[BostonCard]

Does Title IX have a revenue component...or is it just about scholarships and "opportunity"?

Yes, a good question.  Here's the NCAA's FAQ page on Title IX:

https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2014/1/27/ti...tions.aspx

This is probably the most relevant, and I'm sure will be the subject of litigation

Q. How is Title IX applied to athletics?

Athletics programs are considered educational programs and activities. There are three basic parts of Title IX as it applies to athletics:

Participation: Title IX requires that women and men be provided equitable opportunities to participate in sports. Title IX does not require institutions to offer identical sports but an equal opportunity to play;                         
Scholarships: Title IX requires that female and male student-athletes receive athletics scholarship dollars proportional to their participation; and                         
Other benefits: Title IX requires the equal treatment of female and male student-athletes in the provisions of: (a) equipment and supplies; (b) scheduling of games and practice times; © travel and daily allowance/per diem; (d) access to tutoring; (e) coaching, (f) locker rooms, practice and competitive facilities; (g) medical and training facilities and services; (h) housing and dining facilities and services; (i) publicity and promotions; (j) support services and (k) recruitment of student-athletes.

The question will be if "other benefits" includes payments from the schools.  I would think yes, but I'm guessing this will ultimately be decided in court.

Speaking of court cases, I came across this WSJ article (gifted):
https://www.wsj.com/sports/football/jade..._permalink

On Tuesday, Rashada sued the University of Florida’s head football coach, an administrator and a top donor in federal court, alleging they fraudulently induced him to abandon a lucrative offer from another program to sign with the Gators instead.

The lawsuit accuses prominent Florida booster Hugh Hathcock of conspiring with Gators coach Billy Napier and former director of player engagement Marcus Castro-Walker to entice Rashada with a payday they had no intention of fulfilling. As a result of those “fraudulent assurances” from Florida, Rashada lost the chance to pursue other opportunities.

I doubt this will be the last such case.

And, yes, 72lsju, I recognize that the subsidy is a small share of the whole university budget (and, in fact, the entirety of athletics spending doesn't even get broken out in Stanford's public financial disclosures).  It's still a lot of money, I would guess more than the budget of most university departments, and I still contend that it is not being used in a manner consistent with the University's mission.  Moreover, the settlement will make things worse.  Now, of course, a lot of expenditures probably could be categorized similarly, but I agree with Goose; it's one thing for athletics to be revenue neutral or to have a small budget deficit, but this is a bad use of University funds, IMHO.

BC

[BostonCard]

Does Title IX have a revenue component...or is it just about scholarships and "opportunity"?

Yes, a good question.  Here's the NCAA's FAQ page on Title IX:

https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2014/1/27/ti...tions.aspx

This is probably the most relevant, and I'm sure will be the subject of litigation

Q. How is Title IX applied to athletics?

Athletics programs are considered educational programs and activities. There are three basic parts of Title IX as it applies to athletics:

Participation: Title IX requires that women and men be provided equitable opportunities to participate in sports. Title IX does not require institutions to offer identical sports but an equal opportunity to play;                         
Scholarships: Title IX requires that female and male student-athletes receive athletics scholarship dollars proportional to their participation; and                         
Other benefits: Title IX requires the equal treatment of female and male student-athletes in the provisions of: (a) equipment and supplies; (b) scheduling of games and practice times; © travel and daily allowance/per diem; (d) access to tutoring; (e) coaching, (f) locker rooms, practice and competitive facilities; (g) medical and training facilities and services; (h) housing and dining facilities and services; (i) publicity and promotions; (j) support services and (k) recruitment of student-athletes.

The question will be if "other benefits" includes payments from the schools.  I would think yes, but I'm guessing this will ultimately be decided in court.

Speaking of court cases, I came across this WSJ article (gifted):
https://www.wsj.com/sports/football/jade..._permalink

On Tuesday, Rashada sued the University of Florida’s head football coach, an administrator and a top donor in federal court, alleging they fraudulently induced him to abandon a lucrative offer from another program to sign with the Gators instead.

The lawsuit accuses prominent Florida booster Hugh Hathcock of conspiring with Gators coach Billy Napier and former director of player engagement Marcus Castro-Walker to entice Rashada with a payday they had no intention of fulfilling. As a result of those “fraudulent assurances” from Florida, Rashada lost the chance to pursue other opportunities.

I doubt this will be the last such case.

And, yes, 72lsju, I recognize that the subsidy is a small share of the whole university budget (and, in fact, the entirety of athletics spending doesn't even get broken out in Stanford's public financial disclosures).  It's still a lot of money, I would guess more than the budget of most university departments, and I still contend that it is not being used in a manner consistent with the University's mission.  Moreover, the settlement will make things worse.  Now, of course, a lot of expenditures probably could be categorized similarly, but I agree with Goose; it's one thing for athletics to be revenue neutral or to have a small budget deficit, but this is a bad use of University funds, IMHO.

BC