NCAA Lost Unanimously

Donate To GopherHole
Goldmember said:
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.
Click to expand...
And at many places, cutting non revenue men’s sports will be accompanied by cutting women’s sports as well
 

Goldmember said:
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.
Click to expand...

But I think you can have a body that enforces rules that does not resemble a bloated beached whale that pays its Executive Director $2.7 million per year. I guess that's my major problem with the NCAA.

Edit: Emmert's salary was reduced by 20% to $2.1 million per year during the pandemic.
 

It's clear some of you are too stupid to understand the bigger implications.

SCOTUS wants to end the NCAA. The case brought before them didn't provide them the opportunity to do it.

The case with the right facts will end the NCAA. Kavanaugh wants someone to hurry up and bring that case to finish them off.
 

Whatever one thinks of this decision, I believe TruthSeeker is right in that it appears Kavanaugh wants a bigger case on this matter to be brought before the court. How the court decides on a case with a larger scope may be different and we're likely going to find out in the next couple of years.
 

Uhhh ..... hang on there just a second professor.

The Supreme Court did not make a ruling on NLI.


This was a narrow ruling, on a narrow case, regarding if schools can provide money for computers, internships, etc.


For now, the NLI stuff is limited to a handful of states that have inacted laws starting this season.

It remains to be seen how schools may or may not take advantage of those new laws. If they're smart and risk averse, which they tend to be, they'll probably wait it out a bit, at least for this year.



“The question before the court was a fairly narrow one, and the court responded with a narrow ruling,” Alan said.
...
“To a certain extent, the Supreme Court ruling is a bit of a sideshow,” Alan told me. “The real change that’s going to affect most athletes playing now is coming a week from Thursday.”

That’s when at least six states — Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, New Mexico and Texas — will enact laws allowing college athletes to profit from their names, images and likenesses. A player could, for example, sign an endorsement deal, sell autographs or host a training camp.

Some universities worry that the patchwork rules will create unfair advantages in recruiting high school players, and many have pushed for nationwide standards. The N.C.A.A. agreed to modernize its endorsement rules in 2019, but has not yet produced its own plan. The group’s president asked Congress to help by creating federal regulations, but that effort has also stalled.
 


Kavanaugh raised the sticky questions of compensating college athletes or allowing market forces in - seems impossible to compensate equitably between rev and non-rev athletes, male and female. A rabbit hole that probably ends in endless litigation, soapbox legislative proposals, and many sport or program closures.
 

Maybe only a few sports should be varsity sports.

Nothing wrong with club sports in college, especially when you're likely not going pro anyway.
 

TruthSeeker said:
It's clear some of you are too stupid to understand the bigger implications.

SCOTUS wants to end the NCAA. The case brought before them didn't provide them the opportunity to do it.

The case with the right facts will end the NCAA. Kavanaugh wants someone to hurry up and bring that case to finish them off.
Click to expand...

You speak of this like it’s a good thing. The NCAA governorship model provides upward mobility for many tens of thousands. A free market model probably will not end well for many schools and student athletes. Is there some other governorship mechanism that allows student salaries and compensation of revenue generating athletes without endless bickering from non-rev athletes over equal pay for equal work, etc? I don’t see it.

The current teeth gnashing over the NCAA will convert to teeth gnashing over male athletes being paid far more than female athletes, unfairness of it all. Look at soccer, etc. It would be interesting to see the dynamic play out, if nothing else.
 

I want someone to correct me because I'm more ignorant on it, but why the point of the NLI laws by states? I thought that it's not illegal, law wise, for an athlete to accept benefits....they just become ineligible to participate. Are these state laws overriding that, saying that they can? Isn't that still, for the time, the NCAA's call?

Please educate me; I know nothing.
 



