Started By
Message
Ed O'bannon/NCAA Case Ruling on Justification for Not Paying/Title IX
Posted on 5/13/14 at 4:03 pm
Posted on 5/13/14 at 4:03 pm
Very interesting ruling and probably one of the main justifications used
If they cant use that, looks like we might definitely have pay for play after all
LINK
quote:
That ruling concluded that the NCAA cannot justify limiting what athletes can potentially receive for playing college sports because paying certain college athletes (football and men’s basketball) would limit a school’s ability “to provide increased financial support for women’s sports and less prominent men’s sports.”
If they cant use that, looks like we might definitely have pay for play after all
LINK
This post was edited on 5/13/14 at 4:07 pm
Posted on 5/13/14 at 4:04 pm to NYCAuburn
Its true. If they start paying the players of money making sports, then they will prob have to shut down the non money making sports.
Do we want a football player making 50k at the expense of a female cross country runner?
Which one works harder?
Do we want a football player making 50k at the expense of a female cross country runner?
Which one works harder?
Posted on 5/13/14 at 4:11 pm to parkjas2001
quote:
Do we want a football player making 50k at the expense of a female cross country runner?
Yes parkjas yes, a thousand times yes!!!
Posted on 5/13/14 at 4:19 pm to parkjas2001
quote:Socialist
Do we want a football player making 50k at the expense of a female cross country runner? Which one works harder?
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News