Easy workaround on title ix issue:

Have football players identify as female.


Taken from;

#Florida fan has a genius idea to get around any potential Title IX issues. pic.twitter.com/kvWNGeNkM8

— Message Board Geniuses (@BoardGeniuses) May 25, 2024

The world today is so messed up and dumb this would actually work.

For all concerned/involved parties, it's all about the money.

There will be 101 ways to creatively or otherwise pay above the "cap," and the big dogs are too powerful to be intimidated by penalties.

It will be only a few years before the large majority of school administrators realize they cannot compete successfully on the fields because they cannot afford the collective price of the players, so they accept not competing for championships. Then, the fans lose interest, and college sports are overwhelmed by their disinterest and disdain.

sharpdressedman said:

---

For all concerned/involved parties, it's all about the money.

There will be 101 ways to creatively or otherwise pay above the "cap," and the big dogs are too powerful to be intimidated by penalties.

It will be only a few years before the large majority of school administrators realize they cannot compete successfully on the fields because they cannot afford the collective price of the players, so they accept not competing for championships. Then, the fans lose interest, and college sports are overwhelmed by their disinterest and disdain.

---

How can teams accept not competing!!!! This sounds like an ominous prediction until you realize most of college football has accepted this since the beginning of time.

*Don’t expect immediate clarity on how athletic departments will handle monetary distribution. That’s still a major topic, but not one required to be addressed in this settlement.

— Pete Thamel (@PeteThamel) July 8, 2024

This ambiguity is by design. They want this to be a clusterF to harken congressional intervention

Slyfox07 said:

---

So the new way to cheat is to just secretly spend more than the $20 million cap?

They've solved nothing

---

The athletes receiving the 20 million will disagree.

Youknowwho777 said:

---

ima get **** for this lol but why does every single post that's made on here within the first 4 comments/responses it has a comment towards Texas? Yes...hate me ..im a "SIP" family went to ATM. Brother and Mom to ATM and sister and dad to Texas. Im at Texas currently. SO excited to play you guys again. One of my all time fav rivalries growing up and i was sad to see the powers above fcked it for all of us. But i just had to ask..why is within 4 comments of a threat "SIPS" come up lol just seems...idk odd..rent free kinda thing.

anyways im sure im going to get shyt on after this..but best of luck to yall next season..how cool would it be to have a undefeated ATM and undefeated Texas on the last game of the year? I know Kyle field will be rocking and i will be there in my Orange.


anyways, from a friendly "SIP" cant wait to play you guys again.

---

Bro, are you feeling okay? No one talked about "sips" or Texas above your post.

Are you a woman? Only women, Muslims and sips think that everything is about themselves.

Quote:

---

Why do all sips tell themselves that everyone is talking about them always. Get over yourselves, you're not that special.

---

Because every 3rd post on this forum is related to ut.

Bill Superman said:

---

And the NCAA makes a settlement and allows schools to pay directly. This is officially the minor leagues. There is a $20 mil cap though, so who's going to be shoring up the money year in year out. This might only bring back the bagmen once the cap space hits too soon. It's almost just like it used to be…

---

Why do people keep talking about this? Due to Title IX, the individual schools will NEVER pay athletes anything akin to the kind of $$$ available from the independent NIL funds. Title IX institution payments would have to be the same for womens swimming as for D1 football recruits. This means those University payments might look like a stipends or monthly allowances.

However, the "move the needle $$$" will always have to come from outside institutions (with powerfully rich alumni) who can be laser focused on funneling funds for high profile athletes instead of spreading it out over hundreds of no-name non-revenue athletes.

Will those school funds trickle into some sort of cash stipend for all university athletes? Probably some amount...but they will be relatively small and won't be decisive factors in recruiting 5 star athletes in Football, basketball or baseball.

rootube said:

---

sharpdressedman said:

---

For all concerned/involved parties, it's all about the money.

There will be 101 ways to creatively or otherwise pay above the "cap," and the big dogs are too powerful to be intimidated by penalties.

It will be only a few years before the large majority of school administrators realize they cannot compete successfully on the fields because they cannot afford the collective price of the players, so they accept not competing for championships. Then, the fans lose interest, and college sports are overwhelmed by their disinterest and disdain.

---

How can teams accept not competing!!!! This sounds like an ominous prediction until you realize most of college football has accepted this since the beginning of time.