FireDaveLee said:
I want someone to correct me because I'm more ignorant on it, but why the point of the NLI laws by states? I thought that it's not illegal, law wise, for an athlete to accept benefits....they just become ineligible to participate. Are these state laws overriding that, saying that they can? Isn't that still, for the time, the NCAA's call?
Click to expand...
The laws essentially make it illegal in those states for the NCAA to make any such rules forbidding that. If the NCAA tries to punish those schools or athletes, the state can take them to court.

Just like, you can't make some voluntary organization that then deprives members of civil rights that are protected by law, under the argument of "well it's voluntary, if they don't like it they can just leave". That won't work, you'll lose in court.


Anyway, the NCAA can't "win" no matter what. Worst case, the P5 would just leave the NCAA and start their own association. I know that seems contrary to the argument immediately above, and it is somewhat. But that's like the "nuclear option", which would end the NCAA as an organization that "matters" in the public sphere. They'd be relegated to something like what the NAIA is now.

Neither side wants to do that. They'll work something out.


So why the laws in the first place? I don't know which state started it ... but once one of them did it, that potentially gave that state's schools an advantage, and I suspect the rest of them (so far) are trying to make sure the playing field stays level.
 

FireDaveLee said:
I want someone to correct me because I'm more ignorant on it, but why the point of the NLI laws by states? I thought that it's not illegal, law wise, for an athlete to accept benefits....they just become ineligible to participate. Are these state laws overriding that, saying that they can? Isn't that still, for the time, the NCAA's call?

Please educate me; I know nothing.
Click to expand...
There is no point to them. Just politicians picking low hanging fruit for political points (even though I’m not sure many are there)
 

The legislation has been introduced in Minnesota, but the bill has not been heard.
 

Agree that the primary significance of this ruling is the message that is being sent to the NCAA (and Congress if they elect to weigh in on these matters) rather than the scope of this particular decision. Under Kavanaugh's analysis comparing the student-athletes to employees in other fields, the current NCAA model can't survive the further challenges that will come. How can the NCAA enforce scholarship limits? How can NIL changes satisfy the concern that the players are unpaid or underpaid revenue generators? No one would tell a law office they can only hire 25 new associates each year or only have 85 lawyers on staff, so why shouldn't Alabama be able to have 90 or 200 scholarship athletes? Why should they be limited to 4 or 5 or 6 seasons of eligibility? Even if some of the students are able to generate "fair" compensation through outside sources, how could that excuse the schools from paying employee student-athletes?

What the Court doesn't have to solve in the first instance, but the schools and the legislative bodies will, is how does all of this impact the non-revenue sports? Do schools still have to adhere to the current Title IX standards? How is that reasonable? Wouldn't shifting to a strictly economic analysis model end up hurting the vast majority of student athletes? Should the schools. the states or Congress care?
 



Some guy said:
There is no point to them.
Click to expand...
Yep, makes sense. States go through the exercise of enact laws all the time that are just "on paper" and have zero power to do anything legally. 🙄
 

2nd Degree Gopher said:
How can the NCAA enforce scholarship limits? How can NIL changes satisfy the concern that the players are unpaid or underpaid revenue generators? No one would tell a law office they can only hire 25 new associates each year or only have 85 lawyers on staff, so why shouldn't Alabama be able to have 90 or 200 scholarship athletes? Why should they be limited to 4 or 5 or 6 seasons of eligibility? Even if some of the students are able to generate "fair" compensation through outside sources, how could that excuse the schools from paying employee student-athletes?
Click to expand...
Difficult questions, no doubt.

One answer might be like this: then how do you explain that the NFL limits each to team a 53 man roster? Yes, I know that the NFL is not college and that college teams need more players.

The point is, the NFL does enforce restrictions. And the reason is in order to make sure all 32 of its teams have a fair chance to be competitive. Because, it has decided that that is the best way to make the most money.

Well, a similar argument could be made for college teams. That limited to 85, and other types of limits, are simply "the best way to make the most money", because those are things that the fans care about.


