Williams & Blum: The Florida State / Clemson conversation

[Cyclonsin]

"Athletics programs are considered educational programs and activities. There are three basic parts of Title IX as it applies to athletics:

1. Participation: Title IX requires that women and men be provided equitable opportunities to participate in sports. Title IX does not require institutions to offer identical sports but an equal opportunity to play;
2. Scholarships: Title IX requires that female and male student-athletes receive athletics scholarship dollars proportional to their participation; and
3. Other benefits: Title IX requires the equal treatment of female and male student-athletes in the provisions of: (a) equipment and supplies; (b) scheduling of games and practice times; (c) travel and daily allowance/per diem; (d) access to tutoring; (e) coaching, (f) locker rooms, practice and competitive facilities; (g) medical and training facilities and services; (h) housing and dining facilities and services; (i) publicity and promotions; (j) support services and (k) recruitment of student-athletes."

This interpretation would have to be totally turned on its head.

I don't think it does at all.

Part 1 only addresses the opportunity to play, which would remain equal.

Part 2 only addresses the literal scholarship dollars, which would remain equal.

Part 3 addresses benefits, which could *technically* remain equal (or as equal as they are now, which is already pretty debatable) but direct pay/financial compensation isn't directly addressed here. You can *technically* keep items a-k all equal while paying one group a **** ton and not paying the other group at all.

 

[VeloClone]

I don't think it does at all.

Part 1 only addresses the opportunity to play, which would remain equal.

Part 2 only addresses the literal scholarship dollars, which would remain equal.

Part 3 addresses benefits, which could *technically* remain equal (or as equal as they are now, which is already pretty debatable) but direct pay/financial compensation isn't directly addressed here. You can *technically* keep items a-k all equal while paying one group a **** ton and not paying the other group at all.

Protection of speech on the internet was not directly addressed in the Bill of Rights either but that doesn't mean it isn't protected.

Direct pay is not addressed because it was illegal under the rules when this interpretation summary was written. Direct pay is definitely a benefit and benefits are considered to be covered under Title IX.

 

[GoHawks]

Every one of those schools think they belong in that superleague. Theyre not gonna decline big money and accept being 2nd tier because theyre afraid of losing. They all think they will win and be competitive.

Theres reasons a superleague might not happen but this is not one of them.

They're already in the first tier though. They'd only do it if it meant more profit. I don't see a league of its own in 24 teams being more profitable. They want to be in the premier league for money and competitive reasons but I still think they're afraid of losing to a degree. There's a reason most of these teams mentioned non-conference schedule reads like Arkansas State, North Texas, Ball State etc... They want to pound 9 of their opponents, play 2-3 premier games and make the playoffs. In a perfect world I think they'd keep conferences as is and elite teams would get more of the revenue.

 

[Cyclonsin]

Protection of speech on the internet was not directly addressed in the Bill of Rights either but that doesn't mean it isn't protected.

Direct pay is not addressed because it was illegal under the rules when this interpretation summary was written. Direct pay is definitely a benefit and benefits are considered to be covered under Title IX.

For the record, I think it's blatantly obvious that unequal direct pay goes against the idea/purpose of Title IX. And I agree that paying players unequally should be considered illegal. But it's going to be tested in court and as someone with absolutely no experience practicing law, but with a wife who pokes holes in arguments using even the tiniest opening on an entirely too regular basis, I think there's a way to interpret it as written to allow for unequal pay.

Internet free speech falls under the very broad umbrella of free speech, and I don't think it's perfectly analogous here.

Benefits by itself is very broad, and I certainly think pay would fall into that bucket (even though benefits are always separate from compensation in contracts I've signed), but by listing the situations it covers and NOT including direct merit-based financial compensation (even though that wasn't close to being a thing at the time) certainly feels to me like an opportunity for side stepping Title IX.

I have no idea if that's a valid argument, but I 100% fully expect unequal pay to be a thing sooner rather than later, and little details like this will be tested.

 

[VeloClone]

For the record, I think it's blatantly obvious that unequal direct pay goes against the idea/purpose of Title IX. And I agree that paying players unequally should be considered illegal. But it's going to be tested in court and as someone with absolutely no experience practicing law, but with a wife who pokes holes in arguments using even the tiniest opening on an entirely too regular basis, I think there's a way to interpret it as written to allow for unequal pay.

Internet free speech falls under the very broad umbrella of free speech, and I don't think it's perfectly analogous here.

Benefits by itself is very broad, and I certainly think pay would fall into that bucket (even though benefits are always separate from compensation in contracts I've signed), but by listing the situations it covers and NOT including direct merit-based financial compensation (even though that wasn't close to being a thing at the time) certainly feels to me like an opportunity for side stepping Title IX.

I have no idea if that's a valid argument, but I 100% fully expect unequal pay to be a thing sooner rather than later, and little details like this will be tested.

This is language from an NCAA Title IX informational document, not the language of the actual Title IX law. The NCAA didn't include pay in its interpretation because pay was illegal by NCAA rules. So it isn't a situation where the law specifically calls out those other benefits and doesn't call out pay.

