NCAA Lost Unanimously

Donate To GopherHole
T

TruthSeeker

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
7,360
Reaction score
3,931
Points
113
Good.

NIL is coming soon.

The NCAA is done. Their lies are dead.
 


Though today’s ruling is unquestionably good for the student athletes who end up benefitting, long term this will lead to higher costs to be competitive and NFL level pricing for the top teams to attempt to be competitive along with a large gap between the top and the middle or bottom.
It also will be bad for some student athletes as I believe long term there will be fewer opportunities for college athletes to gain athletic scholarships as some schools who can’t compete will simply leave the market.
 

A_Slab_of_Bacon said:
The NCAA is run by the schools who are members.

If you want to worry about who is responsible... look at the schools.
Click to expand...

And I would argue that the members have themselves to blame for allowing the NCAA to become the behemoth it has become. I think the big worry now is that if the NCAA falls apart, it will become a battle between conferences with each creating its own set of rules/regulations pertaining to student-athletes. My fear is this is going to turn into a lot more athlete and a lot less student.
 

50PoundHead said:
And I would argue that the members have themselves to blame for allowing the NCAA to become the behemoth it has become. I think the big worry now is that if the NCAA falls apart, it will become a battle between conferences with each creating its own set of rules/regulations pertaining to student-athletes. My fear is this is going to turn into a lot more athlete and a lot less student.
Click to expand...
Your fear? What year is it, 1921?
 




TruthSeeker said:
Your fear? What year is it, 1921?
Click to expand...
Fear is probably the wrong word. My guess is college athletics will become a semi-pro operation and everyone will have to make their own judgment on whether that's good or bad. The world's going to keep on spinning, so in the whole grand scheme, I'm not going to lose any sleep about it.
 

As I read this ruling, it wasn't the NLI ruling, but a ruling saying the NCAA can't restrict education benefits (providing computers, internships, even cash for good grades).
 



This creates so many questions, and I have no idea who is supposed to come up with the answers.

I think one of the biggest cans of worms will involve recruiting.

Let's say recruit X visits School Y. someone - a coach or a booster - tells recruit X that if he chooses School Y, they will guarantee him $$$ in NIL income. Then recruit X goes to school Z, tells them about the previous offer, and they promise to up the ante.

Who regulates that? and who determines whether schools are playing games with NIL. Let's say recruit X goes to school Y, and a local booster agrees to pay the recruit a ridiculous amount of money to show up at a car lot and sign posters for fans. Is there a limit on NIL income?
Does someone have to police this so schools can't funnel under-the-table money to recruits through bogus NIL deals - the new version of the old 'no-show' jobs that players used to get.

who determines what constitutes an acceptable amount of NIL income - say a market rate for commercials, posters, shirts, etc?

Without some regulation, the school with the richest boosters will have an unfair recruiting advantage.
 

short ornery norwegian said:
This creates so many questions, and I have no idea who is supposed to come up with the answers.

I think one of the biggest cans of worms will involve recruiting.

Let's say recruit X visits School Y. someone - a coach or a booster - tells recruit X that if he chooses School Y, they will guarantee him $$$ in NIL income. Then recruit X goes to school Z, tells them about the previous offer, and they promise to up the ante.

Who regulates that? and who determines whether schools are playing games with NIL. Let's say recruit X goes to school Y, and a local booster agrees to pay the recruit a ridiculous amount of money to show up at a car lot and sign posters for fans. Is there a limit on NIL income?
Does someone have to police this so schools can't funnel under-the-table money to recruits through bogus NIL deals - the new version of the old 'no-show' jobs that players used to get.

who determines what constitutes an acceptable amount of NIL income - say a market rate for commercials, posters, shirts, etc?

Without some regulation, the school with the richest boosters will have an unfair recruiting advantage.
Click to expand...
I agree one million percent. I think the answer will be seen by the drop in viewership because the landscape is no longer competitive.
 

This is just the beginning of the end. Already getting hosed up with the transfer portal thing which is out of hand. None of this will be regulated and the money will rule the league. SON is spot on.
 

gopherjay said:
This is just the beginning of the end. Already getting hosed up with the transfer portal thing which is out of hand. None of this will be regulated and the money will rule the league. SON is spot on.
Click to expand...
How is money ruling any different than the last 30 years?
 




TruthSeeker said:
You're all capitalists until your socialism is taken away.
Click to expand...
I for one am completely consistant in my views that I think there are a lot of things that should apply to everyone / thing that i say they should ... except when I don't like what happens...
 

gopherjay said:
This is just the beginning of the end. Already getting hosed up with the transfer portal thing which is out of hand. None of this will be regulated and the money will rule the league. SON is spot on.
Click to expand...
Brings corruption and uncertainty to a whole new level out in the open with the backing of the courts. The rich programs are only going to get richer.

Every school for itself. Every player for himself. What's in it for me? Me, me, me! Not for all members of the team. The superstars will cash in. Most of the team won't get much NIL, nada.

It's not just the schools or conferences.

All the long term TV/Streaming sports contracts with the conferences, etc... are opening up a whole new level of uncertainties. Potentially, some of the major media players providing sports programming access can get screwed especially if that media conglomerate that was talked about buying up all the rights become reality. People moved away from cable to avoid paying for packages they don't want in order to get the sports programming that they want. Youtube, Hulu, Sling subscribers, etc... can wake up one morning feeling screwed. What happens to all the long term contracts already signed with the likes of BTN?
 
Last edited:

Ski U Mah Gopher said:
As I read this ruling, it wasn't the NLI ruling, but a ruling saying the NCAA can't restrict education benefits (providing computers, internships, even cash for good grades).
Click to expand...

Pretty much:

www.scotusblog.com

In unanimous ruling, Court agrees with athletes that NCAA violated antitrust laws - SCOTUSblog

The Supreme Court on Monday upheld a major shift in the relationship between universities and the athletes who play sports for those schools. In an opinion by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the justices unanimously affirmed a lower-court decision holding that the NCAA, the umbrella group that regulates colle
www.scotusblog.com www.scotusblog.com

Monday’s decision in NCAA v. Alston ended a dispute that began seven years ago as a class action filed against the NCAA and the major athletic conferences by the athletes who play Division I football and basketball. The athletes contended in their complaint that the NCAA’s restrictions on eligibility and compensation violate federal antitrust laws by barring the athletes from receiving fair-market compensation for their labor. A federal district court in California agreed in part: It ruled that the NCAA could restrict benefits that are unrelated to education (such as cash salaries), but it barred the NCAA from limiting education-related benefits. After the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld that decision, the NCAA and the athletic conferences went to the Supreme Court, which late last year agreed to take up the case.

In a 35-page decision, Gorsuch rejected the NCAA’s argument that the trial court’s ruling would “micromanage” the organization’s business. The district court, Gorsuch explained, only barred the NCAA from imposing restraints on benefits related to education. And it did so, Gorsuch added, only after concluding that “relaxing these restrictions would not blur the distinction between college and professional sports and thus impair demand for college sports” – a cornerstone of the NCAA’s argument. Moreover, Gorsuch noted, the district court gave the NCAA “considerable leeway” in deciding how to define what constitutes an education-related benefit.

In his final paragraph, Gorsuch outlined the dilemma facing the court. Some people may think that the district court should have gone further, he suggested, while “others will think the district court went too far by undervaluing the social benefits associated with amateur athletics.” But in the end, Gorsuch emphasized, the Supreme Court agreed with the 9th Circuit that although “[t]he national debate about amateurism in college sports is important,” it is not the Supreme Court’s job to resolve it. Instead, Gorsuch observed, the court’s job is to determine whether the district court properly applied principles of antitrust law to this dispute – which, Gorsuch concluded, it did
Click to expand...
 