---

TITLE IX will discourage any significant distributions of university or athletic program funding of compensation of athletes. Most high dollar athletic programs need to retain every single TV contract dollar to subsidize their non-revenue athletic programs. Very few have any significant $ left over to share with athletes after all said and done.

Building championship caliber teams in major revenue sports will be done outside the University through independent NIL programs because they can amass the big dollars that target specific high profile athletes we are all competing for. Anything that comes directly from the University budget will look like a monthly allowance or pocket money.

VP at Pierce and Pierce said:

---

Bag said:

---

VP at Pierce and Pierce said:

---

Bag said:

---

so, now the question becomes, why have eligibility at all?

Next to go is this concept of Freshman, Soph, Jr. Sr.

If a kid just wants to play SEC play forever, then let him. Imagine how many years Johnny could have played for TAMU? 8-9 years?

The power 5 should go toe to toe with the NFL.

The list of great SEC players that never made it in the NFL is long and distinguished, they could have just stayed in college forever and raked in great money

---

I have heard this talking point for a few months, is there any legs to this or is this fear mongering? I simply do not see the value for the schools to keep paying some 26 year old.

---

you don't see the value of Johnny Football spending a decade in college station making $15m a year in Salary + NIL?

---

I see that point, however it become very expensive for boosters to have a player or players on the payroll commanding that much money. At that point non-university payroll is north of $30 million per year, boosters see zero financial return on investment unlike pro team that sees return on payroll. It is the same issue as last week prior to this ruling; boosters aren't going to fund these $20+ million payrolls every single season when they do not see any financial return. The odds of players having unlimited eligibility seem very low for a variety of reasons.

---

A $30MM university budget for paying athletes is a luxury 98% of schools can't imagine. Most schools are breakeven at best. And the schools that might have $30MM left over after expenses will be the biggest schools who have so many athletes to spread that over that it won't be nearly as much money as it seems.

Aginnebraska said:

---

VP at Pierce and Pierce said:

---

Bag said:

---

VP at Pierce and Pierce said:

---

Bag said:

---

so, now the question becomes, why have eligibility at all?

Next to go is this concept of Freshman, Soph, Jr. Sr.

If a kid just wants to play SEC play forever, then let him. Imagine how many years Johnny could have played for TAMU? 8-9 years?

The power 5 should go toe to toe with the NFL.

The list of great SEC players that never made it in the NFL is long and distinguished, they could have just stayed in college forever and raked in great money

---

I have heard this talking point for a few months, is there any legs to this or is this fear mongering? I simply do not see the value for the schools to keep paying some 26 year old.

---

you don't see the value of Johnny Football spending a decade in college station making $15m a year in Salary + NIL?

---

I see that point, however it become very expensive for boosters to have a player or players on the payroll commanding that much money. At that point non-university payroll is north of $30 million per year, boosters see zero financial return on investment unlike pro team that sees return on payroll. It is the same issue as last week prior to this ruling; boosters aren't going to fund these $20+ million payrolls every single season when they do not see any financial return. The odds of players having unlimited eligibility seem very low for a variety of reasons.

---

A $30MM university budget for paying athletes is a luxury 98% of schools can't imagine. Most schools are breakeven at best. And the schools that might have $30MM left over after expenses will be the biggest schools who have so many athletes to spread that over that it won't be nearly as much money as it seems.

---

Well they are going to have to find that money because payroll is coming whether they like it or not. That is why there is so much speculation about investment firms and mega banks coming in to provide liquidity to programs in exchange for a piece of the TV deals.

VP at Pierce and Pierce said:

---

Aginnebraska said:

---

VP at Pierce and Pierce said:

---

Bag said:

---

VP at Pierce and Pierce said:

---

Bag said:

---

so, now the question becomes, why have eligibility at all?

Next to go is this concept of Freshman, Soph, Jr. Sr.

If a kid just wants to play SEC play forever, then let him. Imagine how many years Johnny could have played for TAMU? 8-9 years?

The power 5 should go toe to toe with the NFL.

The list of great SEC players that never made it in the NFL is long and distinguished, they could have just stayed in college forever and raked in great money

---

I have heard this talking point for a few months, is there any legs to this or is this fear mongering? I simply do not see the value for the schools to keep paying some 26 year old.

---

you don't see the value of Johnny Football spending a decade in college station making $15m a year in Salary + NIL?