2nd Degree Gopher said:
What the Court doesn't have to solve in the first instance, but the schools and the legislative bodies will, is how does all of this impact the non-revenue sports? Do schools still have to adhere to the current Title IX standards? How is that reasonable? Wouldn't shifting to a strictly economic analysis model end up hurting the vast majority of student athletes? Should the schools. the states or Congress care?
Click to expand...
Doesn't Title IX apply to, for example, the number of male vs female student staff it hires and the facilities/accommodations it has to make for them?
 

Pompous Elitist said:
You speak of this like it’s a good thing. The NCAA governorship model provides upward mobility for many tens of thousands. A free market model probably will not end well for many schools and student athletes. Is there some other governorship mechanism that allows student salaries and compensation of revenue generating athletes without endless bickering from non-rev athletes over equal pay for equal work, etc? I don’t see it.

The current teeth gnashing over the NCAA will convert to teeth gnashing over male athletes being paid far more than female athletes, unfairness of it all. Look at soccer, etc. It would be interesting to see the dynamic play out, if nothing else.
Click to expand...
Good!

Next, they should get rid of all sports drafts. Guys are leaving tens of millions on the table by being restrained.
 

MplsGopher said:
Difficult questions, no doubt.

One answer might be like this: then how do you explain that the NFL limits each to team a 53 man roster? Yes, I know that the NFL is not college and that college teams need more players.

The point is, the NFL does enforce restrictions. And the reason is in order to make sure all 32 of its teams have a fair chance to be competitive. Because, it has decided that that is the best way to make the most money.

Well, a similar argument could be made for college teams. That limited to 85, and other types of limits, are simply "the best way to make the most money", because those are things that the fans care about.
Click to expand...
The NFL has a collectively bargained union contract that governs the terms of employment. The NCAA does not. Instead, it has a set of rules that the member institutions have empowered it to enact and enforce with minimal input from and, according to Kavanaugh and many others, inadequate compensation for and undue constraints on the student-athletes.
 

2nd Degree Gopher said:
The NFL has a collectively bargained union contract that governs the terms of employment. The NCAA does not. Instead, it has a set of rules that the member institutions have empowered it to enact and enforce with minimal input from and, according to Kavanaugh and many others, inadequate compensation for and undue constraints on the student-athletes.
Click to expand...
The NCAA doesn't matter, to a large extent. They don't really have any power.

It's about the major conferences (P5) are the actual power players.


They can decide to enforce limitations on their athlete-employees to the same extent that the NFL does, and while simultaneously offering them an athlete-employee union to bargain for more pay, more this and that, etc.

I think the P5 would choose that, over other paths that lead to less revenue.


We'll see though
 

MplsGopher said:
The NCAA doesn't matter, to a large extent. They don't really have any power.

It's about the major conferences (P5) are the actual power players.


They can decide to enforce limitations on their athlete-employees to the same extent that the NFL does, and while simultaneously offering them an athlete-employee union to bargain for more pay, more this and that, etc.

I think the P5 would choose that, over other paths that lead to less revenue.


We'll see though
Click to expand...
How does it change anything if the P5 teams break away and form their own association, as you put it?
 

It seems like football is the big one because there's really no "other option" at this point in time. With basketball, it seems logical to me that the NCAA can say that if you don't like the rules, you have other options, mainly overseas or the G-League.
 

PMWinSTP said:
How does it change anything if the P5 teams break away and form their own association, as you put it?
Click to expand...
They can make their own rules saying the NIL, player payments, etc. are allowed.

Isn't that the whole thing? Or else, I don't understand where you're seeing the conflict or the problem. Maybe you can elaborate on that.


EDIT: Sorry, so I think you were asking something like "if the Supreme Court said the NCAA can't do this and that, why would they allow this new association to do this and that"?

Sure, I get that view. I'm saying that, I think they'd work it out with the players, just as the NFL does with its players, for the good of the sport and continued benefit to those players and schools. Lot of money on the table.