Some guy said:
Though today’s ruling is unquestionably good for the student athletes who end up benefitting, long term this will lead to higher costs to be competitive and NFL level pricing for the top teams to attempt to be competitive along with a large gap between the top and the middle or bottom.
It also will be bad for some student athletes as I believe long term there will be fewer opportunities for college athletes to gain athletic scholarships as some schools who can’t compete will simply leave the market.
Click to expand...
I think student athletes (overall) will find this a "careful what you wish for" moment.
 

Time for Gopherhole to start sponsoring athletes.

Could be good for the Gophers, compare MSP promotion/advertising dollars to every other major college team. I think we could come out favorably, but it comes down to fans showing local companies that it matters.

I would much rather spend my time watching competitive Gopher football and basketball than the Vikings and Twolves, no question.
 

The benefits that schools can now provide are all related to education such as computers.
I fail to see how the sky is falling.
Th cheers will continue to cheat by offering parents jobs, money etc.
That will not change until the NCAA changes.
We will see what happens to the overtly crooked BB programs.
 

Plato said:
The benefits that schools can now provide are all related to education such as computers.
I fail to see how the sky is falling.
Th cheers will continue to cheat by offering parents jobs, money etc.
That will not change until the NCAA changes.
We will see what happens to the overtly crooked BB programs.
Click to expand...
I guess if that is the case, then yes the sky isn't falling. maybe there is something that can be done for non-prefered walk ons too.
 

Plato said:
The benefits that schools can now provide are all related to education such as computers.
I fail to see how the sky is falling.
Th cheers will continue to cheat by offering parents jobs, money etc.
That will not change until the NCAA changes.
We will see what happens to the overtly crooked BB programs.
Click to expand...
The way they went about writing opinions for the case is more consequential than the case itself
 

Some guy said:
Actually in 1921 they were probably less student athletes than they were today.
People would bring in 24 year old ringers to play for their “college” teams
Click to expand...

Agreed. I thought Dave Revsine's book The Opening Kickoff did a nice job laying out how early college football was the wild west of university marketing $$$.
 

Read what Kavanaugh said. That's what has Enmert wide awake tonight.
 



It appears the court only addressed education-related reimbursement/compensation, NOT broader NLI or salaries, pay for play, unionization. This seems like a victory for the NCAA being spun as a victory for the athletes. However, the NCAA is busy disembowling itself so there is still much drama ahead.

I thought more was coming down, TBH. This decision was implied to be regarding student athlete compensation related to NLI
and antitrust. Kavanaugh wrote an opinion regarding the antitrust carve out the NCAA and schools enjoy which was a bit over the top but addressed the issue vastly more people are interested in which is turning college athletics into a professional league. That issue was not addressed.

The NLI rules a few handfuls of states have enacted go into effect July 1. There is NO national rule AFAIK. The NCAA wants a watered down NLI version. This is really a pregnant or not pregnant situation. Once the NCAA gives an inch on NLI it’s pretty much over IMO. Their argument collapses. And so it goes. I’ll be whistling past the graveyard.
 


Kavanaugh’s opinion from the ruling. In short, pigs get fat hogs get slaughtered. He is encouraging future and broader litigation. The NCAA member schools and conferences could have long ago enacted a sensible revenue redistribution plan to the general fund and scholarships, enacted athletic department staff salary cap rather than absurd coaching and athletic department salaries, bloated admin departments, and garish, wasteful facilities built by the highest bidder. Sad.




