Which makes sense until you start looking at what you mean

Which makes sense until you start looking at what you mean
by Steelhop (2019-05-15 13:47:39)

In reply to: Only way out of that .. posted by TWO

by that. Most people think that only means the revenue producing sports - football and men's basketball. But, as soon as you pay them, you also have to pay your scholarship non-revenue sport's players the same amount. This why about 5 years ago the NCAA was said they were thinking about it but ran the numbers. Just not going to happen.

I can get behind a likeness revenue type of model but, as someone said, the school should get a cut of whatever a player generates e.g. does the ND player wearing no 3 get someone to pay for his autograph because he is good or that number 3 is a big number in ND lore. My guess is that it is a little of both.

could a different governing board be created

I.e. football and basketball not part of the NCAA...hence skirt that issue

and title IX. They have to pay women an equal amount. *

They wouldn't pay them, they would drop the progrmas.

Revenue sports cover attempt to cover the non revenue sports. If they have to start paying the the players on the $$ producing sports, they won't take long to decide to drop the others

Schools would have men's fb and bb only

and enough women's sports to cover Title IX.

Bingo *

ND and other schools would maintain their licensing

agreements (I believe ND is separate and everyone else is through their conference and/or the NCAA but I might be wrong).

Therefore, if someone buys a #3 jersey so that Arnaz Battle (or whomever) might autograph it, ND gets the money from the sale of the jersey and AB would get the money from the autograph.