Supreme Court Will Hear Case On Player Compensation

[xubrew]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-to-consider-ncaa-antitrust-case-on-college-athlete-compensation-11608129891

By the end of the summer, college athletics could completely change as we know it.

In case you haven't been following, the NCAA has been accused (for a while) of being in violation of anti-trust laws, which they arguably are when it comes to the letter of the law. It has gone through the courts, the NCAA has not done so well, and the Alston case now going to be heard by the Supreme Court.

The lower courts ruled (basically) that there should be no limits on athlete compensation so long as the compensation was some how tied to education.

Neither side really liked that. The plaintiffs feel the players deserve a lot more than that, and the NCAA feels they don't even deserve that much. So, ironically, both are actually happy that it is going before the Supreme Court.

And...I have no idea how they are going to rule. I've long felt that the players deserve much more than what they've been getting, but I also feel that they have been given a little more. Cost of living comes to mind. So does name, image, and likeness, but the NIL was perhaps too far overdue.

In addition to not knowing what's going to happen, I really don't know what I want to happen anymore. I don't like the idea of the NCAA losing complete control over trying to maintain a competitive balance, but I don't like for players to be completely denied the rights to their fair market values either. If they come out and say that it is an anti-trust violation and that players can now be paid by the schools, then that will definitely be a huge change. And....they might say that.

I can't help but there that there are things the NCAA could have done over the past...ohh...thirty years or so to keep it from getting to where it has gotten.

[STL_XUfan]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-to-consider-ncaa-antitrust-case-on-college-athlete-compensation-11608129891

By the end of the summer, college athletics could completely change as we know it.

In case you haven't been following, the NCAA has been accused (for a while) of being in violation of anti-trust laws, which they arguably are when it comes to the letter of the law. It has gone through the courts, the NCAA has not done so well, and the Alston case now going to be heard by the Supreme Court.

The lower courts ruled (basically) that there should be no limits on athlete compensation so long as the compensation was some how tied to education.

Neither side really liked that. The plaintiffs feel the players deserve a lot more than that, and the NCAA feels they don't even deserve that much. So, ironically, both are actually happy that it is going before the Supreme Court.

And...I have no idea how they are going to rule. I've long felt that the players deserve much more than what they've been getting, but I also feel that they have been given a little more. Cost of living comes to mind. So does name, image, and likeness, but the NIL was perhaps too far overdue.

In addition to not knowing what's going to happen, I really don't know what I want to happen anymore. I don't like the idea of the NCAA losing complete control over trying to maintain a competitive balance, but I don't like for players to be completely denied the rights to their fair market values either. If they come out and say that it is an anti-trust violation and that players can now be paid by the schools, then that will definitely be a huge change. And....they might say that.

I can't help but there that there are things the NCAA could have done over the past...ohh...thirty years or so to keep it from getting to where it has gotten.

The NCAA has been pretty dumb by not trying to get out in front of this (I guess they did add COL stipends a few years ago).

I don't think players should be paid by the school outside of their scholarship and normal per diem money. However, I am all for them having unlimited NIL rights. If a car dealership is dumb enough to pay one of these players for an endorsement, more power to them. If the player wants to give private lessons to some rich booster's child, good on that player for getting some cash from someone that clearly has money to burn.

My view is we should treat student athletes exactly the same as we treat a student at the school on a music scholarship.

[D-West & PO-Z]

The NCAA has been pretty dumb by not trying to get out in front of this (I guess they did add COL stipends a few years ago).

I don't think players should be paid by the school outside of their scholarship and normal per diem money. However, I am all for them having unlimited NIL rights. If a car dealership is dumb enough to pay one of these players for an endorsement, more power to them. If the player wants to give private lessons to some rich booster's child, good on that player for getting some cash from someone that clearly has money to burn.

My view is we should treat student athletes exactly the same as we treat a student at the school on a music scholarship.

Yeah I totally agree with this.

Some will say, "oh well Kentucky basketball will just get a rich booster to pay them for their car dealership and they can promise recruits more money and they will get all the top recruits." Or they will say the same about Alabama or OSU football.

Well, hello......how will that change anything! Welcome to what is already happening. Regardless if you think they pay players or not (they probably do) they are already getting the best players anyway. It wont change anything.

[MHettel]

I like Mens college basketball. A lot.

I'm indifferent about most other college sports.

I don't really care who is and who is not making money when it comes to college sports.

I don't want it to change. And therefore, I don't support this.

I'll say the same thing about allow automatic eligibility for Transfers. It will change the game. And I don't want that. So I don't support it.

[xu82]

I like it now, the way it is. BUT, I also want to see the kids be treated fairly. I’m not sure what I want, but I am VERY worried about unintended consequences making a mess of things.

[D-West & PO-Z]

I like Mens college basketball. A lot.

I'm indifferent about most other college sports.

I don't really care who is and who is not making money when it comes to college sports.

I don't want it to change. And therefore, I don't support this.

I'll say the same thing about allow automatic eligibility for Transfers. It will change the game. And I don't want that. So I don't support it.

The transfer rule isn't going to change things nearly as much as you think. We would benefit just as much as we would be hurt. It will be a net neutral move and good for the players.

There is very little that can be done imo to change the competitive balance in college athletics. The top dogs will remain the top dogs regardless of the rules.

[xubrew]

Unfortunately "I like it the way it is" does not qualify as a legal defense against anti-trust violations. I know the NCAA likes things the way they are. I hope they understand that simply saying that isn't going to be good enough. And...I'm not so sure they do realize that.

[GoMuskies]

If they screw up non-revenue sports right before my daughter gets to college I'm going to be righteously pissed.

[xu82]

If they screw up non-revenue sports right before my daughter gets to college I'm going to be righteously pissed.

And THESE are the things I’m worried about. Who gets hurt when they mean to do the right thing?

[XUGRAD80]

If they screw up non-revenue sports right before my daughter gets to college I'm going to be righteously pissed.

They already have. In point of fact, the people pushing through bills in congress, or making the most noise, have seemingly forgotten that probably 90-95% of college athletes are those that are participating in “non-revenue” sports. If they, through their zeal to be “fair” to the athletes participating in revenue generating sports, cause athletic departments to take on additional financial burdens and/or to lose revenue that would have been used to support those other sports, it will be a shame. It will end up helping a very few, while hurting the very many. I’ve fought this bias and misconception that ALL college athletes are pampered and feted for over 40 years now. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had discussions with good people that simply don’t understand that athletes in sports like soccer, swimming, track, etc. are more likely to be paying their own way, than not. That all the schools playing football on Saturday's, but that aren’t appearing on TV, are already bleeding money. That the “billions” of dollars that football and basketball supposedly generate for the greedy universities are really on a handful of the hundreds of NCAA schools that organize, promote, and support thousands and thousands of college athletes. But that most of the court decisions, and proposed legislation, will effect EVERY schools and EVERY college athlete in some way...MOST of them negatively.

We are going to keep going down this path and we are going to end up like it is in Europe, where that are no “university” teams, there are “club” teams.....that’s my prediction and my fear.

https://www.si.com/college/2020/12/17/athlete-bill-of-rights-congress-ncaa-football

[muskiefan82]

In their drive to do something for some athletes (most have zero chance to make money off of this), will the courts (and the NCAA for NOT doing something earlier) effectively kill off intercollegiate athletics?

[xubrew]

In their drive to do something for some athletes (most have zero chance to make money off of this), will the courts (and the NCAA for NOT doing something earlier) effectively kill off intercollegiate athletics?

I believe they could very well effectively kill of amateurism. College athletics will still be a thing, and to the casual observer may not really seam any different.

I'm going to say what we all already know. If the NCAA is ruled to be in violation of anti-trust laws for the limits they put on what players are allowed to receive, and that the NCAA can no longer put limits on what schools can do to compensate players, then schools will begin to compensate players. OF COURSE they will! It may happen as soon as July.

[xubrew]

The NCAA has been pretty dumb by not trying to get out in front of this (I guess they did add COL stipends a few years ago).

I don't think players should be paid by the school outside of their scholarship and normal per diem money. However, I am all for them having unlimited NIL rights. If a car dealership is dumb enough to pay one of these players for an endorsement, more power to them. If the player wants to give private lessons to some rich booster's child, good on that player for getting some cash from someone that clearly has money to burn.

My view is we should treat student athletes exactly the same as we treat a student at the school on a music scholarship.


Yeah, it's EXTREMELY difficult to not be frustrated with all the morons in college athletics who insisted for years that this wasn't a problem, and that athletes shouldn't be paid, and who tried to double down and push back whenever issues of reform were brought up. Seriously, NICE GOING DUMBASSES!!

I don't know how the Supreme Court will rule. They may uphold the previous rulings (which would be fine). They may rule even more in favor of the athletes. Or, they may overturn the previous ruling and rule with the NCAA. I could see it being anything. But it's not very encouraging when you see the NCAA lose case after case after case, and to see that pretty much the entire basis for their argument is "Well, we like it the way it is!" If they go to the Supreme Court with that, I think they lose. Again.

The could have given players their NILs a long time ago. They could have given players in all D1 sports a share of the NCAA Tournament revenue a long time ago. They could have allowed for players to receive gifts from outside the university a long time ago. None of those measures would have created any extra expenses for the schools. If they had done that then we probably wouldn't be in a situation to where the Supreme Court may rule that schools cannot be restricted from paying players, which will basically turn recruiting into a bidding war and create all kinds of other consequences. But, the NCAA did none of those things. They, instead, doubled down. So...here we are.

[XUGRAD80]

If schools like Xavier start giving thousands of dollars to the athletes in revenue producing sports (Booker’s bill wants them to get 50% of the revenue), how will the school pay for the OTHER non-revenue sports? ( if they pay the guys, you know darn well they are going to have to pay the women equally! )

It may not kill off men’s basketball or football at Power 5/6 schools....but I don’t see anyway for the other sports to continue as university supported programs. At best they will become “club” sports.

Some of you may not care, but I personally think that it’s BS. I’d really rather see the schools drop football and basketball and let those all become professional only sports with no university affiliation. Use student fees, donations, etc. to support the other sports...where the majority of athletes are competing anyway. Don’t believe me, check this out....there are right at 90,000 college football and basketball players in NCAA schools. But there are almost 500,000 athletes participating in 24 separate NCAA sports total. A 4:1 ratio of non-revenue v revenue producing student-athletes. But here’s another fact...virtually every one of those revenue producing sports participants is on full scholarship. Hardly any of the others are on a full ride. Many aren’t even on athletic department rides.

I just think that there is a great deal of value in participation in AMATEUR competition, where the goal isn’t to become a professional and earn a living that way. Where participating is done just for the shear JOY of competition. I’d hate to see that taken away from thousands and thousands just so a few hundred can get rich. Seriously, what the hell are we doing here folks!? People can’t see the forest for the trees.

[xubrew]

If schools like Xavier start giving thousands of dollars to the athletes in revenue producing sports (Booker’s bill wants them to get 50% of the revenue), how will the school pay for the OTHER non-revenue sports? ( if they pay the guys, you know darn well they are going to have to pay the women equally! )

It may not kill off men’s basketball or football at Power 5/6 schools....but I don’t see anyway for the other sports to continue as university supported programs. At best they will become “club” sports.

Some of you may not care, but I personally think that it’s BS. I’d really rather see the schools drop football and basketball and let those all become professional only sports with no university affiliation. Use student fees, donations, etc. to support the other sports...where the majority of athletes are competing anyway. Don’t believe me, check this out....there are right at 90,000 college football and basketball players in NCAA schools. But there are almost 500,000 athletes participating in 24 separate NCAA sports total. A 4:1 ratio of non-revenue v revenue producing student-athletes. But here’s another fact...virtually every one of those revenue producing sports participants is on full scholarship. Hardly any of the others are on a full ride. Many aren’t even on athletic department rides.

I just think that there is a great deal of value in participation in AMATEUR competition, where the goal isn’t to become a professional and earn a living that way. Where participating is done just for the shear JOY of competition. I’d hate to see that taken away from thousands and thousands just so a few hundred can get rich. Seriously, what the hell are we doing here folks!? People can’t see the forest for the trees.


I share your concerns.

I do not think the NCAA has any plans to change it's rule that says to be D1 in men's basketball that a school must field at least 14 total sports. So, not all of the non-revenue sports will disappear. But there could potentially be teams that do get cut so those expenses can be used to pay football and basketball players.

And...that's one of my many frustrations. There were ways for athletes to receive money without it costing the actual schools a dime. That should have been allowed. I think that's pretty obvious now, BUT IT WAS OBVIOUS THEN TOO!!! I really believe that if it had been allowed (like it should have been) then there wouldn't have been this continued and constant push for more reform and it wouldn't be before the Supreme Court. Players would have been getting money in their pockets. They would have been happy. And, it wouldn't have had to cost the schools a thing!

[XUGRAD80]

While I admire your optimism, I don’t share it. It just seems to me that there is an unbridled amount of greed on the part of some players and agents, combined with politicians that think they can win votes and support by supporting those parties, pushing this agenda. I don’t think that they will ever be happy until they get what they think is their “fair share”, no matter what collateral damage it costs to others. I blame part of that on players being feted, praised, and pampered from an early age. They grow up thinking they are God’s gift to the sport and that they should be treated accordingly. Really, if they have their education paid for, their room and board taken care of, and some spending money in their pocket, what more does a 20 year old college student really need? I’d guarantee that 99% of their fellow university attendees would be over the moon to just have all that. Trouble is that they have forgotten that it’s a privilege to be a college athlete, it’s not a right.

[xubrew]

While I admire your optimism, I don’t share it. It just seems to me that there is an unbridled amount of greed on the part of some players and agents, combined with politicians that think they can win votes and support by supporting those parties, pushing this agenda. I don’t think that they will ever be happy until they get what they think is their “fair share”, no matter what collateral damage it costs to others. I blame part of that on players being feted, praised, and pampered from an early age. They grow up thinking they are God’s gift to the sport and that they should be treated accordingly. Really, if they have their education paid for, their room and board taken care of, and some spending money in their pocket, what more does a 20 year old college student really need? I’d guarantee that 99% of their fellow university attendees would be over the moon to just have all that. Trouble is that they have forgotten that it’s a privilege to be a college athlete, it’s not a right.

Well, yunno, capitalism.

It wouldn't shock me at all if the SCOTUS ruled that being able to pursue what they feel is their fair share is their legal right, and furthermore it is illegal for the NCAA and its members to try and systematically stop them.

So, if that happens, then what is the NCAA's plan?? It's time to start asking that question in case it does happen. Because, it might happen. Just saying that we like things the way that they are may not work this time.

While I don't entirely disagree with what you're saying, the problem is that isn't an actual legal defense in an anti-trust case. A lot of people would be over the moon if they just had the things that you had, or that I had, or that a lot of other people had. That doesn't mean that you don't have the legal right to try and get more things for yourself.

[XUGRAD80]

Something being legal doesn’t mean it wise, or right. I’d hope that the court would take into account the long term effects of their ruling and how it will effect not just the plaintiffs, but many others. I suspect that they will do so, at least I hope they do.

[xubrew]

Something being legal doesn’t mean it wise, or right. I’d hope that the court would take into account the long term effects of their ruling and how it will effect not just the plaintiffs, but many others. I suspect that they will do so, at least I hope they do.

Something being legal doesn't make it wise or right, but something being legal does make it legal. If the court rules that players are being denied their legal rights to their fair market value and that the NCAA is in violation of anti-trust laws by limiting how much they are able to be compensated, then...well...that's kind of it.

Now, maybe they won't. But, I'm kind of thinking they will. At the very least I think it is an extreme possibility. And, I really don't understand why it seemed like such an impossibility for so long to so many people that, quite frankly, should have seen this coming a long time ago.

[MHettel]

How bout this idea.

No athletic scholarships. ever.