JUSTICE KAVANAUGH, concurring.
The NCAA has long restricted the compensation and ben- efits that student athletes may receive. And with surpris- ing success, the NCAA has long shielded its compensation rules from ordinary antitrust scrutiny. Today, however, the Court holds that the NCAA has violated the antitrust laws. The Court’s decision marks an important and overdue course correction, and I join the Court’s excellent opinion in full.
But this case involves only a narrow subset of the NCAA’s compensation rules—namely, the rules restricting the education-related benefits that student athletes may re- ceive, such as post-eligibility scholarships at graduate or vocational schools. The rest of the NCAA’s compensation rules are not at issue here and therefore remain on the books. Those remaining compensation rules generally re-

2 NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSN. v. ALSTON KAVANAUGH, J., concurring

-strict student athletes from receiving compensation or ben- efits from their colleges for playing sports. And those rules have also historically restricted student athletes from re- ceiving money from endorsement deals and the like.
I add this concurring opinion to underscore that the NCAA’s remaining compensation rules also raise serious questions under the antitrust laws. Three points warrant emphasis.
First, the Court does not address the legality of the NCAA’s remaining compensation rules. As the Court says, “the student-athletes do not renew their across-the-board challenge to the NCAA’s compensation restrictions. Accordingly, we do not pass on the rules that remain in place or the district court’s judgment upholding them. Our review is confined to those restrictions now enjoined.” Ante, at 14.
Second, although the Court does not weigh in on the ultimate legality of the NCAA’s remaining compensation rules, the Court’s decision establishes how any such rules should be analyzed going forward. After today’s decision, the NCAA’s remaining compensation rules should receive ordi- nary “rule of reason” scrutiny under the antitrust laws. The Court makes clear that the decades-old “stray comments” about college sports and amateurism made in National Col- legiate Athletic Assn. v. Board of Regents of Univ. of Okla., 468 U. S. 85 (1984), were dicta and have no bearing on whether the NCAA’s current compensation rules are law- ful. Ante, at 21. And the Court stresses that the NCAA is not otherwise entitled to an exemption from the antitrust laws. Ante, at 23–24; see also Radovich v. National Foot- ball League, 352 U. S. 445, 449–452 (1957). As a result, ab- sent legislation or a negotiated agreement between the NCAA and the student athletes, the NCAA’s remaining compensation rules should be subject to ordinary rule of reason scrutiny. See ante, at 18–19.
Third, there are serious questions whether the NCAA’s

Cite as: 594 U. S. ____ (2021) 3
KAVANAUGH, J., concurring
remaining compensation rules can pass muster under ordi- nary rule of reason scrutiny. Under the rule of reason, the NCAA must supply a legally valid procompetitive justifica- tion for its remaining compensation rules. As I see it, how- ever, the NCAA may lack such a justification.
The NCAA acknowledges that it controls the market for college athletes. The NCAA concedes that its compensation rules set the price of student athlete labor at a below-mar- ket rate. And the NCAA recognizes that student athletes currently have no meaningful ability to negotiate with the NCAA over the compensation rules.
The NCAA nonetheless asserts that its compensation rules are procompetitive because those rules help define the product of college sports. Specifically, the NCAA says that colleges may decline to pay student athletes because the de- fining feature of college sports, according to the NCAA, is that the student athletes are not paid.
In my view, that argument is circular and unpersuasive. The NCAA couches its arguments for not paying student athletes in innocuous labels. But the labels cannot disguise the reality: The NCAA’s business model would be flatly il- legal in almost any other industry in America. All of the restaurants in a region cannot come together to cut cooks’ wages on the theory that “customers prefer” to eat food from low-paid cooks. Law firms cannot conspire to cabin lawyers’ salaries in the name of providing legal services out of a “love of the law.” Hospitals cannot agree to cap nurses’ income in order to create a “purer” form of helping the sick. News organizations cannot join forces to curtail pay to reporters to preserve a “tradition” of public-minded journalism. Movie studios cannot collude to slash benefits to camera crews to kindle a “spirit of amateurism” in Hollywood.
Price-fixing labor is price-fixing labor. And price-fixing labor is ordinarily a textbook antitrust problem because it extinguishes the free market in which individuals can oth- erwise obtain fair compensation for their work. See, e.g.,

