Let's draft a suitable compensation plan

[kb22stang]

Because they are funded through the general fund if the University. I just cannot see a University President approving a tuition increase for the general student body to fund the pay of athletes in this scenario.

Well, some how every other business finds way to compensate their employees reasonably fairly, no reason why big time college sports can't do the same.

But the easy solution is let players market themselves and they stay amateur as long as they don't get paid to play their sport.

 

[Chico&TheMan]

Personally, let's let high schools worry about "amateurism" and Title IX. College athletic organizations should be independent investments made by colleges. Let them determine if the return on investment is worth it.

Stop giving "scholarships" and other educational benefits like room and board to escape from the Title IX restrictions. Provide players with an offer that you are willing to give (enough that would actually cover the cost of going to school), and what you believe they are willing to accept. If they come back with a counter, then YOU as an athletic department have to decide if that is worth it to you. You can even make it contingent on a per game basis. If a player chooses to sit out, then you don't have to pay them for that game. Cap rosters and don't allow unlimited "walk-ons". Find a way to restrict poaching if a player wants to transfer, such as a transfer fee. Schools can give counter offers if they want to keep the particular athlete, but schools are not allow to cut players for lack of talent if they commit to that player.

If non-revenue sports decline because of that, then it was a (obviously) flawed economic model that was supported only by government intervention. If schools or benefactors choose that they want to keep softball or gymnastics just for the sake of putting athletes in the Olympics and getting the university's name out there, then that is also a decision that they will have to decide is "worth it".

An Ivy League university can choose to offer admission to anybody that they feel can yield influence in the world. This is why so many celebrities have degrees from Harvard like Ashley Judd. Yes, she is eloquent, but did she score in the Top 1% of admissions tests, or did she get in because she is an actress? It is up to the schools to determine if their reputation is worth admitting that person.

You could argue that the schools with the most money and resources could just buy the best teams because they have the most money to throw around. This is how it works anyway. My only concern is that the Ivy League, with their huge endowment funds and powerful benefactors, might actually be great in athletics if they choose that it is worth the ROI.

 

[bthaunert]

Personally, let's let high schools worry about "amateurism" and Title IX. College athletic organizations should be independent investments made by colleges. Let them determine if the return on investment is worth it.

Stop giving "scholarships" and other educational benefits like room and board to escape from the Title IX restrictions. Provide players with an offer that you are willing to give (enough that would actually cover the cost of going to school), and what you believe they are willing to accept. If they come back with a counter, then YOU as an athletic department have to decide if that is worth it to you. You can even make it contingent on a per game basis. If a player chooses to sit out, then you don't have to pay them for that game. Cap rosters and don't allow unlimited "walk-ons". Find a way to restrict poaching if a player wants to transfer, such as a transfer fee. Schools can give counter offers if they want to keep the particular athlete, but schools are not allow to cut players for lack of talent if they commit to that player.

If non-revenue sports decline because of that, then it was a (obviously) flawed economic model that was supported only by government intervention. If schools or benefactors choose that they want to keep softball or gymnastics just for the sake of putting athletes in the Olympics and getting the university's name out there, then that is also a decision that they will have to decide is "worth it".

An Ivy League university can choose to offer admission to anybody that they feel can yield influence in the world. This is why so many celebrities have degrees from Harvard like Ashley Judd. Yes, she is eloquent, but did she score in the Top 1% of admissions tests, or did she get in because she is an actress? It is up to the schools to determine if their reputation is worth admitting that person.

You could argue that the schools with the most money and resources could just buy the best teams because they have the most money to throw around. This is how it works anyway. My only concern is that the Ivy League, with their huge endowment funds and powerful benefactors, might actually be great in athletics if they choose that it is worth the ROI.

You would never get around Title IX with this. It just wouldn't happen. Title IX is a Federal Law that applies to many aspects of a University...not just athletics. If you offer financial opportunities for males for athletics as you are talking about, you would need to do the same for females.

 

[yoshukai]

You're over thinking it. All it needs to be is a kid can make money with his own name, image, and autograph. Vanderbilt can do a Cane's commercial and Knox a radio add for Malones steaks. Easy.

I'm not saying I disagree but ....... there would be a Duke player on every ESPN network commercial. lol . Can you imagine their love fest, lol .

 

[yoshukai]

JMO .........paying the players would create a different set of problems and a lot of chaos.

Every action has a reaction.

 

[Chico&TheMan]

You would never get around Title IX with this. It just wouldn't happen. Title IX is a Federal Law that applies to many aspects of a University...not just athletics. If you offer financial opportunities for males for athletics as you are talking about, you would need to do the same for females.

Title IX is specific to educational participation and receiving federal money. If you remove the educational aspect of receiving scholarships and room/board, and then turn it into an employment opportunity through an independently-operated athletic association, then you have effectively removed yourself from the Title IX cloud.

UK has a men's hockey team that does not fall under Title IX restrictions for the university because of their club status. Make all sports like that, and then see where the chips fall.

 

[bthaunert]

Title IX is specific to educational participation and receiving federal money. If you remove the educational aspect of receiving scholarships and room/board, and then turn it into an employment opportunity through an independently-operated athletic association, then you have effectively removed yourself from the Title IX cloud.

UK has a men's hockey team that does not fall under Title IX restrictions for the university because of their club status. Make all sports like that, and then see where the chips fall.

I oversee the department where Club Sports reports at a University. When a group of students wants to start a new club sport (we had a boxing club start this year), I have to speak with our Title IX director on campus.

So, your proposal is for the athletic department to be completely independent of the University and hire students from the University to play on their sports teams? Very similar to how club teams are set up in Europe it appears.

 

[UK_ENGR1]

Book publishing that way >>>