Just make everyone a free agent and let schools bid on them. Open market baby! Pay em! And, let them sign endorsement deals and take cash from Boosters or whatever!

And then they pay tuition, like everyone else.

sounds fair, yeah?

Yeah, would never happen.

In all seriousness, I cannot get over the fact that there exists a quid pro quo in the current arrangement. A kid receives an offer of full tuition, room, board, fees and various other perks, in exchange for agreeing to play a game for a school. Offer also includes some limitations that come along with meeting the amateur criteria. Kid accepts offer. Nobody forced kid to take offer. Kid bitches about offer that 99% of other people would die for.

College Sports will be changing. Not for the better in my view. All self inflicted.

[xubrew]

How bout this idea.

No athletic scholarships. ever.

Just make everyone a free agent and let schools bid on them. Open market baby! Pay em! And, let them sign endorsement deals and take cash from Boosters or whatever!

And then they pay tuition, like everyone else.

sounds fair, yeah?

Yeah, would never happen.

In all seriousness, I cannot get over the fact that there exists a quid pro quo in the current arrangement. A kid receives an offer of full tuition, room, board, fees and various other perks, in exchange for agreeing to play a game for a school. Offer also includes some limitations that come along with meeting the amateur criteria. Kid accepts offer. Nobody forced kid to take offer. Kid bitches about offer that 99% of other people would die for.

College Sports will be changing. Not for the better in my view. All self inflicted.

If this is what the NCAA shows up to court with, then they're already dead. They will actually have to present a counter argument to them being in violation of anti-trust laws.

[STL_XUfan]

In all seriousness, I cannot get over the fact that there exists a quid pro quo in the current arrangement. A kid receives an offer of full tuition, room, board, fees and various other perks, in exchange for agreeing to play a game for a school. Offer also includes some limitations that come along with meeting the amateur criteria. Kid accepts offer. Nobody forced kid to take offer. Kid bitches about offer that 99% of other people would die for.



I agree with you in basketball. There are enough other options if the player wants to find out his market value and skip college.

Football is the screwed up one. College football is a defacto minor league system for the NFL, without the benefit of being paid by the NFL. For example Sheldon Richardson played at Mizzou while I was there. He has made more money by the age of 30 then I will likely make in my entire career. While a gifted football player, that man had no business being on a college campus. The fact that Mizzou could keep him academically eligible was always shocking to me (then again, maybe not considering Mizzou's NCAA violations for having a tutor take player's classes).

[xubrew]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2021/01/08/justice-department-warns-ncaa-over-transfer-and-money-making-rules/6599747002/

[XUGRAD80]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2021/01/08/justice-department-warns-ncaa-over-transfer-and-money-making-rules/6599747002/

The current transfer rules that allow the schools to stop financial aid even before the student transfers, NEED changing. I can understand it if the kid decides to voluntarily walk away from the team mid-term, but otherwise it’s wrong. As long as the kid is still a member of the team, and otherwise does nothing to violate their scholarship contract, they should still remain on scholarship.

[X-band '01]

Unfortunately "I like it the way it is" does not qualify as a legal defense against anti-trust violations. I know the NCAA likes things the way they are. I hope they understand that simply saying that isn't going to be good enough. And...I'm not so sure they do realize that.

Congress as it's going to be configured has a good chance of passing this legislation once Biden and Harris take office. This will be long overdue for the students. (I also refuse to use the term student-athlete since the NCAA coined that term to screw them out of being paid a long time ago).

[xubrew]

Congress as it's going to be configured has a good chance of passing this legislation once Biden and Harris take office. This will be long overdue for the students. (I also refuse to use the term student-athlete since the NCAA coined that term to screw them out of being paid a long time ago).

Agreed.

And the NCAA needs to...You know what??...I think this is just going to come down to the NCAA needing to do what they're told. When the Justice Department warns you that what you're doing might be illegal, it's probably time to at least consider stopping what you're doing!! Just sayin...

And to echo what X-Band said, it is LOOONG overdue.

The NCAA looks like it may delay the vote on Name, Image, and Likeness. This may sound strange on the surface, but I think what they're doing is two things...trying to restructure it to make absolutely certain they are no longer doing things that "may be illegal" in the eyes of the Justice Dept,...

AND...

Expressing to all the university presidents "Hey, we just got a letter from the Justice Dept!! So, this new NIL legislation that you're voting on....VOTE YES!!!!"

[bleedXblue]

I'm really torn on this issue and I have a really hard time understanding how schools (like X) who need and rely upon the revenue (from BBall) to run the University deal with this.

I think its only going to further distance the elite programs from everyone else.

We will see how it plays out.......should be interesting.

[xubrew]

I'm really torn on this issue and I have a really hard time understanding how schools (like X) who need and rely upon the revenue (from BBall) to run the University deal with this.

I think its only going to further distance the elite programs from everyone else.

We will see how it plays out.......should be interesting.

I'm also a little worried about this, but only a little. I was far more worried about it when the Power Five became the Power Five and were basically allowed to create their own rules and legislation outside of the the rest of NCAA. I was also worried that the cost of living might also widen the gap even though I was for it. But, neither of those things really changed the landscape all that much. The Big East looks like a P5 conference in basketball even though it isn't. Last year we had Dayton, San Diego State, Gonzaga, Creighton, and Villanova all finish the season ranked in the top ten. None are P5 schools. That's half the damn top ten!! So, I might be a little naive because I was so worried before and nothing happened, but I don't think it'll effect the competitive balance all that much. Basketball tends to run on basketball and not football money. Most football money tends to go toward football, and even in football the gap doesn't seem to be any bigger. Granted, it doesn't seem all that much smaller either, but at least there are a few non-P5 football teams are in the national psyche as being national programs.

[bleedXblue]

I'm also a little worried about this, but only a little. I was far more worried about it when the Power Five became the Power Five and were basically allowed to create their own rules and legislation outside of the the rest of NCAA. I was also worried that the cost of living might also widen the gap even though I was for it. But, neither of those things really changed the landscape all that much. The Big East looks like a P5 conference in basketball even though it isn't. Last year we had Dayton, San Diego State, Gonzaga, Creighton, and Villanova all finish the season ranked in the top ten. None are P5 schools. That's half the damn top ten!! So, I might be a little naive because I was so worried before and nothing happened, but I don't think it'll effect the competitive balance all that much. Basketball tends to run on basketball and not football money. Most football money tends to go toward football, and even in football the gap doesn't seem to be any bigger. Granted, it doesn't seem all that much smaller either, but at least there are a few non-P5 football teams are in the national psyche as being national programs.

Will be interesting to see how they treat scholarships in the way of "compensation".

How will mid tier MAC schools deal with this?

I think the fallout could be massive. Many of these schools are already struggling to keep their heads above water. Title 9 implications will rear their ugly heads. Hell, UC's athletic dept. is a the red right now.

[xubrew]

Is anyone following this? I can’t really tell how it’s going from a legal point of view, but from my layman’s perspective I wouldn’t say it’s going well for the NCAA.

[GoMuskies]

I just know that Clarence Thomas spoke, so that's enough to make today's deliberations notable.

I'm certain that this is all going to result in something that causes me to be less interested in college sports.

[xubrew]

I just know that Clarence Thomas spoke, so that's enough to make today's deliberations notable.

I'm certain that this is all going to result in something that causes me to be less interested in college sports.

"It strikes me as odd that the coaches' salaries have ballooned and they are in the amateur ranks, as are the players."


I don’t think Clarence Thomas has ever said this many words in his entire time on the SCOTUS.

[STL_XUfan]

I just know that Clarence Thomas spoke, so that's enough to make today's deliberations notable.

I'm certain that this is all going to result in something that causes me to be less interested in college sports.
Had to get it on the record that he thinks Nebraska is still a powerhouse program.

[bobbiemcgee]

I thought Justice Roberts summed it up: " It's like a game of Jenga You've got this nice solid block that protects the sort of product the schools want to provide. And you pull one log and then another and everything's fine and another and another. And all of a sudden the whole thing comes crashing down."

[xubrew]

I do not see any way this does not end very badly for the NCAA. Odds are that by the end of the summer the rules of amateurism will be completely overhauled, and perhaps thrown out entirely. And, since it's the supreme court, the NCAA really won't have much of a choice.

Here's the question that I ultimately have right now for the NCAA...

Why did you fight this so stubbornly and for so long when everyone with any sense at all knew it was in violation of anti-trust laws, and that there was a very real chance that you'd eventually end up losing everything??

[bobbiemcgee]

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=we+gotta+protect+our+phony+baloney+jobs+y outube&docid=608009769658424149&mid=169F287ACB45CC1DECF1169F287ACB45CC1DECF1&view=detail&FORM=VIRE

[UCGRAD4X]

q=we+gotta+protect+our+phony+baloney+jobs+youtube&docid=608009769658424149&mid=169F287ACB45CC1DECF1169F287ACB45CC1DECF1&view=detail&FORM=VIRE (https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=we+gotta+protect+our+phony+baloney+jobs+y outube&docid=608009769658424149&mid=169F287ACB45CC1DECF1169F287ACB45CC1DECF1&view=detail&FORM=VIRE)[/QUOTE]

Any Mel Brooks reference is appropriate, especially from Blazing Saddles. "Somebody go back and get a shitload of dimes" also comes to mind.

Part of the issue, as in many social and political debates, is the idea of fairness. They deserve their "fair share". That opens up a whole other slew of issues:
1. What does that even mean?
2. Who gets to decide?
3. Fair to whom exactly?
4. What is fair today....
5. Is what is fair to a P5 or other high $$$ generating program the same as XYZ College and across all sports?
6. How are program levels (D1, D2, D3 etc.) compensated?
7. What about cheer leaders, band members, student managers etc.?
8. What about the music scholar or research scholar?
9. What about.........(the dozen or so things, as yet considered, barely tangential, if at all)?

The whole 'fairness' issue is so nebulous, malleable and a camels nose in the tent, there will be no end to the unravelling. That will be for the foreseeable future the new focus of college athletics. If you thought this year was unbearably depressing...*

[MADXSTER]

q=we+gotta+protect+our+phony+baloney+jobs+youtube&docid=608009769658424149&mid=169F287ACB45CC1DECF1169F287ACB45CC1DECF1&view=detail&FORM=VIRE (https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=we+gotta+protect+our+phony+baloney+jobs+y outube&docid=608009769658424149&mid=169F287ACB45CC1DECF1169F287ACB45CC1DECF1&view=detail&FORM=VIRE)


Any Mel Brooks reference is appropriate, especially from Blazing Saddles. "Somebody go back and get a shitload of dimes" also comes to mind.

Part of the issue, as in many social and political debates, is the idea of fairness. They deserve their "fair share". That opens up a whole other slew of issues:
1. What does that even mean?
2. Who gets to decide?
3. Fair to whom exactly?
4. What is fair today....
5. Is what is fair to a P5 or other high $$$ generating program the same as XYZ College and across all sports?
6. How are program levels (D1, D2, D3 etc.) compensated?
7. What about cheer leaders, band members, student managers etc.?
8. What about the music scholar or research scholar?
9. What about.........(the dozen or so things, as yet considered, barely tangential, if at all)?

The whole 'fairness' issue is so nebulous, malleable and a camels nose in the tent, there will be no end to the unravelling. That will be for the foreseeable future the new focus of college athletics. If you thought this year was unbearably depressing...*

10. Both sides will be immediately looking for loopholes once a decision comes out.

[Xville]

Barkley says some crazy shit sometimes, but my gawd i think he absolutely hits the nail on the head here:

https://twitter.com/finebaum/status/1390032499133255684

[xubrew]

Barkley says some crazy shit sometimes, but my gawd i think he absolutely hits the nail on the head here:

https://twitter.com/finebaum/status/1390032499133255684

I don't necessarily think he's wrong on principle. And I completely agree. A free education is definitely not nothing.

The problem is that what he's saying is not a winning legal argument when it comes to anti-trust laws. Maybe he doesn't mean for it to be and is only speaking on the matter of principle, but legally this does not fly. I think the NCAA is FINALLY, and at long last (still very slowly, but nevertheless FINALLY) starting to realize they can't win this if the issue is pressed in the courts. A lot of the people who have issues with player compensation and NIL aren't necessarily wrong on principle, but they are completely wrong if they think that the law will be on their side. It isn't. I think that fact is finally starting to become obvious.

[Xville]

I don't necessarily think he's wrong on principle. And I completely agree. A free education is definitely not nothing.

The problem is that what he's saying is not a winning legal argument when it comes to anti-trust laws. Maybe he doesn't mean for it to be and is only speaking on the matter of principle, but legally this does not fly. I think the NCAA is FINALLY, and at long last (still very slowly, but nevertheless FINALLY) starting to realize they can't win this if the issue is pressed in the courts. A lot of the people who have issues with player compensation and NIL aren't necessarily wrong on principle, but they are completely wrong if they think that the law will be on their side. It isn't. I think that fact is finally starting to become obvious.

Barkley definitely was not speaking to the legality...on principle, I completely agree with him in multiple ways. I do think it is odd that "we" are having to change the rules for such a miniscule percentage of college athletes

[xubrew]

Barkley definitely was not speaking to the legality...on principle, I completely agree with him in multiple ways. I do think it is odd that "we" are having to change the rules for such a miniscule percentage of college athletes

It probably effects more than what you think.

The old/current/soon to be changed rules make it illegal for college athletes to post or tweet about what their favorite pizza place is because that's considered an endorsement with the use of their NIL. So, that's kind of a stupid rule that will be nice to get rid of.

It also probably impacts the country club sports more than the revenue sports. Those that play golf, or tennis, or swim, or probably even softball, can now get jobs at actual country clubs. A lot of clubs would hire them so they can be able to say "Hey, we've got actual college athletes working here! Come take lessons or play a few rounds with them!" I mean, they won't be making a ton of money doing that, but they'll be making more than zero. A lot of places will want to hire them. Once this goes through, they can.

Being able to pretty much get any job they can get without needing to run it by the compliance office is actually something that impacts everyone. Now, to your point, the vast majority won't be getting jobs that are all that much different than the ones they have now, but it's still a change for the better to simply not need to seek permission to make sure it's not an extra benefit and that they're not profiting off their NIL.

[xukeith]

It probably effects more than what you think.

The old/current/soon to be changed rules make it illegal for college athletes to post or tweet about what their favorite pizza place is because that's considered an endorsement with the use of their NIL. So, that's kind of a stupid rule that will be nice to get rid of.

It also probably impacts the country club sports more than the revenue sports. Those that play golf, or tennis, or swim, or probably even softball, can now get jobs at actual country clubs. A lot of clubs would hire them so they can be able to say "Hey, we've got actual college athletes working here! Come take lessons or play a few rounds with them!" I mean, they won't be making a ton of money doing that, but they'll be making more than zero. A lot of places will want to hire them. Once this goes through, they can.

Being able to pretty much get any job they can get without needing to run it by the compliance office is actually something that impacts everyone. Now, to your point, the vast majority won't be getting jobs that are all that much different than the ones they have now, but it's still a change for the better to simply not need to seek permission to make sure it's not an extra benefit and that they're not profiting off their NIL.

Won't Title IX demand equal pay?

[xubrew]

Won't Title IX demand equal pay?

No. Not for NIL. Good question, though, because that is an important point.

[muskiefan82]

It probably effects more than what you think.

The old/current/soon to be changed rules make it illegal for college athletes to post or tweet about what their favorite pizza place is because that's considered an endorsement with the use of their NIL. So, that's kind of a stupid rule that will be nice to get rid of.

It also probably impacts the country club sports more than the revenue sports. Those that play golf, or tennis, or swim, or probably even softball, can now get jobs at actual country clubs. A lot of clubs would hire them so they can be able to say "Hey, we've got actual college athletes working here! Come take lessons or play a few rounds with them!" I mean, they won't be making a ton of money doing that, but they'll be making more than zero. A lot of places will want to hire them. Once this goes through, they can.

Being able to pretty much get any job they can get without needing to run it by the compliance office is actually something that impacts everyone. Now, to your point, the vast majority won't be getting jobs that are all that much different than the ones they have now, but it's still a change for the better to simply not need to seek permission to make sure it's not an extra benefit and that they're not profiting off their NIL.

This is exactly why the NCAA should have seen the writing on the wall and made something similar possible years ago. Now, they will lose far more than they would have if they had just realized then what was always going to happen.

[muskiefan82]

It probably effects more than what you think.

The old/current/soon to be changed rules make it illegal for college athletes to post or tweet about what their favorite pizza place is because that's considered an endorsement with the use of their NIL. So, that's kind of a stupid rule that will be nice to get rid of.

It also probably impacts the country club sports more than the revenue sports. Those that play golf, or tennis, or swim, or probably even softball, can now get jobs at actual country clubs. A lot of clubs would hire them so they can be able to say "Hey, we've got actual college athletes working here! Come take lessons or play a few rounds with them!" I mean, they won't be making a ton of money doing that, but they'll be making more than zero. A lot of places will want to hire them. Once this goes through, they can.

Being able to pretty much get any job they can get without needing to run it by the compliance office is actually something that impacts everyone. Now, to your point, the vast majority won't be getting jobs that are all that much different than the ones they have now, but it's still a change for the better to simply not need to seek permission to make sure it's not an extra benefit and that they're not profiting off their NIL.

This is exactly why the NCAA should have seen the writing on the wall and made something similar possible years ago. Now, they will lose far more than they would have if they had just realized then what was always going to happen.

[xubrew]

This is exactly why the NCAA should have seen the writing on the wall and made something similar possible years ago. Now, they will lose far more than they would have if they had just realized then what was always going to happen.

You're not wrong!

[UCGRAD4X]

This is exactly why the NCAA should have seen the writing on the wall and made something similar possible years ago. Now, they will lose far more than they would have if they had just realized then what was always going to happen.

Unfortunately the NCAA is more reactive that proactive. The proactive decisions they do make are usually short-sighted, have unintended (bad) consequences and are often head-scratching at least or just plain stupid.

[xubrew]

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/31661417/ncaa-president-mark-emmert-tells-schools-act-nil-will?platform=amp

[paulxu]

I've got an idea: let's wait until the very last moment...and create a giant cluster****.

[bobbiemcgee]

Basketball jerseys will soon look like Nascar driving suits.

[noteggs]

I’m waiting for the post game interviews, “first, I’d like thank my endorsers…”

[bjf123]

The ABC Jersey, XYZ Shoes were solid for me today and gave me confidence to go for that game winning 3 today.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[STL_XUfan]

The ABC Jersey, XYZ Shoes were solid for me today and gave me confidence to go for that game winning 3 today.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If he hits that game winning 3, I am probably drunk at Danas and not listening to the post game interview anyway. He gets paid. I get happy drunk. Spot the problem (besides my drinking).

[bobbiemcgee]

If X recruits a guy named Herschel and Dana's sponsors him, you'll probably get a free beer.

[xubrew]

The Supreme Court just voted 9-0 against the NCAA. Which should surprise absolutely no one with any sense at all, but is probably a complete shock to the NCAA itself.

[paulxu]

It's possible the NIL of most every college player is not worth a whole lot. Unless your name was Zion.

Edit: although I expect every major college player will get a free car at least.

[STL_XUfan]

The Supreme Court just voted 9-0 against the NCAA. Which should surprise absolutely no one with any sense at all, but is probably a complete shock to the NCAA itself.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-512_gfbh.pdf

Kavanaugh's concurrence is a pretty good recap about what the opinion did and did not do. On a first read, seems like this will have little impact on the NIL arguments, but will start an arm's race between conferences on "additional benefits" paid out to athletes in connection with education.

[MHettel]

Not exactly the outcome that I was hoping for, but at least the bitching will stop.

Right? No more complaining?

Right?

[xubrew]

Not exactly the outcome that I was hoping for, but at least the bitching will stop.

Right? No more complaining?

Right?


Assuredly not.

Did you see Kavanaugh's concurring opinion? He closes with this, which basically invites and encourages further challenges to amateurism and how it violates anti-trust laws. Since he opened that door even wider, I believe there will be more challenges to the NCAA in the very near future. I hope the NCAA understands that and sees the need to be proactive about it, but I'm guessing they do not.

I mean, this just seems to me like one hell of a parting shot. It sounds to me like Kavanaugh is basically saying "You guys can take this a lot further if you want to."



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.

[XUGRAD80]

Who decides what “fair compensation” is? Does this open the door for workers to sue other companies for higher wages because the CEO’s are making millions in compensation? Does this ruling now overturn minimum wage laws? I don’t believe it does.


I agree with the notion that the NCAA legally shouldn’t place any limits on the amount of compensation a student can get for participation in a sport. However, this doesn’t mean anything more than that the NCAA has to get rid of those limits. It doesn’t mean that the universities MUST turn around and start increasing the compensation though, only that they CAN.

Let’s wait and see what the market forces bring about.

[STL_XUfan]

Who decides what “fair compensation” is? Does this open the door for workers to sue other companies for higher wages because the CEO’s are making millions in compensation? Does this ruling now overturn minimum wage laws? I don’t believe it does.


I agree with the notion that the NCAA legally shouldn’t place any limits on the amount of compensation a student can get for participation in a sport. However, this doesn’t mean anything more than that the NCAA has to get rid of those limits. It doesn’t mean that the universities MUST turn around and start increasing the compensation though, only that they CAN.

Let’s wait and see what the market forces bring about.

I think for the "fair compensation" piece to come into play, the entity would first have to be considered a monopoly. So I am not really worried about the fallout from that part of the decision.

As to the schools, the keeping up with the Jones' aspect of this will be interesting. The example given in the opinion of providing the student athlete a car to get to and from class and practice could become outright comical in how schools will justify the expenses (The hill down from the Commons to west entrance can sometime get icy, so I think the players should have brand new Landrovers to make sure they can safely navigate it).

[Strange Brew]

I think for the "fair compensation" piece to come into play, the entity would first have to be considered a monopoly. So I am not really worried about the fallout from that part of the decision.

As to the schools, the keeping up with the Jones' aspect of this will be interesting. The example given in the opinion of providing the student athlete a car to get to and from class and practice could become outright comical in how schools will justify the expenses (The hill down from the Commons to west entrance can sometime get icy, so I think the players should have brand new Landrovers to make sure they can safely navigate it).

Could get interesting and a learning experience for players if compensation is tied to what the average 19 - 23 year old high school graduate makes annually. For thought, I'd imagine in most cases it's less than the value of their tuition and board.

Also, it could get very tricky with considering the value add of each individual athlete. Do captains get paid more? Seniors vs. freshman? 6 person vs. starter and leading scorer?

[GoMuskies]

If this ends up killing some non-revenue sports programs, that will suck.

[MHettel]

Can we make some assumptions here? These are not exact numbers by any means, but more of my best estimates about the current state.

- I'd estimate that there about 115 D1 Football programs. I dont think it called "D1", maybe it's FBS or FCS or whatever. I think you know what I mean.
- There are probably another 150 smaller programs, across lower divisions.
- I'm guessing 35% of the D1 Programs operate "in the black", with probably 15% of all teams accounting for 80% of the "profit."
- I'd assume 100% of the lower division teams operate at a loss.
- There are about 345 D1 Mens Basketball teams. I'd estimate that about 35% of those operate "in the black" as well. And again, about 15% of all D1 teams responsible for about 80% of all the "profit."
- I think there are maybe 2-3 Women's BBall teams out of 345 that operate in the back.
- I think there are maybe 2 dozen additional sports offered, and all schools have a mix of these programs but almost never do they have them all. Maybe each school has 8 other sports (on the low end), up to 18 (on the high end). So thousands of other teams out there with rosters of maybe 12 players on average. All these teams operate with a financial loss.

So lets boil it all down and estimate that maybe 125 sports programs operate in the black, out of maybe 3500 total programs. Lets round that up to 4%.

When a school has programs operating at a loss, there is one of 2 options: 1) the programs are being "funded" out of the profits of a football or Mens basketball team, thus leading to an "athletic department" that might be running at a profit. or 2) these programs simply run at a loss and are subsidized by a broader university fund.

Now, lets jump to the scenario where Schools can pay the players. Would any program currently operating at a loss have the ability to pay a player? I would think not. Would a program "in the black" be able to pay players? Yes, I think of course they could, which leads me to the next question. would paying players from profitable programs reduce the ability to those programs to provide funding to programs that operate at a loss? Yes, obviously which leads directly to the decision of the school to retain the programs at the expense of the general fund, or to cut programs due to funding.

And even ON the teams where a player can be paid, it's gonna be a select few people that earn anything meaningfull. Just because players are ELIGIBLE to be paid, it wont trickle down to 90% (or more) of the players.

This will not require a "tweak" to fix. This is a "do over" in terms of how College Sports will be administered.

More downside than upside in my opinion

[MADXSTER]

Legalized Bag Drops.

[chico]

Can we make some assumptions here? These are not exact numbers by any means, but more of my best estimates about the current state.

- I'd estimate that there about 115 D1 Football programs. I dont think it called "D1", maybe it's FBS or FCS or whatever. I think you know what I mean.
- There are probably another 150 smaller programs, across lower divisions.
- I'm guessing 35% of the D1 Programs operate "in the black", with probably 15% of all teams accounting for 80% of the "profit."
- I'd assume 100% of the lower division teams operate at a loss.
- There are about 345 D1 Mens Basketball teams. I'd estimate that about 35% of those operate "in the black" as well. And again, about 15% of all D1 teams responsible for about 80% of all the "profit."
- I think there are maybe 2-3 Women's BBall teams out of 345 that operate in the back.
- I think there are maybe 2 dozen additional sports offered, and all schools have a mix of these programs but almost never do they have them all. Maybe each school has 8 other sports (on the low end), up to 18 (on the high end). So thousands of other teams out there with rosters of maybe 12 players on average. All these teams operate with a financial loss.

So lets boil it all down and estimate that maybe 125 sports programs operate in the black, out of maybe 3500 total programs. Lets round that up to 4%.

When a school has programs operating at a loss, there is one of 2 options: 1) the programs are being "funded" out of the profits of a football or Mens basketball team, thus leading to an "athletic department" that might be running at a profit. or 2) these programs simply run at a loss and are subsidized by a broader university fund.

Now, lets jump to the scenario where Schools can pay the players. Would any program currently operating at a loss have the ability to pay a player? I would think not. Would a program "in the black" be able to pay players? Yes, I think of course they could, which leads me to the next question. would paying players from profitable programs reduce the ability to those programs to provide funding to programs that operate at a loss? Yes, obviously which leads directly to the decision of the school to retain the programs at the expense of the general fund, or to cut programs due to funding.

And even ON the teams where a player can be paid, it's gonna be a select few people that earn anything meaningfull. Just because players are ELIGIBLE to be paid, it wont trickle down to 90% (or more) of the players.

This will not require a "tweak" to fix. This is a "do over" in terms of how College Sports will be administered.

More downside than upside in my opinion

I think sports kind of operates as a "loss leader" of sorts for schools. They lose money on sports, but having the sport brings in more money through increased enrollment, alumni engagement, etc. I have no idea how you'd quantify that (I'm sure someone's done a study at some point, though) but there is some benefit to having sports beyond the simple bottom line for each one.

I tend to agree with Go that this could spell the end for a lot of the non-revenue sports.

I wonder how this all will affect/play in with Title IX.

[XUGRAD80]

It’s important to remember that “at this point” the ruling only effects what can be given for “educational” purposes. Of course, first off that’s a pretty fluid and nondescript term at this point. Once again, who decides what is “educational” related and who doesn’t? Certainly not the NCAA anymore, they just lost that power. Secondly, I think this is only a first step (or misstep) down the slope to full payments being made to some athletes.

Eventually, I see some of the top programs opting to becoming part of a new professional league for college age athletes. Minor leagues, where PART of the compensation programs include room, board, and tuition. While the other colleges choose to stay in programs similar to what they have today and the student-athletes agree to the contracts that limit the compensation voluntarily.

[MADXSTER]

So I can easily see the scenario play out...

Coach: We can guarantee $75k in NIL because we have a booster that really likes you. He'll put your picture on a billboard with his product and you get 50k.

Kid: Sorry coach but UK is offering 100k and UL is offering 100k plus a hooker.

[MADXSTER]

Also

A booster who gives say 100k to the athletic department now is asked to sponsor(NIL) a player. That 100k isn't spread around anymore.

Also, Also

The kid now transfers and the 100k is gone. So you'll have signing bonuses plus incentives to keep the kid around. Rosters are going to get crazy. I'm just glad I don't have to deal with it.

[xu82]

Also

A booster who gives say 100k to the athletic department now is asked to sponsor(NIL) a player. That 100k isn't spread around anymore.

Also, Also

The kid now transfers and the 100k is gone. So you'll have signing bonuses plus incentives to keep the kid around. Rosters are going to get crazy. I'm just glad I don't have to deal with it.


AMEN! This is going to get messy and ugly, I’m afraid.

I’m with you and GO on fearing the unintended consequences.

[JTG]

If this ends up killing some non-revenue sports programs, that will suck.

I think it more likely to kill some fb and bb programs. What killed X fb ? Money.

[MADXSTER]

So can the players now get agents? Coming out of high school?

[XUGRAD80]

I think it more likely to kill some fb and bb programs. What killed X fb ? Money.

Schools are going to have to decide if they want to play with the big boys, or settle for playing at lower levels, or just give up entirely. But I suspect that eventually it will sort itself out and sanity will return. Possibly going to be a wild ride until that happens though.

[xudash]

Can we make some assumptions here? These are not exact numbers by any means, but more of my best estimates about the current state.

- I'd estimate that there about 115 D1 Football programs. I dont think it called "D1", maybe it's FBS or FCS or whatever. I think you know what I mean.
- There are probably another 150 smaller programs, across lower divisions.
- I'm guessing 35% of the D1 Programs operate "in the black", with probably 15% of all teams accounting for 80% of the "profit."
- I'd assume 100% of the lower division teams operate at a loss.
- There are about 345 D1 Mens Basketball teams. I'd estimate that about 35% of those operate "in the black" as well. And again, about 15% of all D1 teams responsible for about 80% of all the "profit."
- I think there are maybe 2-3 Women's BBall teams out of 345 that operate in the back.
- I think there are maybe 2 dozen additional sports offered, and all schools have a mix of these programs but almost never do they have them all. Maybe each school has 8 other sports (on the low end), up to 18 (on the high end). So thousands of other teams out there with rosters of maybe 12 players on average. All these teams operate with a financial loss.

So lets boil it all down and estimate that maybe 125 sports programs operate in the black, out of maybe 3500 total programs. Lets round that up to 4%.

When a school has programs operating at a loss, there is one of 2 options: 1) the programs are being "funded" out of the profits of a football or Mens basketball team, thus leading to an "athletic department" that might be running at a profit. or 2) these programs simply run at a loss and are subsidized by a broader university fund.

Now, lets jump to the scenario where Schools can pay the players. Would any program currently operating at a loss have the ability to pay a player? I would think not. Would a program "in the black" be able to pay players? Yes, I think of course they could, which leads me to the next question. would paying players from profitable programs reduce the ability to those programs to provide funding to programs that operate at a loss? Yes, obviously which leads directly to the decision of the school to retain the programs at the expense of the general fund, or to cut programs due to funding.

And even ON the teams where a player can be paid, it's gonna be a select few people that earn anything meaningful. Just because players are ELIGIBLE to be paid, it won't trickle down to 90% (or more) of the players.