4 NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSN. v. ALSTON KAVANAUGH, J., concurring
Texaco Inc. v. Dagher, 547 U. S. 1, 5 (2006). Businesses like the NCAA cannot avoid the consequences of price-fixing la- bor by incorporating price-fixed labor into the definition of the product. Or to put it in more doctrinal terms, a monop- sony cannot launder its price-fixing of labor by calling it product definition.
The bottom line is that the NCAA and its member col- leges are suppressing the pay of student athletes who col- lectively generate billions of dollars in revenues for colleges every year. Those enormous sums of money flow to seem- ingly everyone except the student athletes. College presi- dents, athletic directors, coaches, conference commission- ers, and NCAA executives take in six- and seven-figure salaries. Colleges build lavish new facilities. But the stu- dent athletes who generate the revenues, many of whom are African American and from lower-income backgrounds, end up with little or nothing. See Brief for African Ameri- can Antitrust Lawyers as Amici Curiae 13–17.
Everyone agrees that the NCAA can require student ath- letes to be enrolled students in good standing. But the NCAA’s business model of using unpaid student athletes to generate billions of dollars in revenue for the colleges raises serious questions under the antitrust laws. In particular, it is highly questionable whether the NCAA and its member colleges can justify not paying student athletes a fair share of the revenues on the circular theory that the defining characteristic of college sports is that the colleges do not pay student athletes. And if that asserted justification is una- vailing, it is not clear how the NCAA can legally defend its remaining compensation rules.
If it turns out that some or all of the NCAA’s remaining compensation rules violate the antitrust laws, some diffi- cult policy and practical questions would undoubtedly en- sue. Among them: How would paying greater compensation to student athletes affect non-revenue-raising sports? Could student athletes in some sports but not others receive

Cite as: 594 U. S. ____ (2021) 5
KAVANAUGH, J., concurring
compensation? How would any compensation regime com- ply with Title IX? If paying student athletes requires some- thing like a salary cap in some sports in order to preserve competitive balance, how would that cap be administered? And given that there are now about 180,000 Division I stu- dent athletes, what is a financially sustainable way of fairly compensating some or all of those student athletes?
Of course, those difficult questions could be resolved in ways other than litigation. Legislation would be one option. Or colleges and student athletes could potentially engage in collective bargaining (or seek some other negotiated agree- ment) to provide student athletes a fairer share of the rev- enues that they generate for their colleges, akin to how pro- fessional football and basketball players have negotiated for a share of league revenues. Cf. Brown v. Pro Football, Inc., 518 U. S. 231, 235–237 (1996); Wood v. National Bas- ketball Assn., 809 F. 2d 954, 958–963 (CA2 1987) (R. Win- ter, J.). Regardless of how those issues ultimately would be resolved, however, the NCAA’s current compensation re- gime raises serious questions under the antitrust laws.
To be sure, the NCAA and its member colleges maintain important traditions that have become part of the fabric of America—game days in Tuscaloosa and South Bend; the packed gyms in Storrs and Durham; the women’s and men’s lacrosse championships on Memorial Day weekend; track and field meets in Eugene; the spring softball and baseball World Series in Oklahoma City and Omaha; the list goes on. But those traditions alone cannot justify the NCAA’s decision to build a massive money-raising enterprise on the backs of student athletes who are not fairly compensated. Nowhere else in America can businesses get away with agreeing not to pay their workers a fair market rate on the theory that their product is defined by not paying their workers a fair market rate. And under ordinary principles of antitrust law, it is not evident why college sports should be any different. The NCAA is not above the law.
 

People act like this is the NCAA restricting what schools can do so that it can make more money. It’s not. It’s the schools agreeing to empower the NCAA to make and enforce rules that prevent one another from from spending more on revenue generating sports.

The result of this will be fewer non-revenue men’s sports. The elimination of these program will continue, as schools scramble to create increasingly attractive “educational support incentives” for its athletes in revenue-producing sports.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom