start in July. Schools were to share about 20% of budget or up to something like 22 million(exact number not right in front of me). Schools had plans and deals already made. Typically football was earmarked about 75% men’s basketball 10%, women’s basketball 5% and the rest for all other sports. Percentages could vary at schools, but this was a general average given on the radio as I was listening to a discussion on this.
This breakdown would give schools about 17 million to go to football players. If new rule is to be followed. It would drop football down to 11 million or less. Note many deals are already done, or at least talked about. A 6 million reduction or more in what you can pay will impact some agreements teams have in place already.
To be honest, I thought at some point we would have a title Ix lawsuit by someone to make this a deal like they did with the scholarships. Equal per gender. I don’t think anyone expected this beforehand
This breakdown would give schools about 17 million to go to football players. If new rule is to be followed. It would drop football down to 11 million or less. Note many deals are already done, or at least talked about. A 6 million reduction or more in what you can pay will impact some agreements teams have in place already.
To be honest, I thought at some point we would have a title Ix lawsuit by someone to make this a deal like they did with the scholarships. Equal per gender. I don’t think anyone expected this beforehand
This post was edited on 1/17/25 at 8:59 am
Posted on 1/17/25 at 6:24 am to GumboPot
I personally think NIL is bad for the game but that said if it’s going to happen why should people that aren’t playing elite to a fan base other than a gym size be able to get equal amounts of a superstar of a game?
Posted on 1/17/25 at 6:41 am to GumboPot
Instead of tv revenue being sent to the conference and then schools, have it paid into the collectives or some other private entity and then doled out as deemed appropriate. Just cut the schools and “education” aspect of it out completely.
Or, spin off men’s football and basketball away from the schools completely with separate television contracts. Then the teams lease the venue and mascot from the schools. I like this one because then without the men’s scholarships, title 9 will then allow the schools to drop 100 or so women’s scholarships and some women’s sports entirely. That way women get the equity they deserve.
Or, spin off men’s football and basketball away from the schools completely with separate television contracts. Then the teams lease the venue and mascot from the schools. I like this one because then without the men’s scholarships, title 9 will then allow the schools to drop 100 or so women’s scholarships and some women’s sports entirely. That way women get the equity they deserve.
This post was edited on 1/17/25 at 7:20 am
Posted on 1/17/25 at 6:43 am to GumboPot
This was 100% expected and something I've posted about for years on here (when I proposed something along the lines of NIL long before the court case).
This is going to kill direct payments and has always been the fly in the ointment to that model. Why third party pay (like NIL) works.
This is going to kill direct payments and has always been the fly in the ointment to that model. Why third party pay (like NIL) works.
Posted on 1/17/25 at 6:45 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
I don't see that passing legal muster.
This is how Title 9 has been used for 40-50 years. I don't see why these direct payments would be any different.
The problem with how Title 9 has been used in college sports is football. It costs the most, gets the most, and has a huge number of scholarships that skews the male side of the equation. If we did Title 9 without football, it would be much more equitable overall and more in line with what Title 9 was supposed to be.
Posted on 1/17/25 at 6:56 am to SlowFlowPro
It's wild how awful Title 9 has been to men's sports. The demand for more scholarships is there but this stupid fricking sexist rule impedes growth across men's sports.
Posted on 1/17/25 at 6:57 am to anc
quote:
It’s a trap. If Trump rescinds he is anti women.
Dumbest trap of all time as this mostly would affect African American males.
Posted on 1/17/25 at 7:00 am to YumYum Sauce
quote:
It's wild how awful Title 9 has been to men's sports. The demand for more scholarships is there but this stupid fricking sexist rule impedes growth across men's sports.
If we just removed football from the calculation, nobody would notice these aspects of Title 9
Just think about the 85 scholarships. Nobody else is close to that number, men or women. This disproportionately skews the men's side of the equation and led to the destruction of many collegiate men's programs.
Posted on 1/17/25 at 7:12 am to GumboPot
Outside of the top ten dudes (Dude Perfect, DaColdest 
etc.), the top 5,000 women can easily make more in endorsement money than male athletes. Yes, you can pay the OL to endorse your BBQ restaurant, but that pales in comparison to Livvy's (or insert fit girl here) paycheck for any one of the checks for athleisure, supplements, hair products, etc.
etc.), the top 5,000 women can easily make more in endorsement money than male athletes. Yes, you can pay the OL to endorse your BBQ restaurant, but that pales in comparison to Livvy's (or insert fit girl here) paycheck for any one of the checks for athleisure, supplements, hair products, etc.Posted on 1/17/25 at 7:22 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Are they payments from the school akin to scholarships, or are they privately sourced compensation associated with rights to likeness use in exchange?
I don't see why these direct payments would be any different.
Posted on 1/17/25 at 7:30 am to LSUSkip
quote:
It should be proportionate to the amount of revenue brought it. That is how businesses run without government interference.
We are mostly talking about government entities, so that "interference" is a price of doing business.
Now private Uni's should be allowed to do what they want. Giving schools like ND an advantage.
For the record, I'm all in on whatever will reset us back to traditional college sports.
Posted on 1/17/25 at 7:32 am to GumboPot
quote:
This is revenue sharing not NIL.
I think Clay Travis is conflating NIL with Revenue sharing.
Not surprising. Travis is a dbag.
Posted on 1/17/25 at 7:38 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Are they payments from the school akin to scholarships
I'm quite positive this is what is being discussed. Direct payments from the school in a revenue sharing model.
People are conflating it with the NIL stuff which is different and not subject to title 9....yet (we'll see what happens one day with the interactions between the schools and collectives because I can totally see the federal government ruling that these are direct payments because of the contact and making title 9 apply)
Posted on 1/17/25 at 7:38 am to POTUS2024
quote:
We'll see what Trump does after the 20th. He can rescind this easily.
If he does, what's the best solution for him to get implemented?
I don't understand how colleges haven't been revenue sharing fairly equally with scholarships, free room/board, immense amounts of other perks, etc. Nothing else should be owed to athletes from the schools.
I don't like nil, and transfer portal rules but that should all be fixed/nixed separately.
Page 2 of 4
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News