Title IX - meaning that's what would get in the way of pay for play?
I never said the power conferences going off outside the purview of the NCAA would be some solution, I think its just gets us going down the road to what should ultimately be more of a "minor league" so to speak (not that teams assign players, but that these guys make some cash for what is really an entertainment industry). Maybe in the end they don't get much cash considering the tuition, etc. is a hefty price tag. Long term, I just think moving this toward more of a formalized labor relationship would help, not allowing the NCAA to hide behind the guise of amateurism, etc. The current NCAA, although effectively run by Univ. Presidents is a bureaucratic nightmare that is at least in need of serious reform and just maybe some of these Presidents will want to ditch the effort all together. I'm speculating more than anything.
Also, I don't think Emmert is terrible because of the internal investigation going on. For all I know, Emmert inherited that culture or those were bad apples. I just don't find Emmert's "big changes" to the NCAA as all that "big", but maybe he can only stretch so far as the Presidents will let him.
Yes, Title IX gets in the way of pay for play the way you propose. You know Title IX is not just about providing an equal number of sports right? Nobody will ever get paid to play under your scenario. The topic of amateurism is nothing new, the debate has raged as long as we have played amateur sports in this country. There is no way to pay athletes in revenue sports and those sports retain amateur status. We already have pro football and basketball leagues in this country. Outside of the patent unfairness that a pay structure would bring about, the real pro leagues would crush any semi-pro type of league this would make. You forget that academic structures run college athletics and it has to remain that way for college athletics to be viable. If the University of Alabama football team became the Tuscaloosa Titans, they would lose popularity real quick. No university or governing body will allow this to happen. The current and long standing relationship between universities and their athletic department is comfortable for both parties and it works for everyone, it isn't changing.
As for Emmert, he has been much more transparent and open to reform than any of his predecessors. Some of the reforms thrown around are quite radical as well like athlete stipends (the only way a college athlete will ever be paid) and this stupid ass proposed cbb transfer rule.
I do realize that Title IX is not simply about equal numbers of sports and I cannot speak to legal precedent in this area so I'll take your word on that one.
What I was alluding to with the amateurism topic was that high school athletes should have a viable option to play professionally in this country whenever they have the talent to sell their labor. To be quite honest, I don't think universities and colleges should be allowed to give athletic scholarships at all. It undermines the academic mission of the institution. Do I think any of this will happen? Not in a million years, because as you say the parties are both comfortable with the arrangement.
But, could there be a way to retain the big time college football and men's hoops programs, while also paying players, and not giving them athletic scholarships? At a few institutions, athletic departments can pay for themselves, but in nearly every other case they cannot. Maybe if football and men's hoops just paid for themselves and organized outside of the constraints of amateur athletics? I dunno, but I think you may be surprised to find out that these teams would remain popular without having to become the Tuscaloosa Titans. I loved having Mike Beasley play for the Cats, but any somewhat objective view on the situation would conclude that considering him a "student" is a perversion
The other line of thinking that doesn't get into paying players or dealing with the amateurism tag, would be to hold coaches accountable for something other than just wins and losses. Put coaches through the same tenure review process that all full time college faculty go through. Make them accountable by other measures as well. Find better ways to limit the time they devote to the sport and actually police this. In other words, all of these informal requirements of players need to go if they are also pursuing a college degree. Otherwise, if these are only going to be prepping grounds for professional athletes they should be organized as such. Its a tough situation to deal with fairly considering there are many more athletes who get athletic scholarships and graduate college with zero chance at professional sports than those that go on to make millions. So, for them its worked, but why should limited scholarship monies go to athletic prowess? Especially considering the state of higher education funding across most of this country. We're talking federal and state funding of higher education having been considerably cut over the past 2 decades. Just speaking from experience, at a big state school I formerly worked for in the mid-90s about half of the budget came from the feds and state, today that figure is about 17%. These cuts weren't just about dealing with institutional inefficiencies (of which there are many), they were severe enough to really fundamentally change the way business gets done (meaning larger and larger classrooms, less tenured faculty, more part time teachers).
Anyways, I sense things coming to a head more so than they have in my life, its just interesting to discuss potential change but I sense that you think those changes will be rather minor - such as small stipends for players.
