Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

So this House vs. NCAA thing that's happening.....I don't know if it will further devolve my dwindling interest in the sport or if it won't affect things, but it seems unlikely that it will help anything. 

The NCAA issued this statement:  "Today's hearing on the landmark settlement was a significant step in modernizing college sports.  If approved, the settlement will allow student athletes the opportunity to receive nearly 50% of athletic department revenue in a sustainable and fair system for years to come." 

This raises a number of issues to think about.  Since most athletic depts operate at a loss, it seems like a further disadvantage to those schools where NIL money is the only shot they have of landing talent.  The handful of profitable schools, I assume, would be able to split Ath. Dept. $ in addition to NIL.  Further, how are most of those schools operating at a loss supposed to share 50% of revenue when there's no profit?  Do they have to operate further in the hole, or do those schools just not profit-share?  Finally, whether profitable or not, it's mainly the football programs that make the Ath. Depts. money.  I think LSU baseball is one of the few exceptions of a team that makes money instead of being floated by the football team.  What about all these gymnasts and pole-vaulters, etc. who aren't generating anything for their athletic departments?  Do they also get to share in the revenue?  If I were an elite football player, I might take exception to that, since I'd know I'm the one who's bringing in $ and thus I might feel entitled to a bigger piece of the pie compared to the swim team.  I might get a lawyer to demand such.  

Yep. Mostly on the men's side (Title IX).

Football always should have been excepted and exempted from all of these rules, and then let all of the other sports duke it out in the thunderdome to see what survives.

Please elaborate; I'm not sure what you're saying.  

Please elaborate; I'm not sure what you're saying. 

Football is the revenue driver that pays for all other sports at almost every university (even ones running heavily in the red, still get far more of their revenue from football than all other sports).

So it is my opinion that football should have been exempt from Title IX.  The scholarships distributed to football should not count against the mens total.  Then let all of the other sports adhere to the Title IX statutes.

It is also my opinion that it should be considered entirely separately in any future revenue-sharing models, for the same reason.  

Ok, I see. 

If football were removed from the equation, than even the "haves" factor into my question:  how do you do revenue sharing when the programs aren't profitable?  I don't understand what the NCAA is saying here.  They have to know most student-athletes belong to programs which operate at a loss. 

Oh, I'm not proposing a solve for that.  If the less well-funded programs-- the "have nots"-- aim to compete with the "haves" in revenue sharing in football, then they're going to have to cut a lot of non-revenue sports.

My assumption is the NCAA isn't advocating for a bunch of non-football programs to be cut.  So I'm left wondering how they expect schools whose athletic departments operate at a loss to do revenue-sharing.

Technically, you can do revenue sharing while operating at a profit-loss.  You're just forcing the school to operate at a bigger loss. 

Nobody is going to do this.

And I don't think the NCAA is "advocating" for anything.  They're entirely on their back foot.  Really the NCAA is almost completely out of it, at this point.  The state legislatures and federal government will be in charge from now on.

And there will certainly be negative consequences for non-revenue sports at schools.  Even some of the big-time programs might need to cut non-revenue sports in order to pay football players as employees.