---

I see that point, however it become very expensive for boosters to have a player or players on the payroll commanding that much money. At that point non-university payroll is north of $30 million per year, boosters see zero financial return on investment unlike pro team that sees return on payroll. It is the same issue as last week prior to this ruling; boosters aren't going to fund these $20+ million payrolls every single season when they do not see any financial return. The odds of players having unlimited eligibility seem very low for a variety of reasons.

---

A $30MM university budget for paying athletes is a luxury 98% of schools can't imagine. Most schools are breakeven at best. And the schools that might have $30MM left over after expenses will be the biggest schools who have so many athletes to spread that over that it won't be nearly as much money as it seems.

---

Well they are going to have to find that money because payroll is coming whether they like it or not. That is why there is so much speculation about investment firms and mega banks coming in to provide liquidity to programs in exchange for a piece of the TV deals.

---

You are describing monetizing future revenues to pay for programs that don't pay for themselves today. That is is a zero sum game and not a long term solution. The big schools with big budgets will pay the minimum budget and move on but the getting big recruits will still be decided by outside money. Smaller schools with smaller budgets will just have less competitive non-revenue sports.

Aginnebraska said:

---

VP at Pierce and Pierce said:

---

Aginnebraska said:

---

VP at Pierce and Pierce said:

---

Bag said:

---

VP at Pierce and Pierce said:

---

Bag said:

---

so, now the question becomes, why have eligibility at all?

Next to go is this concept of Freshman, Soph, Jr. Sr.

If a kid just wants to play SEC play forever, then let him. Imagine how many years Johnny could have played for TAMU? 8-9 years?

The power 5 should go toe to toe with the NFL.

The list of great SEC players that never made it in the NFL is long and distinguished, they could have just stayed in college forever and raked in great money

---

I have heard this talking point for a few months, is there any legs to this or is this fear mongering? I simply do not see the value for the schools to keep paying some 26 year old.

---

you don't see the value of Johnny Football spending a decade in college station making $15m a year in Salary + NIL?

---

I see that point, however it become very expensive for boosters to have a player or players on the payroll commanding that much money. At that point non-university payroll is north of $30 million per year, boosters see zero financial return on investment unlike pro team that sees return on payroll. It is the same issue as last week prior to this ruling; boosters aren't going to fund these $20+ million payrolls every single season when they do not see any financial return. The odds of players having unlimited eligibility seem very low for a variety of reasons.

---

A $30MM university budget for paying athletes is a luxury 98% of schools can't imagine. Most schools are breakeven at best. And the schools that might have $30MM left over after expenses will be the biggest schools who have so many athletes to spread that over that it won't be nearly as much money as it seems.

---

Well they are going to have to find that money because payroll is coming whether they like it or not. That is why there is so much speculation about investment firms and mega banks coming in to provide liquidity to programs in exchange for a piece of the TV deals.

---

You are describing monetizing future revenues to pay for programs that don't pay for themselves today. That is is a zero sum game and not a long term solution. The big schools with big budgets will pay the minimum budget and move on but the getting big recruits will still be decided by outside money. Smaller schools with smaller budgets will just have less competitive non-revenue sports.

---

Correct. Schools that are just now in the process of updating facilities or in the fundraising stages are going to find themselves in a bad position too.

DonHenley said:

---

Why even offer scholarships anymore with players being paid directly from schools + NIL? College athletics are dead.

---

I have said similar things multiple times on here and was chastised.

B-1 83 said:

---

DonHenley said:

---

Why even offer scholarships anymore with players being paid directly from schools + NIL? College athletics are dead.

---

I have said similar things multiple times on here and was chastised.

---

They aren't going to take away scholarships ever. That is simply baked into the equation. The players earned the scholarship.

Does this mean we can afford a Left Tackle recruit?

This seems to be a way to make things the way they used to be with NCAA control, rules and penalties. Bama or OU probably bit**ed and complained because local auto dealerships can't keep up with BIG OIL.

Take taxes out of those checks I'm hoping...

DonHenley said:

---

There are salary caps in all the major sports leagues, save for the MLB. Makes sense there is a cap. And its not like all of A&M's spending has won us anything in the revenue generating sports....

---

The NHL and the NFL have hard caps. Both the NBA and MLB both have soft caps with luxury taxes. Golden State lives over the soft cap, and owed $176 million in luxury tax payments this past year. 8 teams were over the soft cap in 2023-24.

https://www.goldenstateofmind.com/2024/6/18/24181356/warriors-finish-first-in-nba-luxury-tax-payments

In MLS player contracts are owned by the league, so it puts its finger on who gets Messi. In the English Premier League there are caps on the poor teams to prevent them from spending like the rich ones (who have much higher caps) if the poor teams happen to have owners with money to burn, which is pretty funny.

