NCAA Lost Unanimously

[Some guy]

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.

Yeah. The Union did that because the Union is made up of veterans that were pissed rookies were taking so much of the salary cap

 

[short ornery norwegian]

as I understand it - NIL is basically the NCAA trying to come up with a means of compensating players that does not involve direct payments from school to player.

If NIL was in place now, Mo Ibrahim could market his name, image or likeness for posters, jerseys, or TV commercials - but that money would be coming from an outside source. the U of MN would not be cutting a paycheck to Mo on the 1st and 15th of the month. That is what the NCAA is trying to avoid - a system where players receive direct compensation - which, of course, would come out of the school's share of the pie, leaving less for the school.

And that is what Kavanaugh is getting at in his concurring opinion. the NCAA is basically arguing that paying players direct compensation would change the fundamental nature of amateur athletics.
While Kavanaugh is saying that approach is not supported by the law.

Kavanaugh is basically telling the world that he would vote against the NCAA if there was a court case involving direct compensation.

(and after writing the opinion, he drank some beer. Because he likes beer.........)

 

[WoodburyTim]

Good.

NIL is coming soon.

The NCAA is done. Their lies are dead.

You are entitled to your opinion of course, but let's remember in 10 years who and what destroyed college sports. People like you, who have very little understanding of the big picture I hope will still be proud of the stance when the actual effects of this shake out.

It is sad because so many young people over the years got to attend to school who normally would not of.

I suppose it can still be argued that the superstars should not have been playing football or basketball so that a bunch of other kids could get to go to college and run track, play softball, or swim, but the fact remains that the money they generated mostly went to make college athletics available to wide numbers of individuals. I guess those days are over and it is strange to see so many people dancing on the grave of the opportunities of so many young athletes.

 

[howeda7]

The pro drafts are definitely for competitive balance not wage suppressant

-argument by someone who doesn’t understand

Yep. Get rid of that and the salary cap, and the NFL would become college football in short order. The Cowboys vs the Steelers/Patriots in the Super Bowl. Every year. Would ruin the league.

 

[howeda7]

On the image/likeness issue, can't the NCAA get around it by having the schools "buy" the rights as part of the scholarship? No one is restricting anyone from just going pro if they want to get paid, other than the NFL. It seems like the easier lawsuit is against them.

 

[TruthSeeker]

You are entitled to your opinion of course, but let's remember in 10 years who and what destroyed college sports. People like you, who have very little understanding of the big picture I hope will still be proud of the stance when the actual effects of this shake out.

It is sad because so many young people over the years got to attend to school who normally would not of.

I suppose it can still be argued that the superstars should not have been playing football or basketball so that a bunch of other kids could get to go to college and run track, play softball, or swim, but the fact remains that the money they generated mostly went to make college athletics available to wide numbers of individuals. I guess those days are over and it is strange to see so many people dancing on the grave of the opportunities of so many young athletes.

My tiny violin is playing a sad song.

Sports programs were always money losers at universities until they went massively corporate.

If it's important to the schools, then pay for it. If not, then don't.

If money is a problem, then cut spending or convince the state to fund the university.

No more of the current garbage from the NCAA or schools.

 

[1983]

I'm a band member and I was on TV. I want my take. My cheer leaders friends too. Mascots unite and get paid.

 

[WoodburyTim]

My tiny violin is playing a sad song.

Sports programs were always money losers at universities until they went massively corporate.

If it's important to the schools, then pay for it. If not, then don't.

If money is a problem, then cut spending or convince the state to fund the university.

No more of the current garbage from the NCAA or schools.

Seems pretty shortsighted to me. You are also working under the assumption that there will continue to be money to divvy up amongst the players. I hate to interject fact or reason into this argument, but the current trends in attendance and interest don't seem to support your stance.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Seems pretty shortsighted to me. You are also working under the assumption that there will continue to be money to divvy up amongst the players. I hate to interject fact or reason into this argument, but the current trends in attendance and interest don't seem to support your stance.

