Collectives aren't government affiliated. They have no obligation to pay any attention to Title IX.
Iowa/Swarm Split?
- Thread starter CoKane
- Start date
They might sue but they won't win. It would be like me sueing you because you have a nicer car , house etc.... than me.
I understand that.
Im saying the affiliation with a school/relationship (and I'm not expert, just thinking out loud). Like I get that a donor can say "this is for the wrestling program" and not have to give to a female sport.
I'm just saying I could see if these collectives get more tied to schools, expectations could be applied (right or wrong).
Iowa lost a major Title IX lawsuit just a little over a year ago. Not surprising they would want to keep anything with the potential for compounding that at arms length. I'm sure they aren't off the radar of the Office of Civil Rights just yet, so it's important for them to go above and beyond managing perceptions inside the athletics department. I'm sure their collective will chug along just fine.
He asked for suggestions. I'd suggest that he adopt the **** Iowa mentality.
Problem solved.
If Swarm explicitly won't provide funding to athletes in non-rev sports, TOE has to distance themselves from them.
Ok so I did a pretty poor job there, but in my post I wasn't talking about you, I was talking about the guy running the Iowa NIL. He's the one I was referring to as letting his fandom basically ruin his daily life, he's the one I was suggesting go play with his kids. Not you. Again, my fault as I can see how it looks like it's directed at you, but it wasn't.
My post wasn't meant to be directed at the OP, but the NIL dude.
That's doesn't make sense.
If I want to hire an athlete to endorse my business (even if I never actually have them endorse it and just pay them) there is nothing that requires me to give the same opportunity to a FB player and a tennis palyer.
This notion that Collectives are an extension of the University is a stretch.
I can't wait for Hawk fans to spin this as them doing something right that everyone else is doing wrong. They'll find a way to be the tragic hero, they always do.
I think there is more to the story. This is an easy cop out.
I don’t think it’s a problem as long as the collective is separate from the university. But, I think it’s clear here, that the Iowa collective wants cooperation/“partnership” with the Iowa athletic dept, and by extension the university. That is where Title IX could come into play
Correct....but if you do that outside of a collective, you can. But recently schools can be associated with a collective.
Just saying when there is an affiliation with a school I could see these things getting regulated.
Now, nothing stops a collective from not being associated...but probably loses some access/credibility needed for the connection to athletes.
According to their website, no. If there is a legit NIL opportunity for an athlete from a non rev sport, it is my understanding that WWC will help support that opportunity if required.
My point in my previous post was that if the Swarm will refuse to fund legit NIL opportunities for TOE's non-rev athletes, then it is entirely understandable that the TOE AD will distance themselves from Swarm.
Wouldn't these collectives be considered "boosters" of the program? If so, then they would be treated like any other booster, and have to follow the rules of the NCAA, and are considered part of the program.
Right now, the NCAA has decided to stick their head in the sand and do nothing, but sooner than later, someone is going to have to set up rules about this whole NIL deal, and the sooner the better.
You're missing the point. Any NCAA AD under Title IX oversight like TOE's cannot affiliate with any collective (not individual businesses) that refuses to fund NIL opportunities for non rev athletes.
.....and that is why the NCAA hired a politician to replace Mark Emmert. The NCAA, without subpoena power, is powerless to enforce NIL. The goal of the new NCAA Prez is to lobby for Federal and uniform NIL legislation as originally intended (i.e. no pay for play) that is enforceable by the Feds.