This will not require a "tweak" to fix. This is a "do over" in terms of how College Sports will be administered.

More downside than upside in my opinion

I like your breakdown. I believe you've covered the "well healed" side of it well.

It's your bolded statement that deserves a little amplification, IMHO. Supply of and demand for the top athletes. Are things truly going to change that much?

My sense is the answer is "no" for FBS football. The 5-star football players will continue to go to Ohio State, Alabama, Texas, etc., and especially now with their funding and with their fan bases coupled to this brave new world - huge fan bases which represent marketing clout for a prospective NIL deal for a player.

Basketball? This might have a little more severe of an impact, especially for mid-majors. I agree with your "more downside than upside" statement, especially for basketball.

However, thank God we're in the BE and thank God a new media deal will be sewn together in the not too distant future with Fox that will up the per team payouts for BE members. Also, thank God we're in Cincinnati and not, say, Dayton or Massillon, etc. What I'm getting at here, and I don't know and no one else knows at this point, is that maybe, just maybe, we'll still be able to effectively play in the 4-star pool with effective team seeding rounding out from the sleeper 3-star pool. Can we hold serve on recruiting solid Top 150 talent, at the very least? Can we hold serve on the sports we offer. As far as the latter question is concerned, thank God most of our major capital projects are behind us, or are close to being behind us.


p.s. Protecting against scenarios like MadXster's comments - A booster who gives say 100k to the athletic department now is asked to sponsor(NIL) a player. That 100k isn't spread around anymore. Kid now transfers and the 100k is gone. So you'll have signing bonuses plus incentives to keep the Kid around. Rosters are going to get crazy - is key, and these possible outcomes are truly scary.

[paulxu]

I wonder about 2 things:
1 - will a kid resent it when his teammate is making more from NIL...or understand it from a talent perspective (and work harder)
2 - it might not be playing time that sends a kid to the transfer portal, but the chance for more money.

Colleges will become de jure minor leagues for basketball, so the NBA will probably keep loving it.

[xubrew]

I know I've been saying this for years, but I'll say it again. I can't help but think the NCAA could have done things over the past decade or so to mitigate this. But, they didn't. They just kept doubling down on their "principles." And now things are likely going to be a total fustercluck.

[bjf123]

I’m thinking the only kids who’ll make money off their NIL in football will be the star QBs, WRs, and RBs, with the occasional defensive star. More will have a chance in hoops, but it will only be the most of the starting five, maybe the first guy off the bench.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. There will probably be some internal strife between the haves and have nots, unless the haves take the other players out to dinner and buys them other stuff.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[XUGRAD80]

Teams are payed big bucks to wear a certain companies uniforms, right? How long before the players band together and say that they want some of that money paid directly to them?


What really pisses me off the most about this whole thing is that some athletes, and athletic programs, are going to needlessly suffer because of the greed of others. Because of the envy on the part of some because of what some coaches are getting paid. You can talk about “fairness” all you want, but in the end it’s really just being envious of what some coaches are getting paid and the feeling on the part of some that they want some of that jack for themselves. It’s not about being “fair” to ALL the athletes, it’s personal greed and envy. I don’t see any of those players sharing any of the money they get with anyone else in the program. Think they are going to spread it around to the backups, the walk-ones, or the managers? Think again. They are going to keep it all for themselves.

Someone please tell me how this is going to make it better for college athletes as a whole. Not just individual cases, but better for everyone. It’s not. It’s going to help a very privileged few and hurt a whole lot more people in the end.

[xubrew]

I’m thinking the only kids who’ll make money off their NIL in football will be the star QBs, WRs, and RBs, with the occasional defensive star. More will have a chance in hoops, but it will only be the most of the starting five, maybe the first guy off the bench.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. There will probably be some internal strife between the haves and have nots, unless the haves take the other players out to dinner and buys them other stuff.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think the country club sports will benefit the most. They won't be the biggest individual earners, but they'll have the highest percentage of athletes who cash in (at least a little bit) on their NIL. If they can suddenly work for an actual country club and use their status as a D1 athlete within that club to make money, or tips, or give lessons, or whatever, then game on.

[MADXSTER]

The NIL is going to come into play during recruiting when the kid is still in high school. Not after they sign their LOI. If you don't see this then you are fooling yourself. Players are going to be paid on potential. Then the same thing is going to happen with the portal. Rosters to a certain extent on are going to be based on $ budgets. Big schools will have an unlimited budget.

[paulxu]

Somebody out there must know Bill or Melinda.
Get them to pump about $5 billion into our endowment.

[xubrew]

The NIL is going to come into play during recruiting when the kid is still in high school. Not after they sign their LOI. If you don't see this then you are fooling yourself. Players are going to be paid on potential. Then the same thing is going to happen with the portal. Rosters to a certain extent on are going to be based on $ budgets. Big schools will have an unlimited budget.

Yes, probably so.

So the NCAA is kind of being attacked on two fronts right now. One is the NIL, and the other is the Supreme Court ruling from yesterday.

Here is the question that the NCAA really needs to be asking themselves at this point....

What can be done to manage the size of the fustercluck that this potentially creates while remaining within compliance of the law??

Anybody??

Right now I basically got nothing.

[Drew]

Y'all get scared real easily. Big East has higher basketball budgets than the Pac-12 and the Big Ten.

https://www.three-man-weave.com/3mw/college-basketball-budgets-2020

[Xavier]

So I can easily see the scenario play out...

Coach: We can guarantee $75k in NIL because we have a booster that really likes you. He'll put your picture on a billboard with his product and you get 50k.

Kid: Sorry coach but UK is offering 100k and UL is offering 100k plus a hooker.

Take the billboard and booster out and that is already going on and not just with the Blue bloods.

[XUGRAD80]

Y'all get scared real easily. Big East has higher basketball budgets than the Pac-12 and the Big Ten.

https://www.three-man-weave.com/3mw/college-basketball-budgets-2020

One of the real beauties of NCAA sports, and especially basketball, is watching a relatively unknown school compete successfully in the national tournaments. I fear that this will new decision, and ones that will undoubtedly come, will make a thing of the past. That all success will be even more held onto by a very small select group of schools and conferences. I don’t see that as a plus, even if X is a part of that select group. Some of the magic of college sports will be taken away. I consider that a negative, and not a good thing for sports as a whole.

[94GRAD]

One of the real beauties of NCAA sports, and especially basketball, is watching a relatively unknown school compete successfully in the national tournaments. I fear that this will new decision, and ones that will undoubtedly come, will make a thing of the past. That all success will be even more held onto by a very small select group of schools and conferences. I don’t see that as a plus, even if X is a part of that select group. Some of the magic of college sports will be taken away. I consider that a negative, and not a good thing for sports as a whole.

Each school only has so many scholarships and so much playing time. I don't see it making that much difference at all.

[xudash]

Y'all get scared real easily. Big East has higher basketball budgets than the Pac-12 and the Big Ten.

https://www.three-man-weave.com/3mw/college-basketball-budgets-2020

Fantastic find! Thank you.

Butler. What a joke. I always have and always will view them as the Little Engine That Could.

[XUGRAD80]

Each school only has so many scholarships and so much playing time. I don't see it making that much difference at all.

If the courts can decide that it is unconstitutional to place limits on the compensation the players can receive….it’s only a small jump to the courts deciding that limits on the number of players a school is allowed to compensate, is also unconstitutional. I see that not as an IF, but a when.

[94GRAD]

If the courts can decide that it is unconstitutional to place limits on the compensation the players can receive….it’s only a small jump to the courts deciding that limits on the number of players a school is allowed to compensate, is also unconstitutional. I see that not as an IF, but a when.

There's are only 200 minutes to go around per game. Players will not go to a school just to sit on the pine.

[xubrew]

One of the real beauties of NCAA sports, and especially basketball, is watching a relatively unknown school compete successfully in the national tournaments. I fear that this will new decision, and ones that will undoubtedly come, will make a thing of the past. That all success will be even more held onto by a very small select group of schools and conferences. I don’t see that as a plus, even if X is a part of that select group. Some of the magic of college sports will be taken away. I consider that a negative, and not a good thing for sports as a whole.

This is one of my concerns as well.

[Drew]

This is one of my concerns as well.

Xavier has never beaten UK for a recruit and FAU has never beaten Xavier for a recruit. Where is this parity y'all speak of?

[xubrew]

Xavier has never beaten UK for a recruit and FAU has never beaten Xavier for a recruit. Where is this parity y'all speak of?

This past year there were two non-P5 teams in the Final Four.

Two years ago before COVID there were three that would have likely been #1 seeds, or at least in the top five. But, let's set that aside for a minute...

Maybe not FAU, but other CUSA schools such as WKU, and North Texas this past year, and Middle Tennessee when Kermit Davis was there, have been able to put together some really good basketball teams that aren't s good as the P5 teams in the top 25, but aren't so far behind them that they're not good enough to beat them on a given day.

The other thing to consider is that it isn't so much Michigan State, or Duke, or Kansas, or the teams that are routinely at the top of the P5 conferences that will change. It's Minnesota, and Ole Miss, and the teams that are usually around the middle and bottom of those leagues that the top teams from the under the radar conferences can actually out recruit and outperform. Last year teams like North Texas, and UCSB, and Loyola Chicago, and Drake, were better than just about every P5 team that finished at or below .500 in their leagues. All things being equal, there is an appeal for players who may not be recruited by the elite programs, but are being recruited by the midlevel P5 programs and the top level under the radar programs to go to the under the radar programs. If those P5 teams start to pay for players, that will not happen nearly as often, if at all.

[xubrew]

It just occurred to me what an incredible week the NCAA has had…

-They united a very divided Supreme Court against them

-They got Clarence Thomas to actually speak

-They got people to like Brett Kavanaugh

That’s a hell of a week!!!

[XUGRAD80]

There's are only 200 minutes to go around per game. Players will not go to a school just to sit on the pine.

Do you really think that every player comes in as a freshman expecting to start and get significant minutes? Maybe the top 25 players do, but for every top 25 can’t miss that actually is an impact player, there are several that just don’t pan out.


There may well be many players that decide that they will be willing to sit on a bench for a few years and earn money, over going to another school and playing but earning no money. There may well be many players that decide to go to a certain school because of the earnings potential over the playing potential.

I guess I’m just old school, but I dislike the idea that someone would attend COLLEGE because of the potential to make money while at that school, and not for what the education and experience will prepare them for in the future. The whole reason to even go to college should be to grow from a child to an adult. To become more educated and more mature. To develop intellectually and emotionally. To develop beyond just what someone learns on a field or a court. As a fan, I don’t want to just be watching another professional sport where the players only have loyalty to themselves and the almighty dollar.

[UCGRAD4X]

I know I've been saying this for years, but I'll say it again. I can't help but think the NCAA could have done things over the past decade or so to mitigate this. But, they didn't. They just kept doubling down on their "principles." And now things are likely going to be a total fustercluck.

This article pretty well scorches the NCAA - and commissioners to some extent - for this also.

https://sports.yahoo.com/ncaa-can-only-blame-itself-for-supreme-court-blow-180112658.html

[Drew]

This past year there were two non-P5 teams in the Final Four.

Two years ago before COVID there were three that would have likely been #1 seeds, or at least in the top five. But, let's set that aside for a minute...

Maybe not FAU, but other CUSA schools such as WKU, and North Texas this past year, and Middle Tennessee when Kermit Davis was there, have been able to put together some really good basketball teams that aren't s good as the P5 teams in the top 25, but aren't so far behind them that they're not good enough to beat them on a given day.

The other thing to consider is that it isn't so much Michigan State, or Duke, or Kansas, or the teams that are routinely at the top of the P5 conferences that will change. It's Minnesota, and Ole Miss, and the teams that are usually around the middle and bottom of those leagues that the top teams from the under the radar conferences can actually out recruit and outperform. Last year teams like North Texas, and UCSB, and Loyola Chicago, and Drake, were better than just about every P5 team that finished at or below .500 in their leagues. All things being equal, there is an appeal for players who may not be recruited by the elite programs, but are being recruited by the midlevel P5 programs and the top level under the radar programs to go to the under the radar programs. If those P5 teams start to pay for players, that will not happen nearly as often, if at all.

Agree to disagree. Recruiting rankings tracks almost 1 to 1 with athletic budget right now. The only difference these new rules will make is the players rightfully getting their piece of the pie.

[xubrew]

Agree to disagree. Recruiting rankings tracks almost 1 to 1 with athletic budget right now. The only difference these new rules will make is the players rightfully getting their piece of the pie.

I hope you're right.

I can't help but think this will turn out to be a much bigger mess with a much bigger fallout than what it needed to be. I'm not sure how long you've been around, but for about fifteen years I've been saying that the NCAA needs to get out in front of this and be willing to make concessions. Doing so would have been what was right for the players, but also from the completely selfish standpoint of the NCAA it would have kept an unwinnable case out of the courts.

But, they didn't. And how this ends up will likely be completely outside of their control.

It was stupid. They make over a billion dollars a year off of the NCAA Tournament. Some of that money could have been used to compensate, or at least supplement the compensation, of players in all sports all across the D1 landscape. It isn't unusual for coaches to make millions. Some of that could have been directed toward the players as well. Doing those things would have likely kept this out of the courts. But, the NCAA did none of those things. They kept doubling down on a "value" that has now been called out by the highest court in the land as being illegal. They could have made up their own NIL laws a long time ago that would have been fair to everyone, but they didn't, and now the courts are doing it for them. They could have addressed player compensation a long time ago and made rules that were fair to everyone, but they didn't, and now the courts are doing it for them, and will likely continue to do it for them.

There is some catharsis to it. They've been so stubborn and so stupid for so long that it is kind of nice to see this blow up in their face. But that catharsis is very short term. The sports and the NCAA itself could potentially digress and face issues that could have been avoided.

[JTG]

Agree to disagree. Recruiting rankings tracks almost 1 to 1 with athletic budget right now. The only difference these new rules will make is the players rightfully getting their piece of the pie.
Rightfully getting their piece of the pie ? Tell that to the line worker at Ford or GM, they don't get what the execs do. Or the chemist at J&J who discovered the Covid vaccine. That discovery is the property of J&J. A standard $100 a week for all athletes would make way more sense than a couple players per team cashing in big time. I probably made millions of dollars for my company over the years. I got a salary and benefits in return. I knew the deal going in.Players get an education and lots of perks in return for their labor, and they get to audition for jobs that will provide them with life changing money for their families for generations. Sorry, I just don't understand the "oh the poor players" mindset.

[Drew]

Rightfully getting their piece of the pie ? Tell that to the line worker at Ford or GM, they don't get what the execs do. Or the chemist at J&J who discovered the Covid vaccine. That discovery is the property of J&J. A standard $100 a week for all athletes would make way more sense than a couple players per team cashing in big time. I probably made millions of dollars for my company over the years. I got a salary and benefits in return. I knew the deal going in.Players get an education and lots of perks in return for their labor, and they get to audition for jobs that will provide them with life changing money for their families for generations. Sorry, I just don't understand the "oh the poor players" mindset.

We all get to decide our own morals. I consider monopolies immoral and the NCAA a monopoly. The supreme court seems to be agreeing with me. You can think what you want, I just disagree on moral grounds.

[Drew]

I hope you're right.

I can't help but think this will turn out to be a much bigger mess with a much bigger fallout than what it needed to be. I'm not sure how long you've been around, but for about fifteen years I've been saying that the NCAA needs to get out in front of this and be willing to make concessions. Doing so would have been what was right for the players, but also from the completely selfish standpoint of the NCAA it would have kept an unwinnable case out of the courts.

But, they didn't. And how this ends up will likely be completely outside of their control.