Would those players rather stand on principle and implode that opportunity altogether? I don't think they want that.


And so again, I think this can all be worked out under the umbrella of the NCAA, rather than having to resort to a new association. We'll see, maybe not.
 

PMWinSTP said:
How does it change anything if the P5 teams break away and form their own association, as you put it?
Click to expand...
To me, it's that for the most part, someone like the SEC's interests are a little different than so many other of the smaller schools. They, along with other P5 schools, can have their own set of regulations that are different than current NCAA rules.

Of course, the SEC benefits from the NCAA basketball tournament, so I don't know.....so many unknowns.
 

At the end of the day ... the players always want the biggest slice of the pie that they can get, without just blowing the whole thing up.

They know this. It's really no different in the NFL. You fight for what you can get, but you know the owners are going to get theirs.


There is some slice of pie that P5 players can live with and be happy, and which allows the big schools to continue raking in truckloads of cash and TV people to also make a big buck with great ratings.

They all just need to figure out how to get there, under the current gears and mechanisms, or what needs to change.
 

MplsGopher said:
The NCAA doesn't matter, to a large extent. They don't really have any power.

It's about the major conferences (P5) are the actual power players.


They can decide to enforce limitations on their athlete-employees to the same extent that the NFL does, and while simultaneously offering them an athlete-employee union to bargain for more pay, more this and that, etc.

I think the P5 would choose that, over other paths that lead to less revenue.


We'll see though
Click to expand...
I agree that the NCAA derives its power from the members, I said that in my post. Certainly some members have more influence than others, that's true of most organizations. If we are honest, it really isn't just P5 vs. everyone else, it's the top of the P5 that will control the direction this takes. In the Big Ten, the Minnesotas and Purdues will have far less influence than the Ohio States and Penn States if those schools elect to take advantage of their full bargaining power.

I guess they could try to adopt an NFL unionized model, but that wouldn't address the other issues that are unique to the college sports world. The NFL, for example, doesn't have to worry about satisfying the federal government's mandates on providing equal opportunities to all students.
 

TruthSeeker said:
Good!

Next, they should get rid of all sports drafts. Guys are leaving tens of millions on the table by being restrained.
Click to expand...
The pro drafts are definitely for competitive balance not wage suppressant

-argument by someone who doesn’t understand
 

TruthSeeker said:
It's clear some of you are too stupid to understand the bigger implications.

SCOTUS wants to end the NCAA. The case brought before them didn't provide them the opportunity to do it.

The case with the right facts will end the NCAA. Kavanaugh wants someone to hurry up and bring that case to finish them off.
Click to expand...
Bro I think that toinfiol hat of yours might be a bit tight.
 



Some guy said:
If it was both the games would have much more competitive balance than they do. It is and was created 100% as a wage suppressant
Click to expand...
Remember when Bradford made like $50 million as the first pick, and then the NFL got the union to agree to cutting draft salaries and implementing slot payments? Shameful.

A QB prospect like Lawrence on the open market would have secured a 9 figure contract, easily.

Salary caps in all forms are also terrible.
 

MplsGopher said:
They can make their own rules saying the NIL, player payments, etc. are allowed.

Isn't that the whole thing? Or else, I don't understand where you're seeing the conflict or the problem. Maybe you can elaborate on that.


EDIT: Sorry, so I think you were asking something like "if the Supreme Court said the NCAA can't do this and that, why would they allow this new association to do this and that"?

Sure, I get that view. I'm saying that, I think they'd work it out with the players, just as the NFL does with its players, for the good of the sport and continued benefit to those players and schools. Lot of money on the table.

Would those players rather stand on principle and implode that opportunity altogether? I don't think they want that.


And so again, I think this can all be worked out under the umbrella of the NCAA, rather than having to resort to a new association. We'll see, maybe not.
Click to expand...
Yes that was my point. I wonder how the vote may have been different if there was the added element of the players wanting to form a union as well.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom