Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

Northwestern players are trying to get a union started

SuperiorBuff said:
No, not like Flood at all. Flood was a professional, not a collegiate player. He had no opportunity to pay his dues and rise up.
Click to expand...
And many think these athletes should be paid, you don't. It's better for the colleges not pay these players, they can reap the benefits.
 
Lt.Col.FrankSlade said:
Why stop with colleges? If the star high school player is bringing ESPN and everybody to his school -why shouldn't he get a piece of the pie.

How do you square Title IX which says all athletes get paid the same?
Click to expand...
We've already been through this, look above. All college athletes aren't equal, title IX primarily says that women have to be given the same opportunties, they have to be represented in equal numbers. Lappe and Boyle don't get paid the same. The men's and women's basketball budgets aren't the same.

Sure if the high school athletes can prove they bring in revenue to their schools, they have a case. That's a different discussion.
 
cubuffs85 said:
We've already been through this, look above. All college athletes aren't equal, title IX primarily says that women have to be given the same opportunties, they have to be represented in equal numbers. Lappe and Boyle don't get paid the same. The men's and women's basketball budgets aren't the same.

Sure if the high school athletes can prove they bring in revenue to their schools, they have a case. That's a different discussion.
Click to expand...

Lappe and Boyle don't get paid them same because they are faculty. Just like an engineering prof and a women's studies prof don't get paid the same.

Title IX applies to student athletes. The Lappe Boyle reference is irrelevant.
t
 
cubuffs85 said:
We've already been through this, look above. All college athletes aren't equal, title IX primarily says that women have to be given the same opportunties, they have to be represented in equal numbers. Lappe and Boyle don't get paid the same. The men's and women's basketball budgets aren't the same.

Sure if the high school athletes can prove they bring in revenue to their schools, they have a case. That's a different discussion.
Click to expand...

Lappe and Boyle aren't college students.
 
J.R. Ewing said:
Lappe and Boyle don't get paid them same because they are faculty. Just like an engineering prof and a women's studies prof don't get paid the same.

Title IX applies to student athletes. The Lappe Boyle reference is irrelevant.
t
Click to expand...
Even if you want to think it's an irrelevant arguement, they have different budgets. Here's the link Highlander put up for you.
[h=2]Myth No. 4: Schools must spend equally on men's and women's sports[/h]There is nothing in the language of Title IX that demands equal spending. And few athletic departments spend equally. Almost universally, they spend more on men's programs. A Women's Sports Foundation study found female college athletes received only 35 percent of total athletic expenditures as recently as the 2004-05 school year.
The law allows for a school to spend differently on sports, but those differences can't be discriminatory. If a college has football, men's lacrosse and baseball, those sports are much more expensive to run and outfit. "And that's OK, because there are reasonable differences in sports," Morrison says. "But if you're outfitting your women's programs in substandard equipment, that would not be OK."
The truth is that women's sports still has a small piece of the pie. The NCAA Division I Athletics Programs Report contains detailed financial information for all Division I schools; on Page 23, it shows that in 2010, FBS Division I schools spent a median amount of $20,416,000 on men's programs and $8,006,000 on women's.
Click to expand...

All that CU is required to basically is have just as many female athletes as male athletes.
 
cubuffs85 said:
All that CU is required to basically is have just as many female athletes as male athletes.
Click to expand...

I'm coming into this discussion very late, so this may have been covered already. The issue with Title IX is that it doesn't discount Football for the purposes of counting up scholarship numbers. So the 85 football scholarships that the football team takes up have to be accounted for with a bunch of women's programs. That's why at CU, for instance, we have a women's soccer team, a women's tennis team, a women's lacrosse team and a women's volleyball team but no corresponding men's teams. In addition, for the sports where both men and women participate (like skiing and track), there are more women's scholarships available then men's. If football were taken out of the calculation, we could field more men's teams and provide more men's scholarships. Title IX has gotten to the point where it's no longer an assist to women's sports, but has become a hinderance to men's sports. I don't think that was the original intent.
 
Pay players and you will drastically change college football including eliminating programs, thus opportunities. Also, I don't know how the law would rule on women athletes getting paid. I do know it would go to court and cost millions in legal fees. Scholarship athletes get a free education. That is not only fantastic for them, it is fantastic for their parents. We paid over $100,000 for college educations for our kids.

Also, athletes are eligible for and receive grants of a couple of grand to pay for living expenses. But I will say this. College athletes should get things like injury insurance paid for by the NCAA.

On a side note, and I don't know if this really relates to Title XI, but the Australian Olympic team will field more women than men. I think the USA is close to that as well. The women are screwing us men. In sports.
 
DBT said:
Pay players and you will drastically change college football including eliminating programs, thus opportunities. Also, I don't know how the law would rule on women athletes getting paid. I do know it would go to court and cost millions in legal fees. Scholarship athletes get a free education. That is not only fantastic for them, it is fantastic for their parents. We paid over $100,000 for college educations for our kids.

Also, athletes are eligible for and receive grants of a couple of grand to pay for living expenses. But I will say this. College athletes should get things like injury insurance paid for by the NCAA.

On a side note, and I don't know if this really relates to Title XI, but the Australian Olympic team will field more women than men. I think the USA is close to that as well. The women are screwing us men. In sports.
Click to expand...

Has nothing to do with Title IX but everything to do with politics and ratings. The IOC has been going out of their way to prove how "inclusive" they are so we are seeing mens sports and sports that the USA and other "powers" traditionally dominate dropped in favor of others that include more women and bring in more participants from the third world.

