In Reply to: At the school their team is branded with? posted by TheHappyBurgermeister on February 05, 2024 at 18:35:39
Yes, they would attend college at the U they play for. As I mentioned above, this is all about getting out of title IX. The rationale is why should football pay for everything else without being paid handsomely. Moreover, if you begin paying footballers 100k/ then all the ladies scholarship sports would also be due that (or a substantially similar) sum. Consequently, you’re paying people a ton of $$ for an endeavor that is already deep in the red. That’s bad policy and economics. The counter, is a blunt response: it’s the law.
The current system for football and to a lesser degree hoop, including nil and the transfer portal is just too disjointed in its current state. It’s almost impossible to resolve except by a CBA. Just imagine if the CA legislature gets its way and SUC and Stanford are mandated to unionize and ucla and kal dont. Now Stanford is likely to just wash its hands of football, but most won’t. You’d have such a massive advantage for SC and all unionized schools. Based on the Dartmouth decision, which isn’t controlling, it wasn’t issued by the National branch, but just a Regional branch the definition of an employee is very, very broad in the athletic realm, a unionized AD is in the near future.
I’m not a big fan of the federal government mandating policy on issues as irrelevant as college athletics, especially since so few have sufficient institutional knowledge of the issues. If you’ve read the SCOTUS ruling, the only opinion that really makes sense is Kavanaughs concurrence, because he’s a “sports guy”. Therefore, IMO, the SEC and 10 need to get ahead of the other schools (and the NCAA) begging for Congressional legislation and do something. They really control the entire college sports world.