 

[Cyclonsin]

This is language from an NCAA Title IX informational document, not the language of the actual Title IX law. The NCAA didn't include pay in its interpretation because pay was illegal by NCAA rules. So it isn't a situation where the law specifically calls out those other benefits and doesn't call out pay.

Ah, that makes way more sense. I thought you quoted the actual law, which I haven't ever read verbatim. My bad!

 

[VeloClone]

Another more legal interpretation from the Justice Department:

3. Prohibited Employment Practices

As noted above, the Title IX common rule specifically incorporates the disparate impact standard as part of its prohibitions against sex-based employment discrimination.83 In addition, the Title IX common rule applies its prohibition against sex-based discrimination to the full range of activities related to the recruitment, evaluation, classification, payment, assignment, retention or treatment of employees.84 The Title IX common rule addresses various areas including the treatment of pregnancy as a temporary disability, pre-employment inquiries regarding marital or parental status, imposition of employment criteria or testing devices having a disproportionate impact, recruitment, and compensation and benefits (including equal pension contributions and benefits).

Source: https://www.justice.gov/crt/title-ix#B. Employment Discrimination

 

[Nolaeer]

AD’s like stability. Oregon and Washington took almost zero extra money to join the big ten. I could see a similar scenario for UNC and UVA. Although I just personally wished the ACC stayed the way it is.

UNC offers incredible value to both the SEC and BIG, who will fight over UNC. There is zero chance UNC leaves the ACC for a conference without getting full a full share in the distribution. The same cant be said for fsu, clemson, and uva.

 

[CascadeClone]

They're already in the first tier though. They'd only do it if it meant more profit. I don't see a league of its own in 24 teams being more profitable. They want to be in the premier league for money and competitive reasons but I still think they're afraid of losing to a degree. There's a reason most of these teams mentioned non-conference schedule reads like Arkansas State, North Texas, Ball State etc... They want to pound 9 of their opponents, play 2-3 premier games and make the playoffs. In a perfect world I think they'd keep conferences as is and elite teams would get more of the revenue.

Let me frame it this way:

If ISU got an invite to the SEC, suddenly making 2x the money and guaranteed future... would they decline for fear of losing too many games and struggling to compete?

 

[FriendlySpartan]

Let me frame it this way:

If ISU got an invite to the SEC, suddenly making 2x the money and guaranteed future... would they decline for fear of losing too many games and struggling to compete?

Comparing ISU leaving the big 12 and racking up loses to Bama or OSU joining a super league and racking up losses isn’t comparing apples to oranges, it’s comparing apples to automobiles.

 

[MeanDean]

Let me frame it this way:

If ISU got an invite to the SEC, suddenly making 2x the money and guaranteed future... would they decline for fear of losing too many games and struggling to compete?

If they just insert us to replace Texas after they've experienced Longhorn-ness for a couple years - and given them the heave-ho.

I could see it...

 

[WhoISthis]

They're already in the first tier though. They'd only do it if it meant more profit. I don't see a league of its own in 24 teams being more profitable. They want to be in the premier league for money and competitive reasons but I still think they're afraid of losing to a degree. There's a reason most of these teams mentioned non-conference schedule reads like Arkansas State, North Texas, Ball State etc... They want to pound 9 of their opponents, play 2-3 premier games and make the playoffs. In a perfect world I think they'd keep conferences as is and elite teams would get more of the revenue.

That’s not how the SuperLeague gets executed though.

PE or Tech will target top-25 brands that are having trouble keeping up in an arms race that now has more direct ROI (pay to play)

Instead of a USC fleeing the PAC for BIG, it’ll be them and disgruntled types like A&m, joining Clemson/FSU, lured by PE offering to pay them more than UT, Michigan and Bama’s.

There will be good brands looking to make more than others in the pay to play era- that can be exploited and leads to current top brands following, otherwise they risk falling in status

 

[Cy4All]

Let me frame it this way:

If ISU got an invite to the SEC, suddenly making 2x the money and guaranteed future... would they decline for fear of losing too many games and struggling to compete?

To me it's less of a question of would team X accept an invitation to the SEC and more would the league as a whole want to break off and be their own separate super league.

If they do this then all other conferences no longer play games against "super leaguers" and fans of the rest of CFB now no longer has reason to watch those top 24 teams.

Just because a fan likes to watch their team play football doesn't mean that fan wants to watch NFL, XFL, IFL or any other league their team doesn't compete in.

 

[cyfan92]

Is there a compelling reason why we can't drop all sports not named FB and MBB to a regional sports model right now? There are currently $0.0 dollars allocated in our current media rights partnerships to sports not named football and MBB.

Keep the Big 12 for profitable sports and lower our operating costs for the others... Then we can get WBB home and away games against Iowa, Drake, UNI, Nebraska, Minnesota, etc..

 

[FriendlySpartan]

If they just insert us to replace Texas after they've experienced Longhorn-ness for a couple years - and given them the heave-ho.

I could see it...

I love that the SEC is allowing horns down now though, that was such a weak move to ban it

 

[Nolaeer]

The more I think of it from a commonsense perspective, FSU and Clemson offer far more value to the Big 12 than they do the BIG and SEC. Yomark will find a way to monetize that.

The Big 12 is in very good shape. ESPN, Fox, etc, know they can't kill it. A big 12 with FSU and Clemson doesn't really threaten the p2, it just narrows the gap.

I'd say the chances are 50 percent or more that FSU and Clemson, if they succeed in getting out of the ACC in the next year, land in the Big 12.

 

[ForeverIowan]

That’s the thing though, college doesn’t have that many casual fans the way the NFL does. That’s just why a super league wouldn’t work.

Big ten supports the Rutgers teams because for the big dogs that’s an auto win and a chance to rest and relax. In any super league you are automatically diminishing value by having many of those blue bloods be perennial losers.

Then you end up with the exact same scenario as before.

A chance to "relax" is not good for tv though. Precisely why the NFL is king. A league built for parity. Every.single.game matters. Outside of Alabama fans, no one wants to watch Alabama beat Vanderbilt by 50. The game is over before it ever kicks off. You speak of diminishing value, in the past decade, playing in the Big Ten, how many Ohio State games were ever truly in doubt before the ball was ever kicked off? Maybe 10-15%? They freaking blow their opponents off the field in 90% of their games.

It is also all about the $. If offered the chance, would Rutgers go back to the Big East where they were filling their stadium and winning 9-10 games a year prior to joining the Big Ten? Or do they want tens of millions more a year and an opportunity to play in one of the premier conferences in the country?

Ask Cincy and Houston fans if they'd prefer to leave the Big 12. Their first year didn't go so well. Those schools are used to winning 10+ games a year.

If Amazon 10 years down the road puts an offer on the table to the 24 best programs in the country who is turning it down because they are scared of being a loser? An offer so good their universities will be printing money. Every single university is joining before the offer sheet is dry.

 

[alexssdean12]

Is there a compelling reason why we can't drop all sports not named FB and MBB to a regional sports model right now? There are currently $0.0 dollars allocated in our current media rights partnerships to sports not named football and MBB.

Keep the Big 12 for profitable sports and lower our operating costs for the others... Then we can get WBB home and away games against Iowa, Drake, UNI, Nebraska, Minnesota, etc..

I thought about this too. And its not like there isn't a president for this already. We have football only conferences today with the MVFC.

Not sure why ISU volleyball is going to WVU and UCF when playing Drake and UNI would get just as many eyeballs if not more. I don't even think these kids would care either. Way less travel time for them too.

 

[ClubCy]

A chance to "relax" is not good for tv though. Precisely why the NFL is king. A league built for parity. Every.single.game matters. Outside of Alabama fans, no one wants to watch Alabama beat Vanderbilt by 50. The game is over before it ever kicks off. You speak of diminishing value, in the past decade, playing in the Big Ten, how many Ohio State games were ever truly in doubt before the ball was ever kicked off? Maybe 10-15%? They freaking blow their opponents off the field in 90% of their games.

It is also all about the $. If offered the chance, would Rutgers go back to the Big East where they were filling their stadium and winning 9-10 games a year prior to joining the Big Ten? Or do they want tens of millions more a year and an opportunity to play in one of the premier conferences in the country?

Ask Cincy and Houston fans if they'd prefer to leave the Big 12. Their first year didn't go so well. Those schools are used to winning 10+ games a year.

If Amazon 10 years down the road puts an offer on the table to the 24 best programs in the country who is turning it down because they are scared of being a loser? An offer so good their universities will be printing money. Every single university is joining before the offer sheet is dry.

Tv networks don’t pay for Alabama vs. Vandy or Ohio St. vs. Rutgers. They pay for the matchups that will consistently get them 4+ million viewers…hence why you see a consolidation of the big brands into the same leagues.

Rutgers and Vandy are fine in the networks eyes because it bolsters the others records and then you can sell a top 10 game between teams that are 8-0 instead of 4-4 vs 5-3.

Example: Tennessee gets Vandy, SC, and Miss at to start the season 6-0 and then they get 6-0 Georgia. That would be a top 10 game and probably 10 million viewers. Tennessee could finish 7-5 the networks don’t care they got what they wanted during that week. Rinse and repeat every week.

 

[cyfan92]

Tv networks don’t pay for Alabama vs. Vandy or Ohio St. vs. Rutgers. They pay for the matchups that will consistently get them 4+ million viewers…hence why you see a consolidation of the big brands into the same leagues.

Rutgers and Vandy are fine in the networks eyes because it bolsters the others records and then you can sell a top 10 game between teams that are 8-0 instead of 4-4 vs 5-3.

Example: Tennessee gets Vandy, SC, and Miss at to start the season 6-0 and then they get 6-0 Georgia. That would be a top 10 game and probably 10 million viewers. Tennessee could finish 7-5 the networks don’t care they got what they wanted during that week. Rinse and repeat every week.

Both networks need content and marquee games. Like content for ESPN2, News, FS1, and their streaming services. The primetime matchups for FOX, ESPN, ABC, CBS, and NBC.