ADVERTISEMENT

Zach Arnett

The fact its an analyst job not a DC gig suggests this might be a 'get tour s#!+ together opportunity' not him choosing a job over UNLV.

Definitely. It seems like analyst jobs are for up and coming young guys like a GA moves into the role before gettiing an assistant coach position, a retired former head coach (JRob at LSU), or a coach who got fired for doing something and has friends in the business (Sark at Alabama).

Zach Arnett

Him having to take an analyst job makes me think there's some smoke with what all the twitter burners put out on him.

All we know is whatever it was, he and UNLV seem like they wanted to distance themselves from it quickly.

The fact its an analyst job not a DC gig suggests this might be a 'get your s#!+ together opportunity' not him choosing a job over UNLV.

House Settlement Approved

On June 11, 2025, eight female athletes—Kacie Breeding (Vanderbilt), Lexi Drumm, Emma Appleman, Emmie Wannemacher, Riley Hass, Savannah Baron, Elizabeth Arnold (College of Charleston), and Kate Johnson (University of Virginia)—filed an appeal in a California federal court. They argue that the settlement's back-pay damages, which allocate approximately 90% of the $2.8 billion to football and men's basketball players, violate Title IX's requirement for equitable treatment based on sex. The appeal specifically targets the damages portion, not the revenue-sharing framework, and claims the distribution formula disproportionately favors male athletes, potentially shortchanging female athletes by around $1.1 billion. This legal action has paused the distribution of back-pay damages pending the appeal, though the revenue-sharing model is unaffected and set to proceed.
The lawsuit contends that Title IX, which mandates equal athletic opportunities and financial assistance for male and female athletes at federally funded institutions, applies to the settlement's damages because they are tied to athletic participation. The Biden U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights issued guidance on January 16, 2025, stating that NIL payments from schools qualify as "athletic financial assistance" under Title IX, requiring proportional distribution based on the number of male and female athletes. However, this guidance was rescinded by the Trump administration, creating uncertainty about enforcement. Legal experts, including Title IX attorney Arthur Bryant, argue that schools risk further lawsuits if they allocate revenue-sharing funds disproportionately, as many plan to direct 70-75% to football and men's basketball.
While the House settlement itself does not address Title IX compliance, leaving it to schools to determine equitable distribution, the appeal highlights ongoing tensions. The plaintiffs support a settlement but demand one that aligns with Title IX’s equity requirements. Additional lawsuits are anticipated as schools implement revenue-sharing plans, especially if they prioritize revenue-generating sports over equitable distribution.

Compiled for multiple AI searches.

House Settlement Approved

but forcing equal distribution is my main contention
But that's not what's happening really. And it's not what's ever happened historically with all the other Title IX enforcements. Currently, a rough average you'll see between men and women's spending is around 2-3:1. With this decision men's sports are getting 2.4 billion with a B and women's sports are getting 102 million with an M which is an order of magnitude difference (23.5:1). The minute that you approve this to give universities the ability to profit share, you open the door for at least a Title IX review and the way students are charged for funding given that something like 55% of tuitions are female means there's going to be some changes that are going to get tacked on to this deal.

Because I don't think it is "fair or equal"
I guess start your counter suit?
  • Like
Reactions: LVRebel2000

House Settlement Approved

I think more accurately it's about equity. Even under Title IX, men's programs receive far more funding per scholarship than women's sports, so it was never an equality thing, but we don't need to get lost in the semantic pedantry.

I think splitting by sport is a decent idea, but I also think that if you're having a struggling program you're now forcing athletic departments to make cruel decisions. UNLV football, for example, lost money for decades--under the by sport distribution you lose the flexibility to get money where you need to get it you can't distribute that money to the programs that need it, and all to avoid giving the ladies a couple extra bucks to distribute.
And I am OK with that too, but forcing equal distribution is my main contention. A. Because I don't think it is "fair or equal", and B. forcing revenue sharing to non revenue generating athletes will really hurt schools like UNLV.
  • Like
Reactions: LVRebel2000

House Settlement Approved

I thought the argument was equality, was it not?
I think more accurately it's about equity. Even under Title IX, men's programs receive far more funding per scholarship than women's sports, so it was never an equality thing, but we don't need to get lost in the semantic pedantry.

I think splitting by sport is a decent idea, but I also think that if you're having a struggling program you're now forcing athletic departments to make cruel decisions. UNLV football, for example, lost money for decades--under the by sport distribution you lose the flexibility to get money where you need to get it you can't distribute that money to the programs that need it, and all to avoid giving the ladies a couple extra bucks to distribute.
  • Like
Reactions: LVRebel2000

Zach Arnett

What really happened with this guy here?
Is this another “Bobby Petrino” type of thing where he just left for a P4 job or was there something more…

So was what was talked about here about him late night at Wendy’s or something like that not accurate?

No idea what happened but no way he quit his job as DC to be an analyst at FSU.

House Settlement Approved

I don't think that Title IX enforces equal funding, but it does enforce equal opportunity. Usually this is scholarships, but when the school is revenue sharing I'm pretty sure they have solid legal ground to stand on here. I'm not exactly what that means in dollars and cents, but I'd say they have a legitimate grievance looking for a slightly larger slice of the pie than 4%. I'd probably sue if I were them, too.

Even if the $EC and B1G split off from the NCAA like the rumors are stating is going to happen in the next 5 years, they'll still be subject to Title IX if they want federal money.
Like I said in another thread, If they want to challenge this, then we should change the rule that each sport gets revenue sharing for whatever their sport generates. I don't know how it is fair, legal or not, that any athlete feels entitled to money that they had zero impact on producing. I thought the argument was equality, was it not?
  • Like
Reactions: LVRebel2000
ADVERTISEMENT

Filter

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT