U.S. Supreme Court Strikes First Nail in the NCAA Coffin

[Scott Dierking]

Just now, Jetscode1 said:

I'm just following the news.  Obviously there were enough college athletes to file suit and for that lawsuit to get to SCOTUS.  I'd argue it from a public policy perspective that the current NCAA distorts incentives and produces awful results.

So, you are inferring from a vast minority, and taking that to mean that everyone feels that way. Great.

[Jetscode1]

Just now, Matt39 said:

Voice your concern to Roger. He's the one who controls the 2 years put of high school rule.

I would not have standing.  Eventually, the rule sounds like bullsh*t if not illegal.  Didn't that rule exist in the NBA but they made an exception for Lebron James?  

[Jetscode1]

1 minute ago, Scott Dierking said:

So, you are inferring from a vast minority, and taking that to mean that everyone feels that way. Great.

I don't think I used public opinion in my argument.  I just speak for myself.

[Matt39]

Just now, Jetscode1 said:

I would not have standing.  Eventually, the rule sounds like bullsh*t if not illegal.  Didn't that rule exist in the NBA but they made an exception for Lebron James?  

You could say its BS. High school grads who play football have options other than the NCAA and the NFL, however. XFL, Canada etc.

[Jetscode1]

1 minute ago, Matt39 said:

You could say its BS. High school grads who play football have options other than the NCAA and the NFL, however. XFL, Canada etc.

I'm not getting Roger to take my calls at the moment.  If a player of stature challenged it, I'd argue they would win legally in court although he'd have to face lost years of not playing.

[Scott Dierking]

1 minute ago, Jetscode1 said:

I don't think I used public opinion in my argument.  I just speak for myself.

With a heavy, insinuating hand. Unfortunately, it is an uninformed hand. 

Again, the majority of student athletes are just fine with the current rules. The manner that athletes were made to stay with teams was unfair. That has been mostly fixed through the transfer portal.

PS--McDonalds has worldwide revenue in the billions. They give minimum wage to the majority of their employees. 

[Scott Dierking]

2 minutes ago, Jetscode1 said:

I'm not getting Roger to take my calls at the moment.  If a player of stature challenged it, I'd argue they would win legally in court although he'd have to face lost years of not playing.

Ed O'Bannon did win his suit. It is changing the ways that players likenesses are used. That is a step in the positive.

[Jetscode1]

13 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

link? Since you have volunteered you have internet.

A better current example.  This guy says he has plenty.

[Jetscode1]

6 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

With a heavy, insinuating hand. Unfortunately, it is an uninformed hand. 

Again, the majority of student athletes are just fine with the current rules. The manner that athletes were made to stay with teams was unfair. That has been mostly fixed through the transfer portal.

PS--McDonalds has worldwide revenue in the billions. They give minimum wage to the majority of their employees. 

A heavy hand?  Seriously?  My hand cannot touch the scales of justice on this issue.  I'm a guy posting an opinion.  The SCOTUS stated that the "NCAA suppressed the pay of student athletes who collectively generate billion of dollars".  Obviously at least some players found fault with their working conditions and compensation.  You're deflecting.  I'm not the guilty party here.

[Jetscode1]

9 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

Ed O'Bannon did win his suit. It is changing the ways that players likenesses are used. That is a step in the positive.

Vaguely recall the case.  Before LeBron correct?  Explains why the NBA had to change.

[batman10023]

6 hours ago, Warfish said:

The first time a State School (i.e. the State itself) pays a college football player a large sum to play college football for a college will be the last time that happens without State taxpayers WTF'ing all over the place.

It's already a joke that the highest paid Civil Servant in many States....is a College Football or Basketball Coach.

For example:  https://www.baltimoresun.com/politics/bs-md-state-salaries-20200219-rihwbz7dxndvnethrwo7ze27ue-story.html

taxpayers don't seem to mind paying coaches the highest salary in the state - why will they change for students?

[Scott Dierking]

1 minute ago, Jetscode1 said:

A heavy hand?  Seriously?  My hand cannot touch the scales of justice on this issue.  I'm a guy posting an opinion.  The SCOTUS stated that the "NCAA suppressed the pay of student athletes who collectively generate billion of dollars".  Obviously at least some players found fault with their working conditions and compensation.  You're deflecting.  I'm not the guilty party here.

What you are doing with an overly heavy hand is misconstruing how the majority college athletes actually feel about the current system. They do not feel like "slaves", as you have inferred.

It is very apparent that if the system that you want instituted comes to pass, that the majority of non-revenue sports will be put in jeopardy. And that would be the true shame out of all this. Entitling the top 5%, but then disenfranchising so many more. 

That would be a crime worse than what is happening today.

[Scott Dierking]

2 minutes ago, Jetscode1 said:

Vaguely recall the case.  Before LeBron correct?  Explains why the NBA had to change.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/14/us/ed-obannon-ncaa-california-bill-trnd/index.html

[batman10023]

1 hour ago, Scott Dierking said:

Can't feasibly be done. Those venues and facilities that they use? They are owned by the University. So, you can be sure they would want a pretty penny for a "3rd party" to use their facilities. Round and round we go.

that's the whole idea.  you charge the third party for the facility, mascot etc and get the revenues that way.  less of a title ix issue that way.

woman's field hockey can rent out their field and do the same to pay their players.

[sec101row23]

2 minutes ago, batman10023 said:

that's the whole idea.  you charge the third party for the facility, mascot etc and get the revenues that way.  less of a title ix issue that way.

woman's field hockey can rent out their field and do the same to pay their players.

Actually Title IX won’t interfere with the name, image and likeness compensation.  Since all college athletes would have the ability and opportunity to profit off of their NIL, it would actually fall in line with Title IX.   Title IX was more about providing equal opportunities to woman athletes.   It made provisions so that there were near equal number of men’s and woman’s programs at these schools.   

[jgb]

33 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

So, you are inferring from a vast minority, and taking that to mean that everyone feels that way. Great.

The finest summary of the entire Internet I have ever seen 

[jgb]

15 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

What you are doing with an overly heavy hand is misconstruing how the majority college athletes actually feel about the current system. They do not feel like "slaves", as you have inferred.

It is very apparent that if the system that you want instituted comes to pass, that the majority of non-revenue sports will be put in jeopardy. And that would be the true shame out of all this. Entitling the top 5%, but then disenfranchising so many more. 

That would be a crime worse than what is happening today.

What do you want to bet the ones pushing for this now will be along in two years to sell us on a solution for the consequences of their own doing.

[Jetscode1]

4 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

What you are doing with an overly heavy hand is misconstruing how the majority college athletes actually feel about the current system. They do not feel like "slaves", as you have inferred.

It is very apparent that if the system that you want instituted comes to pass, that the majority of non-revenue sports will be put in jeopardy. And that would be the true shame out of all this. Entitling the top 5%, but then disenfranchising so many more. 

That would be a crime worse than what is happening today.

I cannot speak for the college athletes that enjoy the current system but enough college athletes brought suit and won.  I'm acknowledging their victory not describing their feelings.  SCOTUS highlighted the hypocrisy of NCAA executives earning millions while the players we're denied that same privilege.  Again, you have used a small sample size to justify the system was fair.  I disagree and argue that we (as citizens) need to discuss the best policy moving forward.  As the poster stated earlier, Congress will probably pass an exemption to the anti-trust laws but I'd really prefer we look at de-linking collegiate sports and public universities.  Probably not gonna happen that way but we should at least evaluate all the alternatives. 

[jgb]

15 minutes ago, Jetscode1 said:

I cannot speak for the college athletes that enjoy the current system but enough college athletes brought suit and won.  I'm acknowledging their victory not describing their feelings.  SCOTUS highlighted the hypocrisy of NCAA executives earning millions while the players we're denied that same privilege.  Again, you have used a small sample size to justify the system was fair.  I disagree and argue that we (as citizens) need to discuss the best policy moving forward.  As the poster stated earlier, Congress will probably pass an exemption to the anti-trust laws but I'd really prefer we look at de-linking collegiate sports and public universities.  Probably not gonna happen that way but we should at least evaluate all the alternatives. 

I’m really skeptical of any arguments based on what’s “fair.”

[Matt39]

35 minutes ago, sec101row23 said:

Actually Title IX won’t interfere with the name, image and likeness compensation.  Since all college athletes would have the ability and opportunity to profit off of their NIL, it would actually fall in line with Title IX.   Title IX was more about providing equal opportunities to woman athletes.   It made provisions so that there were near equal number of men’s and woman’s programs at these schools.   

And scholarships 

[Matt39]

31 minutes ago, Jetscode1 said:

I cannot speak for the college athletes that enjoy the current system but enough college athletes brought suit and won.  I'm acknowledging their victory not describing their feelings.  SCOTUS highlighted the hypocrisy of NCAA executives earning millions while the players we're denied that same privilege.  Again, you have used a small sample size to justify the system was fair.  I disagree and argue that we (as citizens) need to discuss the best policy moving forward.  As the poster stated earlier, Congress will probably pass an exemption to the anti-trust laws but I'd really prefer we look at de-linking collegiate sports and public universities.  Probably not gonna happen that way but we should at least evaluate all the alternatives. 

I’d say it’s a select few challenging a system many enjoy. Go on any campus with a major program athletes are basically treated like gods and hand held into a 4 year degree and a massive alumni network. 

[Jetscode1]

1 hour ago, jgb said:

I’m really skeptical of any arguments based on what’s “fair.”

Therein lies the rub.  Whenever government is involved we have questions of perceived fairness which is why these business deals are best left to the private sector.

[Jetscode1]

1 hour ago, Matt39 said:

I’d say it’s a select few challenging a system many enjoy. Go on any campus with a major program athletes are basically treated like gods and hand held into a 4 year degree and a massive alumni network. 

I get that some players are treated as royalty.  The problem arose from a lawsuit brought by the players who felt cheated.  Obviously not all student-athletes have the same experience.  It still is a public university and requires a public response.  Many will support an exemption to anti-trust laws.  My two cents, says we should fix the incentives because the current systems rewards administrators versus players and as a whole the billion dollar industry has done little for the average citizen in their respective states.

[Bugg]

10 hours ago, Matt39 said:

Not really when you think about the revenue that comes from the big sports that fund programs that operate in the red every year. 

There aren't a lot of Penn States.

[Jetsfan80]

5 hours ago, Jetscode1 said:

The additional money came from?  Can we spread it around to the players?  

Donors, I assume.  

[Jetsfan80]

5 hours ago, Jetscode1 said:

I would not have standing.  Eventually, the rule sounds like bullsh*t if not illegal.  Didn't that rule exist in the NBA but they made an exception for Lebron James?  

The rule was put into effect in July 2005.  2 years after LeBron was drafted out of HS. 

It's a terrible rule, for sure. 

[Jetsfan80]

5 hours ago, sec101row23 said:

Actually Title IX won’t interfere with the name, image and likeness compensation.  Since all college athletes would have the ability and opportunity to profit off of their NIL, it would actually fall in line with Title IX.   Title IX was more about providing equal opportunities to woman athletes.   It made provisions so that there were near equal number of men’s and woman’s programs at these schools.   

Well, that has to reflect the student body's makeup as well.  At my alma mater, UNCW, there's a heavy girl:guy ratio.  Something like 60-65 % of enrolled students are women.  So the scholarship ratio has to match that.  

[Jetscode1]

41 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

Donors, I assume.  

Can we get into the hands of players versus the college administrators?

[Jetsfan80]

12 minutes ago, Jetscode1 said:

Can we get into the hands of players versus the college administrators?

I certainly hope so.  The SCOTUS decision is certainly the start of that process.  

I just hope not too many of the "little guys" are hurt too badly in the end.  They need to be protected from the NCAA/administrators, who will almost certainly use this opportunity to "punish" the smaller schools/programs to protect their interests and make up for losses like these if protections aren't put in place.

[Sperm Edwards]

20 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

Well, that has to reflect the student body's makeup as well.  At my alma mater, UNCW, there's a heavy girl:guy ratio.  Something like 60-65 % of enrolled students are women.  So the scholarship ratio has to match that.  

I'm not so up on Title IX's ins & outs myself, and definitely don't want to get into a thing over it on this board. The obvious difference that I'm confident Title IX conveniently ignores is the vastly unequal revenues that certain sports account for at each school.

In terms of spectator value, which is what pays for virtually all of it, it's pretty hard to legislate that spectators be interested in girls' field hockey to balance-out men's football (or likewise in the other direction, if a school has a top-ranked girls hoops team, no one cares about their 3rd-rate men's water polo team - or even their 1st-rate one - and you can force scholarships but can't force interest, which in term means you can't force revenue to follow, and everyone knows they're not of equal importance in terms of value to the school). One team can fill an arena (or a gym, anyway) and generate TV revenue, and in relative terms, hardly anyone even knows the other exists. 

Also I wonder how much the roster sizes play into that ruling. I don't want to get into it here in detail, nor its merits/demerits, but there are simply more guys on the men's football team than there are on the women's volleyball team. Maybe it's just that it means a sizable chunk of the football team needs to pay tuition, otherwise they can't create enough women's sports scholarships to balance it out. Seems that'd disproportionately penalize players in sports that naturally have larger rosters. So much for fairness.

I admit to a lot of ignorance on the subject, though.

[Jetsfan80]

10 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Also I wonder how much the roster sizes play into that ruling. I don't want to get into it here in detail, nor its merits/demerits, but there are simply more guys on the men's football team than there are on the women's volleyball team. Maybe it's just that it means a sizable chunk of the football team needs to pay tuition, otherwise they can't create enough women's sports scholarships to balance it out. Seems that'd disproportionately penalize players in sports that naturally have larger rosters. So much for fairness.

It all comes down to scholarship count.  The # of scholarships offered for athletics need to be proportional based on the makeup of the student body.  So, yes, schools have to make some difficult decisions when they decide to add or cut sports.  

It's a huge reason why my alma mater also does NOT have a football program.  Adding a football program with scholarships would result in a bunch of men's programs getting cut, while also likely being forced to add a women's program or 2 (like field hockey or lacrosse, 2 sports we don't currently carry).  

And sure, UNCW could certainly opt for non-scholarship football.  But really, what's the point?  If you're going to start a football program and you're a D-I school, the end goal should be to end up playing FBS football.  Much like schools like, say, Old Dominion and Charlotte, relatively recently created D-I programs (2009 and 2013, respectively) who were able to quickly gain FBS access not long after founding them.

[Sperm Edwards]

13 hours ago, Jet Blast said:

So what's your opinion on this ruling? 

I'd say with regards to the decision, the law (as it's been) always seemed inherently absurd on paper: to tell a legal adult he may not get paid for his labor -- his labor that generates such vast revenue for others. Or rather, he could in theory, except his skill is in a regulated monopoly, and he has to go through those channels - with success and with good health - just to be eligible to get paid for his labor at the next level. Worse still, labor that can have such inherent danger of permanent physical harm. 

I'm not 100% unsympathetic to the idea that this can cause revenue changes that trickle down to become devastating to other sports programs at that school, or that same program at other schools, & the athletes who may now be left out in the cold. However it's not for these individual, singular-skill guys (many of whom may be great at the NCAA level but just not good enough to really get paid as professionals) to be forced into mandated selflessness. It's too much to ask an individual - often a student coming from modest or less-than-modest means - to risk becoming the next Eric LeGrand while paying for so many others (indirectly, by forgoing this payment himself).  

Plenty of these guys are great college-only players who'll never get paid. Others got paid for the labor of those players, during the all too brief period in his life when his time helped fuel so much revenue, and the only $ he saw was his proportionately puny scholarship. 

Capping their value (that may be worth $2MM for all I know) at some $75K/year? That's like telling someone that, at this level - and only at this level - you're subject to upwards of a 97% income tax rate. 

[jgb]

7 hours ago, Jetscode1 said:

Therein lies the rub.  Whenever government is involved we have questions of perceived fairness which is why these business deals are best left to the private sector.

“It’s not fair!” is the argument of a child. Children shouldn’t decide policy.

[Bugg]

On 6/22/2021 at 6:09 PM, Matt39 said:

You could say its BS. High school grads who play football have options other than the NCAA and the NFL, however. XFL, Canada etc.

 

[Bugg]

Just now, Bugg said:

Not really. There are very few 17/18 year olds who could make such a jump, much less compete with a D1 team on Day 1. It's too physical a sport for almost everyone. College football at every level is way more intense between training, meetings, practices than HS. To think mere kids without that could leap to pro football of any kind is ludicrous. Would say the exceptions may be Bo Jackson, Herschel Walker and ...that's it.