PiPress: Teague knows NCAA change coming, but doesn't know costs

[BleedGopher]

per Marcus:

The NCAA and the Big Five conferences (the Atlantic Coast, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-12 and Southeastern) are likely to decide in August on how the current structure will be modified, whether it's scholarships covering the full cost of a college education or other student-athlete welfare proposals.

"What's this going to cost the University of Minnesota," university regent John Frobenius asked, "assuming that you go through with most of the initial compensation?"

"We don't really know, to be honest with you," Teague said. "We're doing a lot of figuring in that area."

But the question remains how the Gophers can continue to make strides while trying to meet the financial demands that could come with reform.

"It'll be pressure on us, no doubt," Teague said. "It depends on how much pressure. We'll just take it as a challenge. We want what's best for student-athletes. I think in the end smart decisions will be made. We may have to squeeze ourselves financially to a degree."

http://www.twincities.com/gophers/ci_26120485/us-teague-knows-ncaa-change-is-coming-but

Go Gophers!!

 

[Bad Gopher]

I fear this will create an even more stratified NCAA landscape based on who has money and who doesn't. Money is already a stratifying factor, and this will probably cause the surface to be tilted even more heavily.

 

[bleedsmaroonandgold]

Run a more profitable athletic department and the cost will be less of an issue.

 

[Winasota Gopher]

Cut a bunch of non revenue producing sports and make them club teams.... That's what I see happening...

 

[dpodoll68]

Cut a bunch of non revenue producing sports and make them club teams.... That's what I see happening...

Title IX says hai.

 

[howeda7]

Title IX says hai.

Title IX wouldn't stop them from making every men's sport outside of football, basketball and hockey a club team. Not saying that's likely.

 

[howeda7]

I fear this will create an even more stratified NCAA landscape based on who has money and who doesn't. Money is already a stratifying factor, and this will probably cause the surface to be tilted even more heavily.

Maybe, maybe not. If they're given a stipend that actually covers some non-school costs, the $100 bills that fell of the FedEx truck outside Lexington may be less tempting.

 

[Winasota Gopher]

Title IX says hai.

HAI TITLE IX!!! HAI!!!!


Sexist?

Non Revenue /= women's teams

 

[dpodoll68]

Non Revenue /= women's teams

For every men's non-revenue sports scholarship that is removed, one must be removed from the women's side as well. If you cut the men's sports down to football, basketball, and hockey, then the women would be left with basketball, hockey, and maybe swimming/diving or something similar. The rest of the sports (men's and women's) go bye-bye.

 

[Bad Gopher]

Maybe, maybe not. If they're given a stipend that actually covers some non-school costs, the $100 bills that fell of the FedEx truck outside Lexington may be less tempting.

On one hand, you may be right. On the other hand, some shady school will still have the appeal of making you a better offer.

 

[Winasota Gopher]

For every men's non-revenue sports scholarship that is removed, one must be removed from the women's side as well. If you cut the men's sports down to football, basketball, and hockey, then the women would be left with basketball, hockey, and maybe swimming/diving or something similar. The rest of the sports (men's and women's) go bye-bye.

Ok.... We all know what Title IX is.

So what does that have to do with my post and Title IX saying "HAI" to me?

 

[alchemy2u]

I fear this will create an even more stratified NCAA landscape based on who has money and who doesn't. Money is already a stratifying factor, and this will probably cause the surface to be tilted even more heavily.

It will tilt things more towards conference control of shared revenue. The top grossing schools will make zeroing if they have no one to play.

 

[dpodoll68]

Ok.... We all know what Title IX is.

From your posts, it didn't appear that you did.

So what does that have to do with my post and Title IX saying "HAI" to me?

You think eliminating a ton of opportunities for women to go to college for free is going to be popular? All so some ungrateful jackwad pretty boy can have money for Beats and diamond earrings?

 

[golfing18now]

From your posts, it didn't appear that you did.



You think eliminating a ton of opportunities for women to go to college for free is going to be popular? All so some ungrateful jackwad pretty boy can have money for Beats and diamond earrings?

How many stars is said jackwad?

Non revenue is non revenue, doesn't matter to me if it's a women's team or a men's team.

 

[dpodoll68]

Non revenue is non revenue, doesn't matter to me if it's a women's team or a men's team.

It may not matter to you, but it matters to the law and to legislators. "Women's sports eliminated so men can get paid more" isn't a headline that any politician wants to see.

 

[golfing18now]

It may not matter to you, but it matters to the law and to legislators. "Women's sports eliminated so men can get paid more" isn't a headline that any politician wants to see.

I agree, but as you pointed out, this hypothetical scenario would impact a number of men that happen to play in non-revenue generating sports too. Sadly, the spin would likely be the headline you suggest.

 

[bleedsmaroonandgold]

Even before we get to the discussion of what sports would be cut to fund salaries, wouldn't Title IX require that the same salary opportunities be available for college women's athletes? For every quarterback that ends up on salary, an outside hitter would need to get the same salary?

 

[Winasota Gopher]

From your posts, it didn't appear that you did.

Where?/How?

You think eliminating a ton of opportunities for women to go to college for free is going to be popular? All so some ungrateful jackwad pretty boy can have money for Beats and diamond earrings?

When did I say that it would be popular? When did I say they SHOULD do that?

I believe I stated....

Cut a bunch of non revenue producing sports and make them club teams.... That's what I see happening...

THATS WHAT I SEE HAPPENING, and nothing about women's sports vs men's sports.

Again, don't try your shtick here. Don't put words in my mouth. You're the king of exactness of language.

Go away DP, nothing to prove in this thread.

 

[station19]

Did you ever wonder?

Why is it that someone refers to 'non-revenue sports' people assume they are talking about women's sports?

Why are non-revenue sports now called Olympic Sports? Last time I checked basketball and hockey were Olympic sports.

 

[joshvanklomp]

For every men's non-revenue sports scholarship that is removed, one must be removed from the women's side as well. If you cut the men's sports down to football, basketball, and hockey, then the women would be left with basketball, hockey, and maybe swimming/diving or something similar. The rest of the sports (men's and women's) go bye-bye.

Okay, so the men's and women's basketball and men's and women's hockey probably line up in terms of scholarship funding, but football and swimming/diving are nowhere close to being the same.