Then they can go the way of the University of Chicago. Club teams for people who like to play. No athletic scholarships.

There's nothing wrong with that. The schools could arguably better serve their educational missions, and the cesspool of college athletics would be drained. No more Penn State coverups to protect the money.

 

[WoodburyTim]

Then they can go the way of the University of Chicago. Club teams for people who like to play. No athletic scholarships.

There's nothing wrong with that. The schools could arguably better serve their educational missions, and the cesspool of college athletics would be drained. No more Penn State coverups to protect the money.

And you seem to understand that the end of amateurism on the college level probably means the death nail for scholarships in non-revenue sports, so you aren't the group I guess I am addressing. The group I guess I was taking exception with was the people who think that all this means is a payday for the stars of a couple of sports and business as usual for everyone else. And that simply is not going to be the case.

 

[Some guy]

And you seem to understand that the end of amateurism on the college level probably means the death nail for scholarships in non-revenue sports, so you aren't the group I guess I am addressing. The group I guess I was taking exception with was the people who think that all this means is a payday for the stars of a couple of sports and business as usual for everyone else. And that simply is not going to be the case.

Yeah. Basically every sport will go the way of d3 except the ones that pay for themselves. Which is fine for some and bad for some

 

[MplsGopher_fan]

My tiny violin is playing a sad song.

Sports programs were always money losers at universities until they went massively corporate.

If it's important to the schools, then pay for it. If not, then don't.

If money is a problem, then cut spending or convince the state to fund the university.

No more of the current garbage from the NCAA or schools.

So cut spending...like lay some people off? Cancel some projects? What. You don't think that adversely impacts people's lives?

What's the "current garbage" from the NCAA? It's their fault that college football is so popular it brings in massive media rights deals? If college football generated only 1% of the money it makes now, you wouldn't be complaining and would be fine with the status quo.

I think some people just love "change" so much that they don't even bother to think about side effects. JUST GIVE ME SOMETHING NEW!

 

[PMWinSTP]

I'm a band member and I was on TV. I want my take. My cheer leaders friends too. Mascots unite and get paid.

It would be cool if the mascots formed a union and then negotiated their contract in full costumes...without talking, just using their gestures to respond.

 

[MplsGopher]

Yep. Get rid of that and the salary cap, and the NFL would become college football in short order. The Cowboys vs the Steelers/Patriots in the Super Bowl. Every year. Would ruin the league.

Exactly correct. The reason the NFL gets massive national ratings is that people are very loyal to "their" team (which is often dictated by provincialism), and the fact that any one of the 32 franchises can be built up into a Super Bowl contender in a matter of a few years, if the right sequence of moves fall into place.

 

[MplsGopher]

On the image/likeness issue, can't the NCAA get around it by having the schools "buy" the rights as part of the scholarship?

I don't think there is any way they can legally require any player to select the school as the best offer for those rights. They might be, for some athletes, but Nike or whomever might offer more.

 

[MplsGopher]

the people who think that all this means is a payday for the stars of a couple of sports and business as usual for everyone else. And that simply is not going to be the case.

What is your argument? I'm sure I could believe it, but I don't see on face value why we should be so certain that it can't happen.

 

[MplsGopher]

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 don't have much disagreement with you here. I'm quite certain that the Minnesota's, Syracuse's, Mississippi State's, Washington State's, K-State's of the P5 world will just continue to be happy to be along for the ride.

The history and tradition of conferences, as the main unit of college athletes, will dictate that the Ohio State's, Clemson's, Alabama's, USC's, and Texas's of the P5 will be just fine bringing along their little brothers to the party. That is my guess.

The NFL, for example, doesn't have to worry about satisfying the federal government's mandates on providing equal opportunities to all students.

But again this goes back to my point: why will it be any different than, for example, the U having to make sure it satisfies Title IX right now in how it hires students for work-study programs?

Keep in mind that Title IX applies to all programs & activities that schools offer. It's not just sports.

The original text:
No person in the United States shall, based on sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

And schools fall under this because they all receive Federal financial assistance due to FAFSA, even private schools. So they can't get away.

