New Executive Order on College Sports

Donate To GopherHole
Full Speed Ahead said:
As you just posted yesterday, "we shall see my friend. I would bet more than one school spends 100M Plus on a roster in the next few years."

There are very few schools that could compete in that scenario.
Click to expand...
I agree. I was replying to the fact that you said that underdog teams had chances beforeand now only the helmet schools could win. Get a booster and you can win simple as that.
 

Also for all the "this is illegal" folks, note that Trump's 2025 EO on “Saving College Sports” (focused primarily on protecting women's sports and the transgender issue) has yet to be even challenged in court. The 2026 EO has a very similar structure, where schools can choose what they want to do.
 


Full Speed Ahead said:
Also for all the "this is illegal" folks, note that Trump's 2025 EO on “Saving College Sports” (focused primarily on protecting women's sports and the transgender issue) has yet to be even challenged in court. The 2026 EO has a very similar structure, where schools can choose what they want to do.
Click to expand...

Student athletes have already won several court cases that are in direct odds with this EO. So any schools trying to navigate student athlete rights while also maintaining compliance with this EO will constantly be on the wrong side of one or the other. It's utter nonsense.
 

Full Speed Ahead said:
Also for all the "this is illegal" folks, note that Trump's 2025 EO on “Saving College Sports” (focused primarily on protecting women's sports and the transgender issue) has yet to be even challenged in court. The 2026 EO has a very similar structure, where schools can choose what they want to do.
Click to expand...
The scale of this Executive Order is much greater than that on the transgender issue. Dicussions of legality and constitutionality are moot at this point because we will have to see how it plays out in terms of who abides by the order.

What I find odd in some sense is that the conferences and the NCAA are on board with changes they could have implemented by themselves a decade ago when athletes were coming forward with reasonable requests that the system that was in place then prohibited. The NCAA resisted any changes, wound up in court, and suffered a string of losses that changed the landscape to what we see today. There may be a momentary statis, but in the end I think the current paradigm (or something even more open-ended) will prevail.
 


Trump won the transgender issue and will win on this. As he has stated these athletes are getting thousands of dollars in scholarships. (At Mn 50,000 per year). How much more do they need for playing 13 games and practicing 30 weeks?
 

Why are you so concerned about the “student athlete” rights? Who cares. They are getting a scholarship, college bills paid, tutors when needed, a living stipend, everything a college student needs to survive for 4/5 years. What else do they need? Their job is to represent the University is the best possible light. Who cares if the University prospers from their play.? Same as my employer prospers with my employment. Thank you President Trump. You just saved college athletics as we (use to) know it.
 

Jack jones said:
Trump won the transgender issue and will win on this. As he has stated these athletes are getting thousands of dollars in scholarships. (At Mn 50,000 per year). How much more do they need for playing 13 games and practicing 30 weeks?
Click to expand...

A boatload more than 50,000 when their coaches are getting paid high 7 figures and a few into 8. Even Coordinators are getting multi-million annual salaries.
 




Jack jones said:
Why are you so concerned about the “student athlete” rights? Who cares. They are getting a scholarship, college bills paid, tutors when needed, a living stipend, everything a college student needs to survive for 4/5 years. What else do they need? Their job is to represent the University is the best possible light. Who cares if the University prospers from their play.? Same as my employer prospers with my employment. Thank you President Trump. You just saved college athletics as we (use to) know it.
Click to expand...
TDS. Yuuuge TDS.
 



Unregistered User said:
So what part of the executive branch is the NCAA? Because otherwise this literally means nothing

Also, wtf is this


What part of "all college sports" wouldn't have included women's and Olympic sports? Everything about this is so fucking stupid.
Click to expand...
I'm sure you already know that the NCAA is not a government organization, and yet it creates rules to order its members to be in compliance with government regulations and laws like Title IX.

I'm not seeing any issue here.
 



upnorthkid said:
Agree saying the rich get richer should be changed to include those who are willing to pay a premium for success.
Click to expand...
Any school is willing to spend the money of a rich booster who suddenly decides he would like to set his money on fire.
 

stocker08 said:
Student athletes have already won several court cases that are in direct odds with this EO. So any schools trying to navigate student athlete rights while also maintaining compliance with this EO will constantly be on the wrong side of one or the other. It's utter nonsense.
Click to expand...
Bold does not seem correct.

NCAA has won several court cases over eligibility recently.
 

stocker08 said:
I think it's useful for sports board only posters to get a feeling for whose opinion they can ignore going forward.
Click to expand...
Hopefully people remain open minded and not feeling like they have the right to ignore anyone's opinion. Rather, they can thoughtfully consider all sides and then decide for themselves.
 

upnorthkid said:
they made their own mess and continue to just escalate the payments. No one is making you pay Darian Mensah (supposedly) $10 million to use his likeness (lol) at Miami or 4mil/year at Duke. But that being said, the ACC decided they don't revenue share for the CFP so Miami made $32million in bonuses last year so they I'm sure are finding ways to make the money work.

It's comical for anyone to think you could just throw in an EO and say no you can't transfer anymore. Only way is to make them employees with contracts that are bound, buyouts, etc. Pretty clear a guy like Mensah could say he's being forced to give up $6mil/year and that's an irreparable harm to him.

The schools/conferences can choose to make terms to things. Trying to make one-sided moves from executive orders is never going to work out or hold up and the only ones making money there are going to be the lawyers who get to go make an layup case in court as to why its unconstitutional now that the cat is out of the bag in calling this amateur sports
Click to expand...

Wow, that’s big. If some schools are going to unilaterally force everyone else in the conference to eat scraps I’d say that’s equally if not more of a problem for Olympic sports than the employee athletes getting their fair share. Once that gets traction it’s a slippery slope. I didn’t see that directly addressed in the summary.

As a small government crusader /s the EO seems surprising? The efforts so far mainly seem focused on eg squashing the labor market while facilitating private investment to purportedly grow revenue. Any talk of similar department, coaching staff salary caps, to “save college sports”? Restrictions on media rights contracts to “save cable subscribers” from rapacious media conglomerates? Wait, what?
 

Full Speed Ahead said:
Also for all the "this is illegal" folks, note that Trump's 2025 EO on “Saving College Sports” (focused primarily on protecting women's sports and the transgender issue) has yet to be even challenged in court. The 2026 EO has a very similar structure, where schools can choose what they want to do.
Click to expand...
You can’t challenge until you have standing to challenge. So until someone doesn’t have eligibility there isn’t much to challenge
 




Pompous Elitist said:
Wow, that’s big. If some schools are going to unilaterally force everyone else in the conference to eat scraps I’d say that’s equally if not more of a problem for Olympic sports than the employee athletes getting their fair share. Once that gets traction it’s a slippery slope. I didn’t see that directly addressed in the summary.

As a small government crusader /s the EO seems surprising? The efforts so far mainly seem focused on eg squashing the labor market while facilitating private investment to purportedly grow revenue. Any talk of similar department, coaching staff salary caps, to “save college sports”? Restrictions on media rights contracts to “save cable subscribers” from rapacious media conglomerates? Wait, what?
Click to expand...
Easy comrade, those are dangerous words
 

Pompous Elitist said:
Source: your imagination
Click to expand...
Yahoo Sports back in Feb: "The NCAA has won roughly 70% of the lawsuits brought against it challenging eligibility rulings."

And then they won on Charles Bediako in Alabama no less.

And they just won on Virginia QB Chandler Morris.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
Wow, that’s big. If some schools are going to unilaterally force everyone else in the conference to eat scraps I’d say that’s equally if not more of a problem for Olympic sports than the employee athletes getting their fair share. Once that gets traction it’s a slippery slope. I didn’t see that directly addressed in the summary.

As a small government crusader /s the EO seems surprising? The efforts so far mainly seem focused on eg squashing the labor market while facilitating private investment to purportedly grow revenue. Any talk of similar department, coaching staff salary caps, to “save college sports”? Restrictions on media rights contracts to “save cable subscribers” from rapacious media conglomerates? Wait, what?
Click to expand...
The number of athletes far outweights the number of coaches. I'm sure you're smart enough to do that math to understand overpaying some coaches poses almost no risk to the sport whereas having to overpay every player would end it.

Pay TV subscribers can and do simply drop their subscription they they don't agree about the price. YouTubeTV has started offering sports and non-sports focused subscription options, as an example.
 

GopherGrit said:
The number of athletes far outweights the number of coaches. I'm sure you're smart enough to do that math to understand overpaying some coaches poses almost no risk to the sport whereas having to overpay every player would end it.

Pay TV subscribers can and do simply drop their subscription they they don't agree about the price. YouTubeTV has started offering sports and non-sports focused subscription options, as an example.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a similar argument to: we can pay the executives tens of millions of dollars......but paying the employees fair compensation? NO!!!!

Furthermore.....the schools have little say in what student athletes can receive through NIL. That's the basic issue here. Telling the athletes that the school and the NCAA can profit off their NIL.....but the student themselves cannot......will never fly in the courts.
 

GopherGrit said:
The number of athletes far outweights the number of coaches. I'm sure you're smart enough to do that math to understand overpaying some coaches poses almost no risk to the sport whereas having to overpay every player would end it.

Pay TV subscribers can and do simply drop their subscription they they don't agree about the price. YouTubeTV has started offering sports and non-sports focused subscription options, as an example.
Click to expand...
As far as I'm aware, no one is forcing any of the schools (or NIL collectives) to pay any of these prices

they chose to opt in to the rev sharing. they chose to have each sport. they chose how much they want to pay their coaches. Is having college sports across national conferences a right? Or could we go back to playing regional contests as amateurs? No one is stopping them from doing this, but they really like TV money and making big salaries as well
 


I’m know for a fact that if joe biden did this the demonrats would find no fault is this EO. Either way it make no difference to me.
 


GopherGrit said:
Bold does not seem correct.

NCAA has won several court cases over eligibility recently.
Click to expand...
There may be some, but the only one I recall is the Alabama baseketball player who had been a professional in the US being denied further college eligibility.

The Pavia case is still the precedence that is causing problems and has been and likely will be the standard most athletes' will use in their quest for further eligibility. That was a bad ruling.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom