No scholarship limits anymore! (NCAA Track and Field inequality is going to get way worse, right?)

Typically participation numbers is how most schools choose to show they are in compliance with Title IX. Even with those being within the allowable variance (I can't remember what they deem ok) scholarship dollars don't typically mimic that - simply because there isn't a women's sport with 85 scholarships. But yes - that requirement isn't going to change. It's why you'll likely see separate men and women's roster limits for XC and track.

Nothing NIL is required to meet Title IX requirements for the simple fact that - the private organizations doing it are not an educational institution receiving federal funds. That's what dictates if you are required to comply with Title IX.

So my understanding of at least part of the settlement is that each athlete is going to receive a portion of the settlement - and I would imagine it would be equal. I forget how far back it goes - maybe 2017-18? I'm not sure. Any NCAA athlete during those years until now would receive a piece. Now going forward - is the gray area. If you're revenue sharing (which is what it is) you'd share more with those who are generating more of it. Which being truthful is only football and men's basketball. I would think to try and not cause drama - you do it evenly. I mean does number 85 on your football roster deserve what your staring QB does? Of course he doesn't, but the level of entitlement these days - you just know there are those who will complain. Now does doing it that way run afoul of Title IX? I don't know. It's about resources and if you're providing equal resources to the genders I could argue this isn't a resource as much as an earned reward?

NIL, presuming it continues to be outside the athletic department (a contractual deal between businesses and student-athletes, without university control or coordination) would not meet any Title IX requirement. Correct, it would not meet Title IX nor would it need to.

Title IX is about equalizing opportunities the university provides - and that comes in two varieties: (1) # of Roster spots; and (2) Scholarship Funding (again, from the University, NOT NIL, etc...).

If (1) and (2) provide the same opportunity then Title IX is met. Anything outside the purview of university offerings does not need to meet Title IX thresholds.

And before someone adds - Title IX expects all support mechanisms to be fair as well (i.e. facility resources, access to academic support, gear, etc......).

Currently in grad school for sports management and we’re all predicting the ncaa is going to be done in the next 7-10 years. they went from screwing athletes to not wanting to get screwed by athletes. What a concept

You guys are deluded if you think our current collegiate system stays even 20% similar to how it functions now.

A kid with a VR set in the next year will be able to be tutored by Aristotle, walk around ancient civilizations, and be taught specifically to his or her needs. Useful stem will persist for a few more years—but for the most part, that's gone too. What then does college offer? Merely a hang-out club of the upper and upper-middle kids. This won't be enough.

And you guys are hung up on little things like athletic programs—this is all gone very soon.

Yeah, sounds like we are seeing this the same way, except I'd like your thought on this...

You wrote that scholarship dollars don't generally mimic participation numbers. That is 100% correct. Women still come up short. It is also correct that many institutions still do not quite make proportionality of participants (even within the allowance of +/- 5%), having slightly too few females.

With that in mind, do you see a "grand reset" on that? Meaning, as schools decide what to cut, what the roster caps will be, how many student-athletes to scholarship in each sport, and so on, do you think that an outcome will be a closed gap (women's participation numbers and scholarships will finally be in line with the % in the full-time undergrad population)?

I think that WILL be an outcome, but at the expense of men's Olympic sports.