They also know at the same time that their single biggest source of revenue is the North American TV contracts, especially the US. They figure that what they do isn't going to move the needle a lot with men, they will either watch or not watch. Where they can make a huge difference in the viewing audience is in women viewers. As a result we get ridiculous amounts of ice dancing (figure skating) in the winter and numbing amounts of gymnastics and things like syncronized swimming in the summer.

I personally am sick of the Olympics and their political crap and will watch very little. I will watch some bobsledding because I have worked for years with the mother of a likely gold medal winner. I may watch some hockey just because I like watching the game played in a faster manner on the big ice. Otherwise couldn't give a ****.
 
MtnBuff said:
Has nothing to do with Title IX but everything to do with politics and ratings. The IOC has been going out of their way to prove how "inclusive" they are so we are seeing mens sports and sports that the USA and other "powers" traditionally dominate dropped in favor of others that include more women and bring in more participants from the third world.

They also know at the same time that their single biggest source of revenue is the North American TV contracts, especially the US. They figure that what they do isn't going to move the needle a lot with men, they will either watch or not watch. Where they can make a huge difference in the viewing audience is in women viewers. As a result we get ridiculous amounts of ice dancing (figure skating) in the winter and numbing amounts of gymnastics and things like syncronized swimming in the summer.

I personally am sick of the Olympics and their political crap and will watch very little. I will watch some bobsledding because I have worked for years with the mother of a likely gold medal winner. I may watch some hockey just because I like watching the game played in a faster manner on the big ice. Otherwise couldn't give a ****.
Click to expand...
Get ready for hours and hours of figure skating.
 
DBT said:
Get ready for hours and hours of figure skating.
Click to expand...

All decided by who paid off the French judge and who paid off the German judge. Olympics can't get over with soon enough, and they haven't even started yet.
 
I love the Olympics, but I share the disillusionment towards judged events.
 
sackman said:
I love the Olympics, but I share the disillusionment towards judged events.
Click to expand...
With the X Game sports, their has been a big influx of these in the Winter Olympics. I like things like ski cross but can't get into moguls, half pipe, etc. Those sports are gnarly.
 
Be careful what you wish for, enjoy paying those taxes like the rest of us wage slaves kids. Particularly when the Feds give a full valuation to the cost of your tuition and room and board, I'd say that could fairly easily add up to say 30-40k in "income." I also wonder about the larger ramifications of the ruling. What are the Title IX implications if athletes are employees rather than students. If I'm a company I have no obligation to continue running a failing, money losing division like say the women's crew or tennis team just because another related division is doing well to balance the number of "employees."
 
SuperD said:
Be careful what you wish for, enjoy paying those taxes like the rest of us wage slaves kids. Particularly when the Feds give a full valuation to the cost of your tuition and room and board, I'd say that could fairly easily add up to say 30-40k in "income." I also wonder about the larger ramifications of the ruling. What are the Title IX implications if athletes are employees rather than students. If I'm a company I have no obligation to continue running a failing, money losing division like say the women's crew or tennis team just because another related division is doing well to balance the number of "employees."
Click to expand...

Not just that - if the school has to pay "wages" then the students may have to start paying out of their own pocket for tuition, room and board, food, books, training table, airline travel to and from games, health insurance, etc.
 
What's annoying is none of the cfb media is really asking these questions--like how is this all going to actually work, if at all? They're too busy hammering the NCAA.
 
Amateur collegiate sports was fun while it lasted. They haven't a clue how good they have/had it.

From phone
 
Lt.Col.FrankSlade said:
Not just that - if the school has to pay "wages" then the students may have to start paying out of their own pocket for tuition, room and board, food, books, training table, airline travel to and from games, health insurance, etc.
Click to expand...

I underestimated the compensation. The documentation from the NLRB ruling estimates annual compensation at $61k for the scholarship football players (only 85 of the 112 on the team). That puts them in the what 25% Federal tax bracket, plus god knows what income tax is in Illinois say another 5-7%? So either they have to come up with that money out of pocket, or AD expenses go up 30% or more (and most ADs are already running in the red). Plus if they are employees this is no longer a tax free enterprise right? So the AD has to now pay taxes on revenue PLUS donations are no longer tax deductible? This could end up being a worst case scenario for collegiate athletics. Pretty much everything other than CFB and CBB would likely get nuked back to club sports with no scholarships.

I wonder if Colter has given any thought as to how sports other than football would be impacted, or if he even cares.
 
SuperD said:
I underestimated the compensation. The documentation from the NLRB ruling estimates annual compensation at $61k for the scholarship football players (only 85 of the 112 on the team). That puts them in the what 25% Federal tax bracket, plus god knows what income tax is in Illinois say another 5-7%? So either they have to come up with that money out of pocket, or AD expenses go up 30% or more (and most ADs are already running in the red). Plus if they are employees this is no longer a tax free enterprise right? So the AD has to now pay taxes on revenue PLUS donations are no longer tax deductible? This could end up being a worst case scenario for collegiate athletics. Pretty much everything other than CFB and CBB would likely get nuked back to club sports with no scholarships.

I wonder if Colter has given any thought as to how sports other than football would be impacted, or if he even cares.
Click to expand...

You can have employees of non-profit organizations. But I'm not sure that most private universities can organize that way. You would also have to pay appropriate FICA and Social Security to match the wages. This could become unworkable very quickly. I expect that most players will receive a certain amount, and it may not be enough to cover everything they get now.
 
The company line has been that any chicken little talk from opponents of this is just bs. Title IX, other non-revenue sports will be fine, the NCAA and AD's will just figure it out. There seems to be an idea that the NCAA and Universities have been so devious that they're all sitting on hidden piles of money that could easily be distributed if their hand is forced.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top