 

[MplsGopher]

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.

So reworded, your point is something like this, I think:

"once the Supreme Court sets the precedent that (associations of) schools can't put restrictions on student-athletes, then the athletes suddenly now have unlimited power to demand anything they want from the schools".

I see your point. I just don't think it's going to be as black-and-white as maybe the above is making it out to be.


Athletes want, and probably deserve in P5 football and men's basketball, some amount more. Maybe they should receive like a "double scholarship worth" from the school, and then whatever they can get for themselves in bona fide endorsement deals. The schools/conferences won't have to fork over that part, themselves.

The crucial difficulty is to make sure these endorsement deals are not just BS, some rich boosters saying they're giving a "deal" to a player, but it's a straight up wad of cash in a bag for little or no work or any actual endorsing.


But at the end of the day, they don't want to kill the golden goose. They want it to keep going. They just want a bit more.

 

[PMWinSTP]

So reworded, your point is something like this, I think:

"once the Supreme Court sets the precedent that (associations of) schools can't put restrictions on student-athletes, then the athletes suddenly now have unlimited power to demand anything they want from the schools".

I see your point. I just don't think it's going to be as black-and-white as maybe the above is making it out to be.


Athletes want, and probably deserve in P5 football and men's basketball, some amount more. Maybe they should receive like a "double scholarship worth" from the school, and then whatever they can get for themselves in bona fide endorsement deals. The schools/conferences won't have to fork over that part, themselves.

The crucial difficulty is to make sure these endorsement deals are not just BS, some rich boosters saying they're giving a "deal" to a player, but it's a straight up wad of cash in a bag for little or no work or any actual endorsing.


But at the end of the day, they don't want to kill the golden goose. They want it to keep going. They just want a bit more.

No, not my point. you got it right your first try. The part I put in bold.

 

[MplsGopher]

you got it right your first try. The part I put in bold.

I was trying to take the next step, from that point. Sorry for the confusing wording of my post. I should not have said "So reworded, your point is something like this:". I should've said "So the logical consequence of your point, would be something like:"

What would be the actual consequences, if you were correct? What (hypothetically) do you foresee the new association not being able to do?

 

[PMWinSTP]

I was trying to take the next step, from that point. Sorry for the confusing wording of my post. I should not have said "So reworded, your point is something like this:". I should've said "So the logical consequence of your point, would be something like:"

What would be the actual consequences, if you were correct? What (hypothetically) do you foresee the new association not being able to do?

What SCOTUS said could not be done in its decision, that the NCAA was violating antitrust law by placing limits on the education-related benefits that schools can provide to athletes. The decision allows schools to provide their athletes with unlimited compensation as long as it is some way connected to their education.

 

[swelna]

What SCOTUS said could not be done in its decision, that the NCAA was violating antitrust law by placing limits on the education-related benefits that schools can provide to athletes. The decision allows schools to provide their athletes with unlimited compensation as long as it is some way connected to their education.

I imagine thats the next series of court cases to be played out over the next decade or two. For instance, students today need laptops, so a university could provide their students with a top spec macbook. While that would be overkill, you can directly relate it to academic work. Could a university provide a car to athletes the live off campus? Is that too strenuous of a connection? Idk...And at this point, the only thing to reign this stuff in would be smaller universities trying to keep larger universities in check.

I'm at a weird spot for this ruling. On one hand, I do believe that these athletes bring so much more revenue to the universities than they receive as far as scholarships that they should get something more (NIL is one way, but also needs careful structuring). On the otherhand, this decision with no additional guidance was just opening the floodgates, which is probably not the best route.

 

[WoodburyTim]

What is your argument? I'm sure I could believe it, but I don't see on face value why we should be so certain that it can't happen.

The common misconception is that there is all this money being made all over college sports. Even in so called "prosperous" programs most of the money derived from basketball and football is spent on non-revenue sports. As NIL becomes reality and let's face it, paid players is right around the corner, the money that is generated is going to go back into the money making sports. Will cash strapped university systems want to pay for education for athletes who not only make no money for the university, but actually cost it a lot of money? That is a hard argument to make to the taxpayers.