It was stupid. They make over a billion dollars a year off of the NCAA Tournament. Some of that money could have been used to compensate, or at least supplement the compensation, of players in all sports all across the D1 landscape. It isn't unusual for coaches to make millions. Some of that could have been directed toward the players as well. Doing those things would have likely kept this out of the courts. But, the NCAA did none of those things. They kept doubling down on a "value" that has now been called out by the highest court in the land as being illegal. They could have made up their own NIL laws a long time ago that would have been fair to everyone, but they didn't, and now the courts are doing it for them. They could have addressed player compensation a long time ago and made rules that were fair to everyone, but they didn't, and now the courts are doing it for them, and will likely continue to do it for them.

There is some catharsis to it. They've been so stubborn and so stupid for so long that it is kind of nice to see this blow up in their face. But that catharsis is very short term. The sports and the NCAA itself could potentially digress and face issues that could have been avoided.

Yea, the NCAA could've made this transition much more peacefully. But pigs get fat and hogs get slaughtered.

[STL_XUfan]

Rightfully getting their piece of the pie ? Tell that to the line worker at Ford or GM, they don't get what the execs do. Or the chemist at J&J who discovered the Covid vaccine. That discovery is the property of J&J. A standard $100 a week for all athletes would make way more sense than a couple players per team cashing in big time. I probably made millions of dollars for my company over the years. I got a salary and benefits in return. I knew the deal going in.Players get an education and lots of perks in return for their labor, and they get to audition for jobs that will provide them with life changing money for their families for generations. Sorry, I just don't understand the "oh the poor players" mindset.

This whole rant gave some extreme Lucile Bluth vibes.

Ford and your company are not paying their workers and you $0.00 on the argument that people enjoy driving cars being made by volunteers. I also assume you use the value you are adding to your company as leverage to negotiate for raises and better benefits.

[GoMuskies]

The Xavier players are being paid about $50k/year right now.

[noteggs]

The Xavier players are being paid about $50k/year right now.

And that’s tax free!

[paulxu]

I don't think the room/board is tax free.

[GoMuskies]

I don't think the room/board is tax free.

It is for athletic scholarships.

[JTG]

I don't think the room/board is tax free.

Even if it were taxable, which I highly doubt, they're in a zero bracket. I think I would have preferred bball practice and traveling all over the country to my 5 day a week job in the Bursars Office and paying off college loans for 10 years.

[XUGRAD80]

If they had to actually pay for the tutors, what would that cost them?

If they had to pay for the private coaching they get, what would that cost them?

I’d they had to pay for the personal trainer they have, what would that cost them?

If they had to pay to join a private athletic club, what would that cost them?

Do regular students get the medical coverage, treatment, and doctors that the BB players get? (I really don’t know, regular students didn’t when I was there)

What is the worth of a trip to England/ Ireland during the summer to play exhibition basketball games?

Or how about the holiday tournaments in the Bahamas, Hawaii, Florida? Those are certainly things that a regular student doesn’t get paid for them.

I think it’s very important to take into consideration what are the extras that student athletes get that the regular student doesn’t.

[paulxu]

It is for athletic scholarships.

This doesn't sound like it:

An athletic scholarship is like any other scholarship, in that amounts used to pay for tuition and textbooks are tax-free. Amounts used to pay for room and board and other non-qualified expenses, however, are taxable.

https://www.savingforcollege.com/article/are-scholarships-taxable

But if it's not more than the single exemption amount, I guess there wouldn't be a tax liability.

[xubrew]

I don't think the room/board is tax free.

It is

[paulxu]

It is

Why does the IRS say some of it is taxable?


Taxable

You must include in gross income:

Amounts used for incidental expenses, such as room and board, travel, and optional equipment.

https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc421

[xubrew]

Why does the IRS say some of it is taxable?



https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc421

I’m not absolutely certain, but I’m pretty sure the way schools get around it is to make living on campus a requirement if you’re on the team and on scholarship. I’m almost certain that on campus hosing isn’t taxed.


The amounts you receive are used to pay for tuition and fees required for enrollment or attendance at the educational institution, or for fees, books, supplies, and equipment required for courses at the educational institution.

[paulxu]

Slick.

[xubrew]

Slick.

That's one word for it.

To be honest, I never even thought about it before. Maybe they've been paying taxes this whole time and I just didn't realize it. Maybe they haven't been and unbeknownst to them a lot of them owe about a hundred years in back taxes.

[xubrew]

If they had to actually pay for the tutors, what would that cost them?

If they had to pay for the private coaching they get, what would that cost them?

I’d they had to pay for the personal trainer they have, what would that cost them?

If they had to pay to join a private athletic club, what would that cost them?

Do regular students get the medical coverage, treatment, and doctors that the BB players get? (I really don’t know, regular students didn’t when I was there)

What is the worth of a trip to England/ Ireland during the summer to play exhibition basketball games?

Or how about the holiday tournaments in the Bahamas, Hawaii, Florida? Those are certainly things that a regular student doesn’t get paid for them.

I think it’s very important to take into consideration what are the extras that student athletes get that the regular student doesn’t.

In speaking strictly in terms of the legalities of it, it's my understanding that none of those things are important at all. The issue (as I understand it) is that putting any sort of a limit on what players are allowed to receive (no matter how high or how low it is) is a violation of anti-trust law. That's the contention.

Those who advocate for the players make it sound like they're constantly being exploited. While I agree that players should probably be allowed to get more than they already do, I'm not going to go so far as to say they're exploited. The deal they have is actually a good one.

Now, having said that...

People who are critical of student-athletes, and say they got it made, and that life is so easy for them are totally outside of their freakin' minds! It's damn hard being a student-athlete. If it's so great and they got it so easy, then why weren't the people who are always being critical of them student-athletes?? The answer is obvious. It was way outside anything and way more difficult than anything that they themselves were capable of doing. It can be extremely rewarding, and in a lot of ways it is a really good arrangement, but at the same time if any of the critics were to step into their world I can almost guarantee you that none of them would last a week. They'd most likely quit, but even if they some how managed to stick with it they'd fail so spectacularly that they'd be thrown off the team.

But, getting back to the central legal issue...

It's not whether or not student-athletes are being exploited. I would argue strongly that the are not being exploited. It's whether or not they would receive more if the limitations weren't in place. I think they absolutely would. That's the anti-trust issue. There are rules in place, the players would get more if those rules weren't in place, and that in and of itself constitutes price fixing.

A while ago the NCAA tried to put a limit on how much schools could pay a coach. Even if that limit was $1 million dollars (which hardly constitutes exploitation) it is still a violation of anti-trust laws due to price fixing if there are some coaches who could earn more than $1 million if there wasn't a rule that limited it. That's why it was thrown out of court. That, right there, close to thirty years ago should have been a warning sign that sooner or later the limits on what players are allowed to receive would be called into question. But, the NCAA did nothing and kept doubling down and have now been pretty much smacked down by the Supreme Court.

To sum it all up in a couple of questions...

Are there rules or agreements that limit how much players can receive?? Yes, there are.

Would some of the players receive more if it weren't for those rules and agreements?? Yes, they would.

Well, then it's a violation of anti-trust laws. It's really as simple as that.

[boozehound]

So does this open the door for top recruits signing individual endorsement contracts with Nike, etc. while in College? That's where I could really see the big money being for a small group of players.

I know it said reasonable (or modest or something) compensation, but how do you determine that?

[MADXSTER]

So does this open the door for top recruits signing individual endorsement contracts with Nike, etc. while in College? That's where I could really see the big money being for a small group of players.

I know it said reasonable (or modest or something) compensation, but how do you determine that?

To piggy back off off this. Player signs with Nike but goes to an Adidas school. Now what?

[xubrew]

So does this open the door for top recruits signing individual endorsement contracts with Nike, etc. while in College? That's where I could really see the big money being for a small group of players.

I know it said reasonable (or modest or something) compensation, but how do you determine that?

I think the NIL stuff is a separate issue to what the SCOTUS just ruled on. The NCAA is basically under attack from two fronts.


To piggy back off off this. Player signs with Nike but goes to an Adidas school. Now what?

An excellent question!! As far as what the answer is, I have no idea. It's one of the many uncertainties that are about to be thrust onto the world of college athletics.

[GoMuskies]

I assume the answer is that the school will control the shoe contract, and the shoe companies will only be able to sign kids that go to their schools. Unless Nike wants to pay a kid to wear Addidas shoes.

[MADXSTER]

I assume the answer is that the school will control the shoe contract, and the shoe companies will only be able to sign kids that go to their schools. Unless Nike wants to pay a kid to wear Addidas shoes.

I would think the kid will wear Adidas shoes and everything else Nike as part of the school uniform.

[UCGRAD4X]

I assume the answer is that the school will control the shoe contract, and the shoe companies will only be able to sign kids that go to their schools. Unless Nike wants to pay a kid to wear Addidas shoes.

Sounds like another potential anti-trust issue.

[xubrew]

I assume the answer is that the school will control the shoe contract, and the shoe companies will only be able to sign kids that go to their schools. Unless Nike wants to pay a kid to wear Addidas shoes.

How does it work in the pros?? I know so little about pro sports that I don't even know who is in the NBA playoffs right now, much less know how apparel deals work. I'm pretty sure players have their own apparel deals, but do teams have them as well??

[paulxu]

I'm hazy about exactly which federal laws the assistant coaches (like Book) were found guilty of.

But it almost seems like some of their stuff would now be OK...paying a player some $ to go to a certain school, commit to certain brand, etc.

[MADXSTER]

If the schools lose apparel contracts.....

[boozehound]

If the schools lose apparel contracts.....

That would surprise me. I would imagine that Nike/Adidas/UA would rather sign with the school than a bunch of players.

What will be interesting is if the shoe companies sign separate contracts with the star College players. Even if they have to stick with players from the schools that they have apparel contracts with. For example: Nike offering the star recruit from Kentucky an individual contract with $X.

[xubrew]

That would surprise me. I would imagine that Nike/Adidas/UA would rather sign with the school than a bunch of players.

What will be interesting is if the shoe companies sign separate contracts with the star College players. Even if they have to stick with players from the schools that they have apparel contracts with. For example: Nike offering the star recruit from Kentucky an individual contract with $X.

Yes, that is another 'what-if?'

Schools are concerned that instead of sponsors giving money to the schools that they will opt to give it to the individual players instead, which will in a sense reduce their revenue stream.

And, what if a sponsor gives it to the school, but wants to use the NIL of an individual player??

Or, what if they give money to an individual player for their NIL and wants a picture of them in the team's jersey?? Does the school have a gripe about how they should get some money too since they're wearing the school's uniform??


You see, these are a few of the things that are on a rather extensive list of concerns that simply will not be hashed out before these new laws and policies take place. No time has been spent discussing any of this. It's all been spent trying to figure out how to fight against a case that was not winnable from the get-go. So, no one really knows what's going to happen now.

[XUGRAD80]

In speaking strictly in terms of the legalities of it, it's my understanding that none of those things are important at all. The issue (as I understand it) is that putting any sort of a limit on what players are allowed to receive (no matter how high or how low it is) is a violation of anti-trust law. That's the contention.

Those who advocate for the players make it sound like they're constantly being exploited. While I agree that players should probably be allowed to get more than they already do, I'm not going to go so far as to say they're exploited. The deal they have is actually a good one.

Now, having said that...

People who are critical of student-athletes, and say they got it made, and that life is so easy for them are totally outside of their freakin' minds! It's damn hard being a student-athlete. If it's so great and they got it so easy, then why weren't the people who are always being critical of them student-athletes?? The answer is obvious. It was way outside anything and way more difficult than anything that they themselves were capable of doing. It can be extremely rewarding, and in a lot of ways it is a really good arrangement, but at the same time if any of the critics were to step into their world I can almost guarantee you that none of them would last a week. They'd most likely quit, but even if they some how managed to stick with it they'd fail so spectacularly that they'd be thrown off the team.

But, getting back to the central legal issue...

It's not whether or not student-athletes are being exploited. I would argue strongly that the are not being exploited. It's whether or not they would receive more if the limitations weren't in place. I think they absolutely would. That's the anti-trust issue. There are rules in place, the players would get more if those rules weren't in place, and that in and of itself constitutes price fixing.

A while ago the NCAA tried to put a limit on how much schools could pay a coach. Even if that limit was $1 million dollars (which hardly constitutes exploitation) it is still a violation of anti-trust laws due to price fixing if there are some coaches who could earn more than $1 million if there wasn't a rule that limited it. That's why it was thrown out of court. That, right there, close to thirty years ago should have been a warning sign that sooner or later the limits on what players are allowed to receive would be called into question. But, the NCAA did nothing and kept doubling down and have now been pretty much smacked down by the Supreme Court.

To sum it all up in a couple of questions...

Are there rules or agreements that limit how much players can receive?? Yes, there are.

Would some of the players receive more if it weren't for those rules and agreements?? Yes, they would.

Well, then it's a violation of anti-trust laws. It's really as simple as that.

I agree with all of this. My points were in response to those who think the student athletes are being exploited. But you are right on target in regards to the legal arguments regarding limits on benefits.

[Drew]

Can someone paint to me what is the worst case hypothetical? I have a hard time seeing the negatives of athletes simply enjoying the benefits of a free market.

Maintain academic eligibility standards, roll back recent transfer rule changes and let them enjoy the free market. What's the downside here?

[XUGRAD80]

Can someone paint to me what is the worst case hypothetical? I have a hard time seeing the negatives of athletes simply enjoying the benefits of a free market.

Maintain academic eligibility standards, roll back recent transfer rule changes and let them enjoy the free market. What's the downside here?

The downsides…

One example…..there is a limit on scholarships but NOT on roster size. So a big dollar booster at a blue blood school says I’m going to make sure the top BB in the country comes to my school. I’m going to pay him $100,000 and pay for his education, and he can do commercials for my car dealerships. He can be a “walk-on” and won’t count against the scholarship limit.

Another example…..player chooses to go to a school in a BIG city because of the opportunities to sell his off-court “talents” to the highest bidder in that major market.

The whole PURPOSE of the rules has been to produce a situation where the opportunities where as equal as possible across the whole NCAA membership. That as much as it could be controlled, it was a level playing field with equal limits for all members. What you describe would take those limits away and give great advantages to a small number of schools, even more so than what is prevalent today.

The pro leagues have realized that smaller market teams are at a disadvantage and have tried to equal things out with such things as a salary cap, revenue sharing, etc. A totally free-market approach like what you propose for college sports may well drive the small market schools out of it entirely. Texas may have their own TV network that brings in millions and millions, but their players still don’t get anything more than the same athletes at Texas A&M (or at least aren’t supposed to). Thus they compete an a more equal playing field and we see a school like Baylor (Waco, TX) win the national championship. It may well be a boon for the very few schools and athletes that have the money, supports, and talents to reach the very top of the market. But it may ultimately lead to less opportunities for the other athletes and for the schools that might have given them those opportunities.

[xudash]

The downsides…

One example…..there is a limit on scholarships but NOT on roster size. So a big dollar booster at a blue blood school says I’m going to make sure the top BB in the country comes to my school. I’m going to pay him $100,000 and pay for his education, and he can do commercials for my car dealerships. He can be a “walk-on” and won’t count against the scholarship limit.

Another example…..player chooses to go to a school in a BIG city because of the opportunities to sell his off-court “talents” to the highest bidder in that major market.

The whole PURPOSE of the rules has been to produce a situation where the opportunities where as equal as possible across the whole NCAA membership. That as much as it could be controlled, it was a level playing field with equal limits for all members. What you describe would take those limits away and give great advantages to a small number of schools, even more so than what is prevalent today.

The pro leagues have realized that smaller market teams are at a disadvantage and have tried to equal things out with such things as a salary cap, revenue sharing, etc. A totally free-market approach like what you propose for college sports may well drive the small market schools out of it entirely. Texas may have their own TV network that brings in millions and millions, but their players still don’t get anything more than the same athletes at Texas A&M (or at least aren’t supposed to). Thus they compete an a more equal playing field and we see a school like Baylor (Waco, TX) win the national championship. It may well be a boon for the very few schools and athletes that have the money, supports, and talents to reach the very top of the market. But it may ultimately lead to less opportunities for the other athletes and for the schools that might have given them those opportunities.

Not arguing with you, but as a counterpoint to your first example: on the one hand, a talented athlete probably would not enjoy riding the bench just for the sake of compensation, and on the other hand, he would not be good advertising for the car dealership, because he would be unknown as a result of riding the bench.

[bjf123]

Not arguing with you, but as a counterpoint to your first example: on the one hand, a talented athlete probably would not enjoy riding the bench just for the sake of compensation, and on the other hand, he would not be good advertising for the car dealership, because he would be unknown as a result of riding the bench.

I think he’s saying that the “walk on” not taking up a scholarship would be a top recruit who’ll be starting for Big State U, not riding the pine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[XUGRAD80]

I think he’s saying that the “walk on” not taking up a scholarship would be a top recruit who’ll be starting for Big State U, not riding the pine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Right….the main reason they reduced the number of scholarships a team could carry in football was to prevent the power schools from stockpiling players just to keep them away from other schools. If I remember correctly, there was a time where BB had a limit of 15, but freshman couldn’t play varsity. In essence, if a player is listed as a non-scholarship player but is having his schools expenses and a salary payed by an outside business, the scholarships can be used to stockpile other players.

We have got to get over the idea that EVERY player comes into college expecting to play significant minutes as a freshman or sophomore, and will transfer if they don’t. Case in point…Deonte Allen at Kentucky. Former Mr. Basketball in Ky that most likely would have gone to X if UK (his dream school) handing offered. He is basically sitting the pine in Lexington for the last 2 years and didn’t enter the transfer portal even after UK brought in several transfers and freshman guards this off season. He’s smart enough to realize that just being a former UK player in Kentucky (even one that wasn’t a star) means he will never be out of a job.

It’s my opinion that all most of the players are looking for is the OPPORTUNITY to earn playing time, not guaranteed minutes. They all realize that there aren’t enough minutes to allow every player to play lots of minutes in every game. But hopefully all of them think that THEY are going get those minutes, and it’s the other players that are going to sit. Sure, there are a select few players that KNOW they are going to play as freshman, they are just that good. But that’s the exception not the rule. The others ones think they are going to earn that playing time by impressing the coaches, but know they have to earn it by out playing the other players on the team. (Of course, the player opinions on this don’t always match the opinions of the coaches.) So they are willing to sign on to a team that already has a pretty full roster because they believe that they will still get playing time (see Mr. Hunter) after they show the coaches what they are capable of. Most just want the opportunity and are willing to wait at least some time before they either know they are never going to earn it, and transfer. Or, they begin to think that they are not being given a fair shake, and then transfer. But I think that as long as players know they are being given a fair chance, and still have hope that they will eventually earn that playing time, they will stick.

[Drew]

The downsides…

One example…..there is a limit on scholarships but NOT on roster size. So a big dollar booster at a blue blood school says I’m going to make sure the top BB in the country comes to my school. I’m going to pay him $100,000 and pay for his education, and he can do commercials for my car dealerships. He can be a “walk-on” and won’t count against the scholarship limit.

Another example…..player chooses to go to a school in a BIG city because of the opportunities to sell his off-court “talents” to the highest bidder in that major market.

The whole PURPOSE of the rules has been to produce a situation where the opportunities where as equal as possible across the whole NCAA membership. That as much as it could be controlled, it was a level playing field with equal limits for all members. What you describe would take those limits away and give great advantages to a small number of schools, even more so than what is prevalent today.

The pro leagues have realized that smaller market teams are at a disadvantage and have tried to equal things out with such things as a salary cap, revenue sharing, etc. A totally free-market approach like what you propose for college sports may well drive the small market schools out of it entirely. Texas may have their own TV network that brings in millions and millions, but their players still don’t get anything more than the same athletes at Texas A&M (or at least aren’t supposed to). Thus they compete an a more equal playing field and we see a school like Baylor (Waco, TX) win the national championship. It may well be a boon for the very few schools and athletes that have the money, supports, and talents to reach the very top of the market. But it may ultimately lead to less opportunities for the other athletes and for the schools that might have given them those opportunities.

Ok, so disregarding the stockpiling of talent because that would require changing roster limits. Your worst case scenario is better athletes choosing the bigger schools more frequently. I am not sure what degree of difference you expect it to make, but I don't think it will be much worse than it is now. College athletics is incredibly lopsided towards the power programs. Take a look at the top 50 classes for college football recruiting. https://247sports.com/season/2021-football/compositeteamrankings/. Now take a look at the top athletic budgets https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances. Don't feel like running some stats but I am sure you will see a very strong correlation. If this correlation increases slightly but allows tens of thousands of young athletes to profit off of their work then I am for it.

[MADXSTER]

Ok, so disregarding the stockpiling of talent because that would require changing roster limits. Your worst case scenario is better athletes choosing the bigger schools more frequently. I am not sure what degree of difference you expect it to make, but I don't think it will be much worse than it is now. College athletics is incredibly lopsided towards the power programs. Take a look at the top 50 classes for college football recruiting. https://247sports.com/season/2021-football/compositeteamrankings/. Now take a look at the top athletic budgets https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances. Don't feel like running some stats but I am sure you will see a very strong correlation. If this correlation increases slightly but allows tens of thousands of young athletes to profit off of their work then I am for it.

Think most people agree but it will get much worse than it is now. Schools will find loopholes and push limits.

[XUGRAD80]

I just see more potential for things to get dirty than I see an upside for the OVERALL situation for college athletics.

[XUGRAD80]

Ok, so disregarding the stockpiling of talent because that would require changing roster limits. Your worst case scenario is better athletes choosing the bigger schools more frequently. I am not sure what degree of difference you expect it to make, but I don't think it will be much worse than it is now. College athletics is incredibly lopsided towards the power programs. Take a look at the top 50 classes for college football recruiting. https://247sports.com/season/2021-football/compositeteamrankings/. Now take a look at the top athletic budgets https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances. Don't feel like running some stats but I am sure you will see a very strong correlation. If this correlation increases slightly but allows tens of thousands of young athletes to profit off of their work then I am for it.

To my knowledge, there are NO limits on ROSTER sizes. You can have as many walk-ons as you want. There are limits only on the number of SCHOLARSHIPS.

It wouldn’t be choosing the bigger schools…it would be choosing the better financial package. Is that really what you want college sports to become? I don’t. I see enough of that in the pros.

[MADXSTER]

I just see more potential for things to get dirty than I see an upside for the OVERALL situation for college athletics.

Same

[Drew]

Ok. So as far as I can tell the list of pros and cons appear to go like this.

Pros:
- Thousands of athletes will see their incomes rise

Cons:
- The best players will go to the biggest schools (though this already appears to be the case)

[Drew]

To my knowledge, there are NO limits on ROSTER sizes. You can have as many walk-ons as you want. There are limits only on the number of SCHOLARSHIPS.

It wouldn’t be choosing the bigger schools…it would be choosing the better financial package. Is that really what you want college sports to become? I don’t. I see enough of that in the pros.

Ok, so we limit the number of roster spots and you are ok with compensation?

[XUGRAD80]

Ok, so we limit the number of roster spots and you are ok with compensation?

1)….I don’t see how limits on roster size would stand up to a challenge in court

2)…there needs to be limits on compensation too…..and I don’t see how that stands up to a court challenge either


The real problem is that people like you see it primarily as a BUSINESS and college sports were never ment to be a business. It was supposed to be friendly competition between SCHOOLS and college students. For the sake of SPORT and for FUN. For the shear joy of competition. But the courts have stepped in and thrown those lofty ideals out the window. Politicians have gotten involved, which is rarely a good thing.

But the genie is out of the bottle now and he’s not going back in I’m afraid.

[Drew]

1)….I don’t see how limits on roster size would stand up to a challenge in court

2)…there needs to be limits on compensation too…..and I don’t see how that stands up to a court challenge either


The real problem is that people like you see it primarily as a BUSINESS and college sports were never ment to be a business. It was supposed to be friendly competition between SCHOOLS and college students. For the sake of SPORT and for FUN. For the shear joy of competition. But the courts have stepped in and thrown those lofty ideals out the window. Politicians have gotten involved, which is rarely a good thing.

But the genie is out of the bottle now and he’s not going back in I’m afraid.

I have no problem with actual amateur athletics, but the second the school started hiring coaches and not teachers it became a business. And I suspiciously never hear people complaining about the coaching staff, athletic facilities and TV deals corrupting the game. Just the athletes. So that's the part that makes me mad.

Personally, I am a pretty strict libertarian and if someone wants to sell their sport as entertainment I don't see why that is morally corrupt. So I'd rather see college athletics continue but morally, letting all actors benefit. But I can see the argument to end it all as well if you want true amateur athletics. I can't see the argument for the status quo where administrators make 7 figures and athletes 0.

[XUGRAD80]

As I’ve tried to point out on numerous occasions…..the athletes are not making 0. It’s just that their “wages” are paid differently. They are paid in tuition, books, tutoring, room board, coaching, medical expenses, travel expenses, incidental expenses, insurance, etc. Almost all of which are tax free. In the cases of the very top college athletes, these benefits may well result in them having the opportunities to sign multi-million dollar professional contracts after just a year or two under the current system. In addition, let’s not underestimate the value of just being a member of the teams. There are thousands of walk-on, non-scholarship competitors in the college athletic community that will never get most of the above benefits, but still are willing to be members of the teams. Why, you may ask? Simply for experiences and the doors that they may open at a later date. How do you place a value on that?

I’ve also dispelled the argument that “administrators” are getting 7 figure salaries. That is far from the normal salary for 99% of the college head coaches, let alone the assistant coaches, trainers, assistant AD’s, office personal, compliance officers, etc. Like the very few players that ultimately sign a million dollar pro contract, very few of the coaches, etc. will ever make that kind of jack. (I’ve a couple of UC assistant coaches living in my neighborhood. One in a house and one in a condo. And this is far from the neighborhood a million dollar a year salaried person would live in. Brannon used to live across the street from my daughters house. He moved AFTER he got the UC head job.) Foe every head coach making 7 figures, there are 10-20 assistant coaches making 100G or less (sometimes MUCH less). For every college like an X where the head basketball coach makes 7 figures, there are 50 others where the HC can’t survive on their coaches salary alone and have to take on teaching or other jobs to survive. For every sport like football and basketball that can afford to have big well paid staffs at the big state schools, there are 10-20 other sports where the coaches are paid very little and the scholarships can’t even cover that whole starting lineups (did you know that most other sports have limits on the number of scholarships to a point where no one on the squad gets a full scholarship and only a select few even get a partial?).

IF…those top 50-60 schools in football and basketball want to split away and form their own semi-professional organization, I’d not be against it. BUT….the kinds of things you and others clamor for will only help them. It won’t help anyone but the top 10% of programs and athletes. It will hurt all the rest.

As a libertarian (I’m one too by the way, I am)….how do you feel about the idea that ALL of the students at universities are charged a fee that goes to support the athletic departments, even if that student isn’t a member of any team? Seems like they are paying a tax to support others, a tax that they had imposed on them without their consent. If you’re really concerned about students (athletes or not) being tested fairly and think there is millions of dollars out there to be had…..wouldn’t it be better to take that money and use it to eliminate the unfair tax placed on all students, instead of giving it to the select few that are student athletes on scholarship?

[Drew]

Ok, I figured it was unfair to not address your points directly.

1)
As I’ve tried to point out on numerous occasions…..the athletes are not making 0. It’s just that their “wages” are paid differently. They are paid in tuition, books, tutoring, room board, coaching, medical expenses, travel expenses, incidental expenses, insurance, etc. Almost all of which are tax free. In the cases of the very top college athletes, these benefits may well result in them having the opportunities to sign multi-million dollar professional contracts after just a year or two under the current system. In addition, let’s not underestimate the value of just being a member of the teams. There are thousands of walk-on, non-scholarship competitors in the college athletic community that will never get most of the above benefits, but still are willing to be members of the teams. Why, you may ask? Simply for experiences and the doors that they may open at a later date. How do you place a value on that?
- Everything has a value. There is a simple sliding scale that every athlete could make a judgement on how much the scholarship + opportunities are really worth. From 10 thousand to a million, the market works and we are seeing this as the g-league and the nba have stolen plenty of college players. I'd propose the the current restrictions push that scale down much further than it should be.

2)

I’ve also dispelled the argument that “administrators” are getting 7 figure salaries. That is far from the normal salary for 99% of the college head coaches, let alone the assistant coaches, trainers, assistant AD’s, office personal, compliance officers, etc. Like the very few players that ultimately sign a million dollar pro contract, very few of the coaches, etc. will ever make that kind of jack. (I’ve a couple of UC assistant coaches living in my neighborhood. One in a house and one in a condo. And this is far from the neighborhood a million dollar a year salaried person would live in. Brannon used to live across the street from my daughters house. He moved AFTER he got the UC head job.) Foe every head coach making 7 figures, there are 10-20 assistant coaches making 100G or less (sometimes MUCH less). For every college like an X where the head basketball coach makes 7 figures, there are 50 others where the HC can’t survive on their coaches salary alone and have to take on teaching or other jobs to survive. For every sport like football and basketball that can afford to have big well paid staffs at the big state schools, there are 10-20 other sports where the coaches are paid very little and the scholarships can’t even cover that whole starting lineups (did you know that most other sports have limits on the number of scholarships to a point where no one on the squad gets a full scholarship and only a select few even get a partial?).
- Considering this is amateur athletics. The second there was enough revenue to hire a staff member to manage a sport there was enough to cut the players in. If things were inversed and only students were allowed to be involved there would still be revenue and they would be able to split it amongst themselves. Poor to me is club lacrosse etc. Sports which raise almost no revenue and most athletes have to cough up most of the costs.

3)

IF…those top 50-60 schools in football and basketball want to split away and form their own semi-professional organization, I’d not be against it. BUT….the kinds of things you and others clamor for will only help them. It won’t help anyone but the top 10% of programs and athletes. It will hurt all the rest.
- I don't know how it would hurt others. If there is no demand for polo players above their scholarship now, there won't be after. Free market helps everyone involved, except those who wish to group up and use this leverage to control the market. Monopolies and unions being the common examples.

4)

As a libertarian (I’m one too by the way, I am)….how do you feel about the idea that ALL of the students at universities are charged a fee that goes to support the athletic departments, even if that student isn’t a member of any team? Seems like they are paying a tax to support others, a tax that they had imposed on them without their consent. If you’re really concerned about students (athletes or not) being tested fairly and think there is millions of dollars out there to be had…..wouldn’t it be better to take that money and use it to eliminate the unfair tax placed on all students, instead of giving it to the select few that are student athletes on scholarship?
- I think its shitty. As much as I love Xavier basketball and college athletics. The main mission of a university is to educate and train the students. But I would imagine it is the non-revenue sports that need subsidizing universally, whereas revenue sports only need subsidizing when schools are out of their depth.

[XUGRAD80]

Neither one of you seem to really understand what COLLEGE athletics it really all about. All you see are the packed stadiums at the big schools and the TV revenue numbers, but THATS not college athletics, not really. That IS big business. But the National COLLEGIATE Athletic Association is much much more than just those things. It’s about organizing and supporting thousands and thousands of college students that play not for the money, the glory, and the pot at the end of the rainbow, but for the love of the game and the chance for that one shining moment under the lights. It’s about giving EVERY college athlete the chance to play for the national championships of the NCAA. Not just a select few. I just want every college athlete to have an EQUAL chance to do that. So that the championships go to whomever is the best, and not just whomever is the richest or has the most alumni with the deepest pockets. Please stop telling me how this is going to be good for college athletes….99% of college athletes won’t see a dime of the money and there’s a very good chance that many of those who won’t, will also see their programs (and opportunities) shut down because they can no longer compete successfully against a small minority that monopolize all of the top talent.

