(01-31-2018 04:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-31-2018 02:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-31-2018 12:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-31-2018 12:50 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  It would be sad to have all women’s sports go away, but some of those figures are really ghastly. I personally would keep women’s basketball, and other women’s sports that actually made $$, but women’s country club sports I would bring to an end unless a booster wanted to spare them along with sports just added solely for the purpose of Title IX, and just tax the profitable programs.

The law, namely Title IX, doesn't care about profits. Does Alabama want its football team that makes $100m a year and wins national titles? And do you want to give out the 85 football scholarships? Then the law, as interpreted by basically all the courts, says you have to give out about 85 scholarships to female athletes as well, period, whether you make money or lose money.

And Title IX has strong bi-partisan support. No tax change that has the effect of doing away with Title IX, such that Alabama can have its football team while not having an equal # of female athletes also on scholarship, will pass.

That's the bottom line here, not profits. The only way to get rid of all those money-losing women's sports is if you get rid of a roughly equal number of men's scholarships as well.

And that is where you are dead wrong. It is not likely that the non profit status would be lifted for tax purposes. And the reason would be the defense of Title IX. But if we move to paying players there won't be any scholarships. Their earnings will be taxed, and any goods and services (like education) that they receive will be taxed. If there are no scholarships then there is no need to reciprocate them with women's sports. Therein lies the issue.

So if we move to a pay for play of any kind, the word scholarship will not be a part of it. So take away 85 scholarships offered in football and replace them with paid players who are taxed and you take away the need to offset those 85 scholarships with those offered for women.

JR, i just don't see this happening. Title IX - not just the words of the law but its evolved meaning as representing opportunities for female athletes at universities - will not be end-run by any shifting of terms or meanings or tax exempt status. There is not going to be any way to dodge T9 by setting up dummy corporations, spin-offs, for-profit entities, or other "arms length" entities that allegedly aren't "affiliated" with the school, the defenders of T9 will sniff all that out and be all over it.

IMO, it's not going to happen. No change in tax codes, etc. will be allowed to happen by Congress if it has the effect of eliminating those female scholarships while the boys still play football wearing the school colors.

Bottom line: As long as it says "LSU" on the helmet, the LSU football team will be regarded by the Feds, and Title IX, as being a part of LSU, and it will be subject to the regulations, no matter if there any scholarships from the school involved or not, no matter if the football program is incorporated as a completely separate business, no matter if the QB is being paid $500k a year .... no matter what. If the team is wearing blue and gold, playing in Tiger Stadium, and repping "LSU", etc. it will make the school subject to T9 or some other law/regulation that will be quickly drafted that has the same effect of requiring 85 scholarships/funding/pay for female athletes too.

Damage the profitability of football, or impinge the Athletic Department's ability to induced donations and the end result will the elimination of non profit sports affecting both men and women. School's cant afford 10's of millions in red ink. But I think what you will see is the elimination of football at many lower tier schools. And with it the elimination of a goodly number of non profits.

Schools were flush when Title IX was approved, and the cost of athletics was a lot less. I know I was alive and there and functioning as an adult when it happened. Just look at the red ink in just the Texas schools presented in the OP. They aren't atypical.

The largest best endowed schools will continue to be able to afford it all for a lot longer than most of the smaller schools. But Title IX's application is going to bite itself in the butt during a period of inflation (which we are entering) and stagnate wages (which we are in). Instead of optimizing women's sports by mandate, the equal number approach will merely shrink all sports beginning with the smallest schools. The best way to assure the survival of female sports will be to keep football profitable. At most of the athletic departments it funds all the rest. Kill football, or have it die due to natural causes will impact non profit sports in a major way.

Schools which don't have profitable football programs won't be able to afford compliance so they will just shut sports down which are not funded externally whether by corporate grant, private donations, or the player's parents.

It is simply a business reality. It is perfectly possible to keep the letter of Title IX by just not offering sports at all.

You are just seeing the beginning of "Sports" downsizing in higher ed. It's a trickle of schools who are downsizing right now. As inflation rises and the Boomer's pass this will become a river.

You can't tax something and assist it's ability to fund non profit programs at the same time. They'll have to be a workaround as was suggested by the ODU poster if we are to forestall the unintended consequences of the change in the tax law surrounding contributions to the athletic department in exchange for ticket priorities. Otherwise the changes that take place will be more rapid in nature, and much more inclusive of the upper tier.

And in the end the result will be the same. An antiquated piece of legislation will be the root of the demise of what it was intended to assist.

If you and others don't get that because you are so defensive of Title IX as a legal fact that you can't see the negative ramifications of it in today's economic environment, especially when the tax law impacts it, then there is nothing else for me to say on this matter. We'll all see soon enough.