 

[Some guy]

The common misconception is that there is all this money being made all over college sports. Even in so called "prosperous" programs most of the money derived from basketball and football is spent on non-revenue sports. As NIL becomes reality and let's face it, paid players is right around the corner, the money that is generated is going to go back into the money making sports. Will cash strapped university systems want to pay for education for athletes who not only make no money for the university, but actually cost it a lot of money? That is a hard argument to make to the taxpayers.

If revenue producing programs’ players eventually become employees…their scholarships don’t have to be balanced for the purpose of title IX anymore.

if a girl is good enough to make a football team she can become an employee too.


this is really bad long term for women’s sports if these guys are employees

 

[MplsGopher]

What SCOTUS said could not be done in its decision, that the NCAA was violating antitrust law by placing limits on the education-related benefits that schools can provide to athletes. The decision allows schools to provide their athletes with unlimited compensation as long as it is some way connected to their education.

Two things:

1) so my point is, the hypothetical new P5 association would set its rules much more in-line with what the P5 want to provide. They wouldn't have rules trying to restrict payments for education-related expenses.

2) I think this is the general slippery slope that you're falling down: "the court rules that the governing body cant restrict those benefits, therefore the schools will provide huge amounts of those benefits".

Just because they can, doesn't necessarily mean they'll go overboard.

 

[MplsGopher]

The common misconception is that there is all this money being made all over college sports. Even in so called "prosperous" programs most of the money derived from basketball and football is spent on non-revenue sports. As NIL becomes reality and let's face it, paid players is right around the corner, the money that is generated is going to go back into the money making sports. Will cash strapped university systems want to pay for education for athletes who not only make no money for the university, but actually cost it a lot of money? That is a hard argument to make to the taxpayers.

Let's leave it at NIL money, for the moment.

All that money comes from outside the university.

I'm having trouble understanding how the school wouldn't precisely just run the dept exactly as it has before. Individual players are going to have their own agents and own deals, with their business partners completely outside the school. It's not really going to have anything to do with the school.

 

[PMWinSTP]

Two things:

1) so my point is, the hypothetical new P5 association would set its rules much more in-line with what the P5 want to provide. They wouldn't have rules trying to restrict payments for education-related expenses.

2) I think this is the general slippery slope that you're falling down: "the court rules that the governing body cant restrict those benefits, therefore the schools will provide huge amounts of those benefits".

Just because they can, doesn't necessarily mean they'll go overboard.

Who are you quoting?

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

On the image/likeness issue, can't the NCAA get around it by having the schools "buy" the rights as part of the scholarship? No one is restricting anyone from just going pro if they want to get paid, other than the NFL. It seems like the easier lawsuit is against them.

They could buy the rights of them but it couldn't be for a scholarship. They would have to bid on them competitively, if it was just universally a "scholarship" that'd be an antitrust issue (price fixing).

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

The common misconception is that there is all this money being made all over college sports. Even in so called "prosperous" programs most of the money derived from basketball and football is spent on non-revenue sports. As NIL becomes reality and let's face it, paid players is right around the corner, the money that is generated is going to go back into the money making sports. Will cash strapped university systems want to pay for education for athletes who not only make no money for the university, but actually cost it a lot of money? That is a hard argument to make to the taxpayers.

I'm not arguing with you that this will have a profound and likely negative impact on college athletics. I think you're 100% right about non-revenue sports.

That said, the system now is asking the high-value players to subsidize the non-revenue sports. They aren't allowed to cash in on something they have of value in order to have a rowing team. That does not seem quite fair.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

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

I actually think the salary cap is a good example of a measure used to (at least in theory) maintain competitive balance that kind of does the opposite.

Bad teams pressed against the salary cap are stuck bad with the exception of throwing games for draft picks. Additionally, in the salary capped sports (basketball and football), they come with extensive revenue sharing so cheap owners can make a lot of money without putting a good product on the field.