Something to remember here…Xavier University is one of the have nots, not one of the haves. The BE schools don’t have the huge football money coming in that the SEC, Big 10, Big 12, ACC, and PAC do, but they have some schools in much larger metro areas than Cincinnati. Areas where there are much great opportunities to market themselves. Kids aren’t going to come to X because of the NIL opportunities they will be provided. In fact, they are much more likely to attend a school like UC than they will X, if they are considering NIL opportunities. I think that puts X at even MORE of a disadvantage against schools like Villanova (Philly), St. John’s (NY), Gtown(Washington), or DePaul(Chicago), let alone the huge state schools with 40,000 students and millions of alumni and fans (like a UK or OSU). And this is not just going to be the case for basketball, but will be the case for virtually every college sport. The rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer.

I wonder….have you ever been a college athlete? If not, than you really are missing what it is that they really get “paid”.

[Drew]

Edit

[xubrew]

I don't think college athletics are entirely mutually exclusive to being one or the other. I think they are both big business and love of the sport. At least that's how it is at the D1 level. If you don't look at college athletics as business, then you won't be in college athletics for very long. I think it's been that way almost since the very beginning. Perhaps the Rutgers v Princeton game in 1869 was all about love of competition, but ever since then it's been just as much about business as it has been anything else.

What has irked me for a very long time is how the proponents of "amateurism" within the NCAA only want to project those ideals onto the players and not themselves. When Dabo Sweeny comes out and says that he isn't for paying players because there is already too much entitlement in the world, how do you not want to punch that man in the face??

I obviously have no way of proving this, but it is my personal belief that the biggest reason we are where we are is because of the stubbornness and stupidity of those who continued to dig in on the ideal of "amateurism." Like you said, not everyone makes seven figure salaries, but the ones in power do. Mark Emmert does. It's utterly ridiculous for a man who makes $4 million a year to talk about the importance of amateurism, especially when there is no legal basis for it or data backing up the claim that it is essential to the industry. They didn't even take the time to try and gather that. They just kept spewing a bunch of nonsensical claims. That's the stubborn and hypocritical part of it. Now, on to the stupid part of it....

Anyone with any sense at all knew that the NCAA was in violation of anti-trust laws, and had been for the last fifty years. If this ever got into the courts, they'd lose. Anyone who ANY sense at all had to know that. So anyone at the NCAA who isn't stupid would realize that if this thing ever went to court, they'd be toast. Keeping it out of court would be of the utmost importance. The question should have been "what can we do for the athletes??" I'd like to think they should have been asking themselves that anyway out of the interest of wanting to help the athletes, but even if they were only motivated by selfishness, they should have still been asking that question!! If for no other reason than to reduce the likelihood of this ending up in the courts!!!

When the NCAA Tournament contract was extended to 2032 and increased to over $1.1 BILLION a year, they should stopped to think "Damn, this is a lot of money! How is this going to look when we continue to beat the drum of amateurism?"

Say they had done this...Say they had come out and said " we are going to take $400 million of that money each year, and give it directly to all the players at the D1 level. It would come out to over $2.5k a year per athlete regardless of the sport (if they're on a full scholarship). The schools would then be allowed to match that figure if they chose to. This money would be in addition to, and not in place of, the cost of living stipend. In addition to cost of living and player compensation via the NCAA Tournament, we are also working on new legislation that will allow players to monetize their NILs"

Do the players feel mistreated? Is there as big of a push to get this into the courts if they do that?? It's impossible to say for certain, but I would argue that there would not have been. Granted, it would have left those "amateur" proponents at the NCAA with a mere $700 million to operate with, but that seems like a more than manageable sum since they got by without even having that much for decades.

But, they didn't do any of that. They kept doubling down and digging in on amateurism. And when it got into the courts, the inevitable happened. And now...here we are.

EDIT: one more thought...When I was in grad school I had an assistantship that covered tuition, housing, a meal plan, and a stipend of about $6.4k. I generated no revenue whatsoever and did no actual important work for the institution. The NCAA giving players $2.5k, and allowing schools to match it, and allowing them cost of living on top of that, comes out to about $10k. That seems about right to me. It also makes the "they're students first" argument look utterly ridiculous. GAs are students. Doctoral students who teach classes are students. Student workers are students. Paid student-athletes are no less of a student than non-paid student athletes.

[XUGRAD80]

Ok, I figured it was unfair to not address your points directly.

1)
- Everything has a value. There is a simple sliding scale that every athlete could make a judgement on how much the scholarship + opportunities are really worth. From 10 thousand to a million, the market works and we are seeing this as the g-league and the nba have stolen plenty of college players. I'd propose the the current restrictions push that scale down much further than it should be.

2)
- Considering this is amateur athletics. The second there was enough revenue to hire a staff member to manage a sport there was enough to cut the players in. If things were inversed and only students were allowed to be involved there would still be revenue and they would be able to split it amongst themselves. Poor to me is club lacrosse etc. Sports which raise almost no revenue and most athletes have to cough up most of the costs.

.

Oh boy, where do I start? This is total misconception on your part. The fact is that almost every program at every school struggles and has no extra money laying around. That’s not because the athletes are pampered and the coaches a d staff overpaid either. It’s because there simply isn’t enough money going around to cover more than basics for most sports and the athletes that compete in them. I can give you hundreds of examples where coaches have reached into their own pockets to cover program expenses or held fund raisers to try and make up for budget deficits.

The nice big huge wrestling mat that X once had? The wrestling team raised the money for that by raffling off prizes that were donated by businesses in the area. I’m guessing you never had to ride in the athletic department van during a cold January night when there was no heat reaching beyond the drivers seat. Nor was the coach making much money. In fact the 1st year the coach was a high school teacher primarily and college coach secondary. His successor was the teams former captain who was given tuition costs for graduate school if he agreed to stay on and coach.

I can’t say for sure, but I’m thinking we had it better than most of the girl’s sports teams too.

When I was in grad school at UC the wrestling team was the 3rd highest revenue sport there. Not because of ticket sales, but because they ran a series of open tournaments during the summer at the school. Didn’t matter, they dropped the sport because of budget restraints the next year.

How many schools have dropped sports in the last 5 years? Stanford (Stanford!) is dropping several, including wresting where they just had an individual national champion, this year. Budget problems.

There can’t be more than 4-5 schools in the country that actually have a surplus in their athletic departments. Even fewer individual sports that actually turn a profit.

And you think that because a sport can afford to hire a coach, that they can afford to pay players on top of everything else? Does that mean you think high schools and elementary schools that hire coaches should pay those students too? How much revenue do you think the girls basketball team brings in? Or the boys soccer? What about swimming, track and field, lacrosse, etc. etc. etc. ? The only sport at X that could possibly be profitable is men’s Basketball. The only one. Yet all the other sports have coaches and other expenses. They all have very expensive travel costs to cover. Uniform costs. Medical costs. Trainers. Equipment. Facilities (it costs money to just turn the lights on in Cintas, someone has to pay that). The money that comes from the NCAA, and from men’s basketball goes to pay for these things. The idea that there are surpluses siting around that should go to the players?

Nothing could be further from the truth.

[xubrew]

Oh boy, where do I start? This is total misconception on your part. The fact is that almost every program at every school struggles and has no extra money laying around. That’s not because the athletes are pampered and the coaches a d staff overpaid either. It’s because there simply isn’t enough money going around to cover more than basics for most sports and the athletes that compete in them. I can give you hundreds of examples where coaches have reached into their own pockets to cover program expenses or held fund raisers to try and make up for budget deficits.

The nice big huge wrestling mat that X once had? The wrestling team raised the money for that by raffling off prizes that were donated by businesses in the area. I’m guessing you never had to ride in the athletic department van during a cold January night when there was no heat reaching beyond the drivers seat. Nor was the coach making much money. In fact the 1st year the coach was a high school teacher primarily and college coach secondary. His successor was the teams former captain who was given tuition costs for graduate school if he agreed to stay on and coach.

I can’t say for sure, but I’m thinking we had it better than most of the girl’s sports teams too.

When I was in grad school at UC the wrestling team was the 3rd highest revenue sport there. Not because of ticket sales, but because they ran a series of open tournaments during the summer at the school. Didn’t matter, they dropped the sport because of budget restraints the next year.

How many schools have dropped sports in the last 5 years? Stanford (Stanford!) is dropping several, including wresting where they just had an individual national champion, this year. Budget problems.

There can’t be more than 4-5 schools in the country that actually have a surplus in their athletic departments. Even fewer individual sports that actually turn a profit.

And you think that because a sport can afford to hire a coach, that they can afford to pay players on top of everything else? Does that mean you think high schools and elementary schools that hire coaches should pay those students too? How much revenue do you think the girls basketball team brings in? Or the boys soccer? What about swimming, track and field, lacrosse, etc. etc. etc. ? The only sport at X that could possibly be profitable is men’s Basketball. The only one. Yet all the other sports have coaches and other expenses. They all have very expensive travel costs to cover. Uniform costs. Medical costs. Trainers. Equipment. Facilities (it costs money to just turn the lights on in Cintas, someone has to pay that). The money that comes from the NCAA, and from men’s basketball goes to pay for these things. The idea that there are surpluses siting around that should go to the players?

Nothing could be further from the truth.

I mostly agree (I think), but I do think there are some things to consider.

There are people who claim all athletic departments are swimming in money and the players are all living in cardboard boxes and given scraps to eat after having to work 18 hours a day. This is a huge stretch of reality.

You have others that claim all athletic departments are actually totally broke and 99 percent are barely scraping by while the players get more than their fair share. That is also a huge stretch of reality.

As for the non-revenue sports you mentioned, it depends on how you actually count the money. Some will say "well, if they're not receiving full scholarships (which a lot of them are not) then the tuition they are paying out of their own pockets is actually revenue that's being generated for the university. Even if they are on scholarships, the athletic department is paying that money to the university, so that is actually revenue!" Others would say "any money spent on those sports is a net loss." The truth, in my opinion, is actually somewhere in the middle. Most (certainly not all) of what an athletic department spends is money that doesn't leave the school. This is particularly true for scholarships. So when a school tries to claim they are losing money because of scholarships, that's kind of a disingenuous to make it look like the school is exerting itself more than it really is. It doesn't cost $10,000 to write yourself a check for $10,000, and a scholarship check is really money that's being moved from one part of the university to the other.

But, it's not exactly a cash cow either. A lot of the athletics budget that is spent within the university, also comes from the university. If the university allots $5,000,000 for the budget (I just pulled that figure out of my ass), and the department is writing scholarship checks, housing checks, book store checks, etc, back to the school, then they did not exactly MAKE $5 million for the school either. Whenever you hear someone in athletics say "We gave all this money to the school!" Well...SORT of, but what you actually did was give the money that the school gave to you back to them.

In my opinion and with my own experiences, D1 college athletics is almost always a break even proposition. It's not a major cash cow, nor is it a financial burden.

Just this man's opinion.

[MHettel]

Can someone paint to me what is the worst case hypothetical? I have a hard time seeing the negatives of athletes simply enjoying the benefits of a free market.

Maintain academic eligibility standards, roll back recent transfer rule changes and let them enjoy the free market. What's the downside here?

Just give it a few years, Drew. If you cannot foresee the impact, then I'm not sure any description can help you. You could start by reading some of the messages on this board.

College Sports, as we know it now, will be unrecognizable in 5 years.

[xubrew]

Just give it a few years, Drew. If you cannot foresee the impact, then I'm not sure any description can help you. You could start by reading some of the messages on this board.

College Sports, as we know it now, will be unrecognizable in 5 years.

Perhaps a lot sooner than that.

I have to be completely honest, though. I said and thought the same things when the P5 were granted autonomy and started paying out cost of living stipends. I was wrong. It did not completely tip the scales of competitive balance away from hte non-P5. I suppose I could be wrong again. I hope I am.

[Drew]

I am a simple man. I believe in the free market, I think monopolies are a danger to the free market.

If you can convince me the NCAA is not a monopoly then I am willing to discuss. But beyond that, everything else is sort of moot. This is a business that generates billions annually and the primary labor in that business are not entitled to the benefits of a free market. That is immoral and wrong in my opinion and no pining about hypothetical "fairness" and "student spirit" will change that for me.

[MHettel]

When the NCAA Tournament contract was extended to 2032 and increased to over $1.1 BILLION a year, they should stopped to think "Damn, this is a lot of money! How is this going to look when we continue to beat the drum of amateurism?"

Say they had done this...Say they had come out and said " we are going to take $400 million of that money each year, and give it directly to all the players at the D1 level. It would come out to over $2.5k a year per athlete regardless of the sport (if they're on a full scholarship). The schools would then be allowed to match that figure if they chose to. This money would be in addition to, and not in place of, the cost of living stipend. In addition to cost of living and player compensation via the NCAA Tournament, we are also working on new legislation that will allow players to monetize their NILs"

Do the players feel mistreated? Is there as big of a push to get this into the courts if they do that?? It's impossible to say for certain, but I would argue that there would not have been. Granted, it would have left those "amateur" proponents at the NCAA with a mere $700 million to operate with, but that seems like a more than manageable sum since they got by without even having that much for decades.



Hey Brew. You are throwing around some BIG number pretty recklessly.

I dont have the details about the NCAA Tournament contract. I dont know if it's $1.1B in revenue today, or is that the number in 2032. That actually matters for purposes of your diatribe.

But lets just get one important question out there. WHAT DO YOU THINK IT COSTS for the NCAA to produce the tournament annually? Just step back and consider the hundreds of people that have to plan EVERYTHING. Just think about the costs of renting the Staples center for 4 days. They have 8 venues going that first weekend. Hell, the first 4 at UD Arena probably costs $400 a night!

The logistics are mind blowing to pull this off. Not Olympics level mindblowing, but the idea that they just throw it all together and take $1.1B to the bottom line destroys your own argument. The NCAA distributes ALOT of this money directly to the CONFERENCES by the way. Not the participants directly, but rather the conferences based on their teams performance. The CONFERENCES then distribute the money to their members, and then the schools us that money to fund the basketball program and nearly all the rest of the teams at the school.

The idea that there is just $400M sitting around for the NCAA to just hand out to the schools is so unrealistic that it AGAIN undermines any actual points that you may have made. Oh, and the schools can just match it if they like. OK, yeah that makes sense cause what ELSE would they do with that budget surplus the always seem to have.

It so easy to throw out some ideological argument. But that boat doesn't float.

[MHettel]

As for the non-revenue sports you mentioned, it depends on how you actually count the money. Some will say "well, if they're not receiving full scholarships (which a lot of them are not) then the tuition they are paying out of their own pockets is actually revenue that's being generated for the university. Even if they are on scholarships, the athletic department is paying that money to the university, so that is actually revenue!" Others would say "any money spent on those sports is a net loss." The truth, in my opinion, is actually somewhere in the middle. Most (certainly not all) of what an athletic department spends is money that doesn't leave the school. This is particularly true for scholarships. So when a school tries to claim they are losing money because of scholarships, that's kind of a disingenuous to make it look like the school is exerting itself more than it really is. It doesn't cost $10,000 to write yourself a check for $10,000, and a scholarship check is really money that's being moved from one part of the university to the other.



Brew- I dont know you. But I DO know that you are NOT an accountant. Again, more ridiculous ideas.

I thought this was a discussion about compensating players? Free tuition is free tuition. And you go off on a tangent about how a partial scholarship is actually revenue for the sport because the OTHER part of tuition is paid by the student....WTF????

You ideas only lack one basic element. They cannot be executed.