Quote:

---

In fact, according to estimates from many of the conference's head football coaches, SEC schools are expected to spend as much as one-quarter of a billion dollars annually as a league on their football players, or about $15 million per school a year.

"Do the math," Florida coach Billy Napier told Yahoo Sports. "We're talking $20 million (in allotted revenue sharing). In most athletic departments, football is 70-75% of the revenue. That's $12.5-15 million. That's the number we anticipate."

LSU coach Brian Kelly describes his expected football roster budget: "I'd say between $14-17 million."

****

There's more, too: Coaches believe the new football roster limit will settle at around 105 players a figure that will permit schools to offer 20 more scholarships for the sport than the current NCAA maximum of 85.

---

https://sports.yahoo.com/a-250m-price-tag-how-sec-coaches-will-pay-their-football-players-142513338.html

This is getting way out of hand. College athletes making more money (in most cases) than fans who actually buy tickets and support the athletes financially. Sounds stupid to me. I guarantee you this will ruin college sports. Unbelievable.

Yeah and we sometimes spend that money rather stupid like.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Easy workaround on title ix issue:

Have football players identify as female.


Taken from;

#Florida fan has a genius idea to get around any potential Title IX issues. pic.twitter.com/kvWNGeNkM8

— Message Board Geniuses (@BoardGeniuses) May 25, 2024

---

That is awesome but unfortunately so true. Title XI killed so many men's programs that were successful. Big schools can offset these ridiculous losses. I think UT and A&M lost almost 20mm combined on women's sports and they compete at a high level.

And Fexas has a women's Crue program; equestrian stuff I can see (we do that), but Crue? What other school in Texas has a Crue program?

Just found out that TAMU-Galveston does and SMU too. Galveston I can see, but SMU? White Rock Lake? Sabine River? Trinity River as it goes through Dallas?

SMU

https://www.ncsasports.org/womens-rowing/colleges

I saw the same info. So three schools in Texas? Where would a team in Aggieland float their boat? Brazos? Navasota? The Woodlands Waterway? Lake Bryan? Gibbons? Some things are a little out of hand...

Youknowwho777 said:

---

ima get **** for this lol but why does every single post that's made on here within the first 4 comments/responses it has a comment towards Texas? Yes...hate me ..im a "SIP" family went to ATM. Brother and Mom to ATM and sister and dad to Texas. Im at Texas currently. SO excited to play you guys again. One of my all time fav rivalries growing up and i was sad to see the powers above fcked it for all of us. But i just had to ask..why is within 4 comments of a threat "SIPS" come up lol just seems...idk odd..rent free kinda thing.

anyways im sure im going to get shyt on after this..but best of luck to yall next season..how cool would it be to have a undefeated ATM and undefeated Texas on the last game of the year? I know Kyle field will be rocking and i will be there in my Orange.


anyways, from a friendly "SIP" cant wait to play you guys again.

---

Hey Youknowwho777....it's not "Texas", it's "t.u.", and, it's not "SIPS", it's "sips"

So I guess the only real reason to attend an Aggie game now is to see the band. Who really cares who "wins" now?

So, does this mean they are employees, and if so, will athletic departments have to have an HR-type of personnel within it? Or worse, go through the university's HR?

Because HR departments add loads of fun, and by fun I mean bureaucracy.

monarch said:

---

I saw the same info. So three schools in Texas? Where would a team in Aggieland float their boat? Brazos? Navasota? The Woodlands Waterway? Lake Bryan? Gibbons? Some things are a little out of hand...

---

Most of the colleges with crew were established on or near natural bodies of water. But the thing that drives it is the desire to compete. I have zero doubt that if we wanted to for both men's and women's teams we could compete and win.

http://www.tamucrew.club/team

https://getinvolved.tamu.edu/org/crew

Would rather women's gymnastics and mens wrestling or soccer. SMU is the only D1 mens soccer in Texas. Would be awesome to start the trend and compete h2h in the meantime

can a school decline to pay its players?

simply let them know ahead of time...this is a scholarship-only school

so if you come play here...that's the deal

(obviously an SEC school won't do this, but possibly mid-majors and such)

or can a school choose to field a football team with only 70 scholarship players?

in order to save money