NCAA To Stop Selling Jerseys Effective Immediately

[Taadow]

They don't

oh but title ix says they do

Yep!

At some institutions, the women's sports bring in more money because they win.

Tennessee, Rutgers, UConn women's basketball > those schools' mens' programs.

And some schools check bread off softball and volleyball powerhouses.

 

[mozichrome]

Same place they always fell. Nowhere

"Title IX guarantees gender equality in athletic opportunities. The courts have now developed, through years of case law, what that entails. It is very well established case law where the courts have said the opportunities have to be equal in all respects. It includes the accommodations and conditions around those opportunities."

 

[aceboon]

smh, all this means is that the NCAA is going to stop sellin them, in this case their website. you can still get jerseys everywhere else.

 

[CrimsonTider]

Yep!

At some institutions, the women's sports bring in more money because they win.

Tennessee, Rutgers, UConn women's basketball > those schools' mens' programs.

And some schools check bread off softball and volleyball powerhouses.

UK football brings in more money than UK basketball

What the hell are you talking about?

None of those programs make the money of men Sports at that school

 

[Hammer]

Pressure busts pipes

Players should get paid and those motherfukkers know it.

yea, college athletes should get paid for playing a sport on a free ride paying zero tuition

 

[AVXL]

Lost in all this is the fact that paying the players won't solve this issue. Players deserve royalties for anything sold that bears their likeness, but paying players is going to create more issues than it would solve.

Keep in mind you gotta pay female athletes too b/c of Title IX. And really the perks of being a college athlete: free tuition, free medical, free travel, free training, free coaching is all subsidized from the school. Paying players & then having boosters involved, who will STILL circumvent the rules to pay these players, is going to be disastrous for college sports

 

[Taadow]

UK football brings in more money than UK basketball

What the hell are you talking about?

None of those programs make the money of men Sports at that school

Even if this is true:

1) UK is an SEC School, doe. They benefit from being a part of a Power football conference.
2) That doesn't change what Title 9 does. It isn't "men's sports vs. women's sports", it's "which sports bring in the most money here"
- and in some places the women's sports are bigger pieces. That would be considered if they started splitting up money for athletes.

 

[mozichrome]

Lost in all this is the fact that paying the players won't solve this issue. Players deserve royalties for anything sold that bears their likeness, but solving players is going to create more issues than it would solve.

Keep in mind you gotta pay female athletes too b/c of Title IX. And really the perks of being a college athlete: free tuition, free medical, free travel, free training, free coaching is all subsidized from the school. Paying players & then having boosters involved, who will STILL circumvent the rules to pay these players, is going to be disastrous for college sports

i think if they can market themselves and get money off that cool. thats fine
but schools are not gonna start paying them outright because most dont have the money to pay every athlete

but the whole market themselves thing open up a can of worms when u got boosters out here that love to add another 0 to a check to make sure a player goes to their alma mater

 

[aceboon]

Yep!

At some institutions, the women's sports bring in more money because they win.

Tennessee, Rutgers, UConn women's basketball > those schools' mens' programs.

And some schools check bread off softball and volleyball powerhouses.

The UConn men have won 3 titles in the past 15 years in a far more competitive sport, the fukk outta here. The women aren't more popular or profitable than the men.

 

[FreshFromATL]

Yep!

At some institutions, the women's sports bring in more money because they win.

Tennessee, Rutgers, UConn women's basketball > those schools' mens' programs.

And some schools check bread off softball and volleyball powerhouses.

are you stupid? SMH, I can't believe these are the type of people posting on the coli

 

[jadillac]

wow....

as I've said, the NCAA model was fair in it's makeup....it's just extremely outdated now and has been for the past few decades.

There used to be a time when a scholly was beneficial to both the school and the player somewhat equally. Now it's completely lopsided because the schools make so much money off sports.

The question is, can the schools still sell jerseys individually w/o the NCAA logo?


While I'm on the subject, let me take this chance to say @ EA Sports. This is what y'all get for making crappy college football games the past 7-8 years.

 

[Huellz Santana]

And I don't know if anybody wants either of those, really.

Say the SEC, Big Ten, and Pac 12 bounced and started paying players - NO big recruits in
Miami would go to Miami or Florida State over Florida, would they? How good would those
rivalry games be?

And in either situation, you would have the conversations:

- "are they paying ______ to much, because he's wack now"
- recruits saying "you paid (star who's leaving school playing same position) this much. I'm better than him,
so I want more money..."
- I mean look at what's going on with Johnny Manziel. How much extra funk would be on it if he was
supposed to re-up and get Heisman Winner bread this offseason?

meh... there's always a way to make it work.

people are too scared to try something new. why? you mean to tell me that if someone broke down to you the current structure in an effort to lobby your support for it's implementation you wouldn't be like "fukk outta here! that's a terrible system!" but since its all we know people just accept it. smh​

 

[Taadow]

The UConn men have won 3 titles in the past 15 years in a far more competitive sport, the fukk outta here. The women aren't more popular or profitable than the men.

The UConn men also have their issues with the NCAA police as of late. That plus no Calhoun hasn't made it easier for them to keep their status.
Meanwhile, UConn ladies get penciled to win the title every year.

My ">" in the post you quoted meant "better".

(And I noticed you didn't take issue with the other two schools.)

So if they decide to start paying athletes tomorrow, is it a stretch to think UConn womens' ball would get a bigger piece of the pie than UConn football? I think not. That's what i'm saying.

Couple people in here said women's sports don't fall anywhere into this payment issue, and that's not true.

 

[CrimsonTider]

yea, college athletes should get paid for playing a sport on a free ride paying zero tuition

You pay people with Money

Lost in all this is the fact that paying the players won't solve this issue. Players deserve royalties for anything sold that bears their likeness, but solving players is going to create more issues than it would solve.

Keep in mind you gotta pay female athletes too b/c of Title IX. And really the perks of being a college athlete: free tuition, free medical, free travel, free training, free coaching is all subsidized from the school. Paying players & then having boosters involved, who will STILL circumvent the rules to pay these players, is going to be disastrous for college sports

These are not real issues that would arise from paying players

You have those issues currently and some of that is nonsense

Schools are not subsidizing shyt

These players earn that scholarship and much more

 

[Icantspell]

pay em minimun wage :