I don't think it's any more simplistic than saying, "But Title IX says we have to pay female athletes too!" Title IX doesn't require that programs are equally funded.

Let's say you work for a company with $10.8bn in revenue and 420,000 employees. When it comes to figuring out salaries, do you really think the company just divides 10,800,000,000 / 420,000 and says "OK, give every person $25k each"?

I don't mean to be rude, but, I wonder why people's brains (not yours; people in general) turn to mush when the concept of paying students to play comes up.

Not sure if troll, but: the money would come from where it comes from now. The NCAA gives revenue to schools, and schools generate revenue themselves. That can be redirected to students that deserve* it, and stop things like the gold-plating of infrastructure (e.g., Oregon football facilities).

I really don't see how Title IX is even a factor in paying college athletes or not. Where does the "You would have to pay the women in equal parts" notion actually come from? Title IX doesn't say that male and female programs have to be identical, just that you can't exclude access to programs based on gender.

That may be true, Mister, but money is fungible and government money particularly so. If you don't have to spend $10m out of one fund, you can easily transfer it to some place where you can spend it.

I never really cared for Mark Cuban until I saw this. Thanks for posting.

Rod, the documentary you're talking about is "Schooled: the Price of College Sports". http://www.imdb.com/title/tt305771…