[xubrew]

Hey Brew. You are throwing around some BIG number pretty recklessly.

I dont have the details about the NCAA Tournament contract. I dont know if it's $1.1B in revenue today, or is that the number in 2032. That actually matters for purposes of your diatribe.

But lets just get one important question out there. WHAT DO YOU THINK IT COSTS for the NCAA to produce the tournament annually? Just step back and consider the hundreds of people that have to plan EVERYTHING. Just think about the costs of renting the Staples center for 4 days. They have 8 venues going that first weekend. Hell, the first 4 at UD Arena probably costs $400 a night!

The logistics are mind blowing to pull this off. Not Olympics level mindblowing, but the idea that they just throw it all together and take $1.1B to the bottom line destroys your own argument. The NCAA distributes ALOT of this money directly to the CONFERENCES by the way. Not the participants directly, but rather the conferences based on their teams performance. The CONFERENCES then distribute the money to their members, and then the schools us that money to fund the basketball program and nearly all the rest of the teams at the school.

The idea that there is just $400M sitting around for the NCAA to just hand out to the schools is so unrealistic that it AGAIN undermines any actual points that you may have made. Oh, and the schools can just match it if they like. OK, yeah that makes sense cause what ELSE would they do with that budget surplus the always seem to have.

It so easy to throw out some ideological argument. But that boat doesn't float.

For the D1 men's basketball tournament I have no idea what the total dollar amount is to "produce." I believe the total dollar amount that the NCAA spends on all the championships in all the sports in all three divisions is about $154 million. (at least I think that's what it was in 2019. 2020-2021 could have been more due to the added expenses of COVID testing and protocol). The use of the arenas for the men's basketball tournament doesn't really cost them anything.

Believe it or not, I pretty much know exactly how the revenue distribution works. You're right. It goes to the conferences to the tune of $1.8 million per unit. There are 67 games with two teams apiece, so the total payouts to conferences comes out to about $242 million. That is still pretty far below the $700 million dollar figure after giving $400 million to players.

To be fair, there are also payouts on top of that, which go directly to D1 schools that are based on the number of teams and scholarships. There are also the new payouts for the academic incentives. I don't know the exact amount because it varies, but it comes out to about another $200 million.

[MADXSTER]

I am a simple man. I believe in the free market, I think monopolies are a danger to the free market.

If you can convince me the NCAA is not a monopoly then I am willing to discuss. But beyond that, everything else is sort of moot. This is a business that generates billions annually and the primary labor in that business are not entitled to the benefits of a free market. That is immoral and wrong in my opinion and no pining about hypothetical "fairness" and "student spirit" will change that for me.

Drew, I don't think anyone is saying that the NCAA is not a monopoly. No one is saying that monopolies are good. Everyone agrees in the free market as well. The problem is that by opening up this can of worms in the way of how it is getting opened is not going to have a good outcome. Now that the NCAA is not a monopoly, where is the competition going to come from? The rich are going to get richer and the poor poorer.

Not every D1 school plays basketball in arenas. Most play in gyms. The reason: there isn't enough money.

I just had a D1 assistant football coach in my office and he made 55k per year.

We had a discussion on another thread talking about how in sports such as baseball the NCAA limit of scholarships are 9.9 but most teams don't have the money to spend for the entire 9.9 scholarships. Plus that 9.9 is split up between x number of players.

My daughter played D1 soccer with out of state tuition. She ended up a Captain on a very good team. Women's soccer has 14 scholarships to be divided by 30 players. I do know that the budget did not allow for the pay of 14 full scholarships. She left with over a 100k in student loans. It was her choice. She has a good job and should have that paid off in 5 years if not sooner.

My take is that there will be even less money for the non revenue sports than there is now because of the downward trickle effect. Boosters will be paying for certain athletes to come to their school for football or basketball. That money will now not go into the general fund which supports other teams. The teams will turn into club sports or will be dissolved entirely. So once again what will the alternative be now that the NCAA is no longer a monopoly?

[xubrew]

Brew- I dont know you. But I DO know that you are NOT an accountant. Again, more ridiculous ideas.

I thought this was a discussion about compensating players? Free tuition is free tuition. And you go off on a tangent about how a partial scholarship is actually revenue for the sport because the OTHER part of tuition is paid by the student....WTF????

You ideas only lack one basic element. They cannot be executed.

I don't know you either, but I do know that you have no concept of how revenue flows throughout college athletics. Then again, I suppose it wouldn't shock me to learn that you are an NCAA staffer. There are reasons that the NCAA was unable to avoid ending up in a situation where they got totally smacked down by the Supreme Court.

It's sot revenue for the SPORT, it's revenue for the INSTITUTION. That's what tuition is. If a student who would otherwise not be at the school is paying tuition, then there are those who count that as revenue generated by athletics. There are D3 schools that rely on athletics as a means of attracting tuition paying students.

At schools like Xavier where enrollment is capped, a scholarship is arguably an expense to the institution because you could argue that a tuition paying student would be there paying full tuition to the school in place of that athlete. But at most D1 public schools that are trying to grow their enrollment, it's virtually not an expense to the institution at all. The scholarship athletes are there in addition to the tuition paying students, not in place of them. The money that it costs the athletic department to pay for the scholarship is money that is paid to the institution. That is actually reported to the NCAA as both an expense and as revenue generated. I was just making the point that while it is technically both in terms of how expenses and revenues are reported, it is arguably practically neither.

...and, that was kind of my point. Those who say "look at all the money athletics makes for the school!" when looking at those figures are wrong. Those who say "look at all the money athletics is costing the school!" when looking at those figures are also wrong. When an athletic dept. is spending the schools money within the school, then it isn't really costing the school as much as the critics like to insinuate, nor is it making the school as much as the critics like to insinuate even though it's technically reported that way. It's actually pretty close to a break even proposition.

[MHettel]

I don't know you either, but I do know that you have no concept of how revenue flows throughout college athletics. Then again, I suppose it wouldn't shock me to learn that you are an NCAA staffer. There are reasons that the NCAA was unable to avoid ending up in a situation where they got totally smacked down by the Supreme Court.

It's sot revenue for the SPORT, it's revenue for the INSTITUTION. That's what tuition is. If a student who would otherwise not be at the school is paying tuition, then there are those who count that as revenue generated by athletics. There are D3 schools that rely on athletics as a means of attracting tuition paying students.

At schools like Xavier where enrollment is capped, a scholarship is arguably an expense to the institution because you could argue that a tuition paying student would be there paying full tuition to the school in place of that athlete. But at most D1 public schools that are trying to grow their enrollment, it's virtually not an expense to the institution at all. The scholarship athletes are there in addition to the tuition paying students, not in place of them. The money that it costs the athletic department to pay for the scholarship is money that is paid to the institution. That is actually reported to the NCAA as both an expense and as revenue generated. I was just making the point that while it is technically both in terms of how expenses and revenues are reported, it is arguably practically neither.

...and, that was kind of my point. Those who say "look at all the money athletics makes for the school!" when looking at those figures are wrong. Those who say "look at all the money athletics is costing the school!" when looking at those figures are also wrong. When an athletic dept. is spending the schools money within the school, then it isn't really costing the school as much as the critics like to insinuate, nor is it making the school as much as the critics like to insinuate even though it's technically reported that way. It's actually pretty close to a break even proposition.

I honestly dont know what you are saying. Schools just get to make up the accounting on the fly? Sometimes this counts, sometimes that counts? It's nonsense. There are revenues and expenses associated with College athletics. The schools have ACTUAL accountants that apply consistent and "accepted" accounting concepts when they come up with their financial reports. There are auditors involved.

Here is my favorite: "The use of the arenas for the men's basketball tournament doesn't really cost them anything."

like what the hell. Do you actually believe that?

[xubrew]

I honestly dont know what you are saying. Schools just get to make up the accounting on the fly? Sometimes this counts, sometimes that counts? It's nonsense. There are revenues and expenses associated with College athletics. The schools have ACTUAL accountants that apply consistent and "accepted" accounting concepts when they come up with their financial reports. There are auditors involved.

Here is my favorite: "The use of the arenas for the men's basketball tournament doesn't really cost them anything."

like what the hell. Do you actually believe that?


Okay, what I'm saying is that people who believe all D1 programs make tens of millions in revenue each year are wrong, AND that people who say D1 programs lose tens of millions in revenue are also wrong. People abuse the data, or see what they want to, to try and make their points about how badly the players are exploited, or about how all the schools are going bankrupt because of athletics.

As far as how schools report revenue externally, money spent on scholarships is considered both an expense and revenue generated. It all comes out to zero.

As far as how schools "make up the accounting on the fly," the answer is...yeah. Pretty much. Some count tuition as revenue generated, and others don't. Some count made up fees and expenditures such as "facilities fees" (my personal favorite) as an expense to make it look like they're spending all this money, and others don't. When it comes to the money that the athletic department spends within the school, I'm convinced that no two places report it in the same way.

As far as your favorite "The use of the arenas for the men's basketball tournament doesn't really cost the NCAA anything," IT DOESN'T!! I would imagine that big entertainers like Garth Brooks (or whoever) aren't paying for the use of the arenas and stadiums. The arenas and stadiums are paying them, or they have some sort of contract where the profits are split in some way.

The NCAA does not lose any money when it comes to the use of arenas, nor do they pay for the staffing of those arenas. That I am quite certain of. Even if they did, they'd make all the money back from ticket sales and then some. They sure as hell wouldn’t need to dip into their TV money to cover any losses. That typically falls on whoever the host school (or conference) is to basically do all the NCAA's work for nothing, as well as arrange the availability of the venue. Earlier you mentioned Dayton. The NCAA isn't really dishing out any money at all for the First Four.

Now, getting back to what really was my whole over-arching point, the NCAA could have done things to prevent this from ending up in the courts and potentially losing everything. Even if none of my ideas would have worked at all, things couldn't have possibly ended up all that much worse. The one thing you and I do agree on is that this is (at least potentially) going to change college sports as we know it, and it could make the competitive balance even way more out of balance than what it already is.

[Drew]

Drew, I don't think anyone is saying that the NCAA is not a monopoly. No one is saying that monopolies are good. Everyone agrees in the free market as well. The problem is that by opening up this can of worms in the way of how it is getting opened is not going to have a good outcome. Now that the NCAA is not a monopoly, where is the competition going to come from? The rich are going to get richer and the poor poorer.

Not every D1 school plays basketball in arenas. Most play in gyms. The reason: there isn't enough money.

I just had a D1 assistant football coach in my office and he made 55k per year.

We had a discussion on another thread talking about how in sports such as baseball the NCAA limit of scholarships are 9.9 but most teams don't have the money to spend for the entire 9.9 scholarships. Plus that 9.9 is split up between x number of players.

My daughter played D1 soccer with out of state tuition. She ended up a Captain on a very good team. Women's soccer has 14 scholarships to be divided by 30 players. I do know that the budget did not allow for the pay of 14 full scholarships. She left with over a 100k in student loans. It was her choice. She has a good job and should have that paid off in 5 years if not sooner.

My take is that there will be even less money for the non revenue sports than there is now because of the downward trickle effect. Boosters will be paying for certain athletes to come to their school for football or basketball. That money will now not go into the general fund which supports other teams. The teams will turn into club sports or will be dissolved entirely. So once again what will the alternative be now that the NCAA is no longer a monopoly?

If a school wants to sponsor non-revenue sports then that should come out of the school's pockets, not those who are generating revenue. At the least the revenue generating sports should share that burden equally instead of putting it all on the athletes.

[MADXSTER]

If a school wants to sponsor non-revenue sports then that should come out of the school's pockets, not those who are generating revenue. At the least the revenue generating sports should share that burden equally instead of putting it all on the athletes.

This probably says more than all of your other posts combined.

[GoMuskies]

I wish someone would come up with a paying alternative for all of these incredibly valuable 18-22 year old athletes who are being exploited by their universities. They could go get paid market rates by all the fans who would obviously flock to see their games. And then the lesser athletes willing to play for a scholarship (or less in many, many cases) could continue on with college athletics. It would be sad to see all those empty collegiate stadiums and arenas without the incredibly valuable athletes that are the only reason those fans attend the games, but colleges would just have to suck it up and move forward. I wonder if the NCAA would even be able to find a network willing to televise March Madness under those conditions?

[xubrew]

I wish someone would come up with a paying alternative for all of these incredibly valuable 18-22 year old athletes who are being exploited by their universities. They could go get paid market rates by all the fans who would obviously flock to see their games. And then the lesser athletes willing to play for a scholarship (or less in many, many cases) could continue on with college athletics. It would be sad to see all those empty collegiate stadiums and arenas without the incredibly valuable athletes that are the only reason those fans attend the games, but colleges would just have to suck it up and move forward. I wonder if the NCAA would even be able to find a network willing to televise March Madness under those conditions?

I see what you did there!

[XUGRAD80]

“Sorry coach, I can’t make it to practice tomorrow. Jake Sweeney has me scheduled to do an autograph signing at that time, and since he’s paying me and you’re not….”

[noteggs]

Practice! We talking about practice?

[waggy]

If a market requires law, it's not a free one.

[bobbiemcgee]

If a market requires law, it's not a free one.

https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2021/06/28/dewine-signs-executive-order-to-allow-ohio.html

[MHettel]

https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2021/06/28/dewine-signs-executive-order-to-allow-ohio.html

"Athletes will naturally want to go to college in states where they can earn money and remain eligible to play," DeWine said Monday. "Without setting these rules, Ohio college athletic programs would be at a severe disadvantage."

Wow. When a state Governor openly discusses how getting money into players hands will impact competition...well, it's curtains for college athletics as we know it.

[XUGRAD80]

"Athletes will naturally want to go to college in states where they can earn money and remain eligible to play," DeWine said Monday. "Without setting these rules, Ohio college athletic programs would be at a severe disadvantage."

Wow. When a state Governor openly discusses how getting money into players hands will impact competition...well, it's curtains for college athletics as we know it.

But he’s not wrong about that……and they will want to go where they can earn the MOST money. Which, without limits and controls of some kind, is going to create the real problems.

[Drew]

If a market requires law, it's not a free one.

This man gets it.

[XU '11]

FYI, the NCAA is very transparent about how they distribute their revenues:

https://www.ncaa.org/about/where-does-money-go

A little over $1 billion in revenue

$222 mil directly to schools based on how many sports they sponsor and how many scholarships they award
$169 mil for men's basketball NCAA tournament 'units'
$154 mil for to run all of the D1 Championships

The rest are listed on that page.

[XUGRAD80]

FYI, the NCAA is very transparent about how they distribute their revenues:

https://www.ncaa.org/about/where-does-money-go

A little over $1 billion in revenue

$222 mil directly to schools based on how many sports they sponsor and how many scholarships they award
$169 mil for men's basketball NCAA tournament 'units'
$154 mil for to run all of the D1 Championships

The rest are listed on that page.

Interesting tidbit there……the NCAA receives NO money from the football bowl games or playoff games, as they are are independently run. I’m surprised by that.

[XUGRAD80]

And so it begins…..the rich get richer

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/31771563/dan-lambert-plans-500-month-endorsement-deal-every-miami-hurricanes-football-player-scholarship

This is what unregulated open market compensation will look like. If this guy does 500 a month, what’s to stop a U of Florida fan to pay their players 600, 800, a thousand, or more? How in the world can the schools without rich alumni compete with this? They can’t. So now all of a sudden players will be choosing what school to go to based on what the alumni are willing to pay them? And wherever they can get the highest pay, they will go? There’s a word for this kind of thing….it’s called PROFESSIONAL. It sure as heck isn’t amateur.

[bobbiemcgee]

What about the goofy parents? Little League and Pop Warner will be 24/7. Travel, Camps, Tournaments in CA and Fla every weekend. Gotta make Junior a star!!!

[paulxu]

Since we don't have a lot of football players, maybe we can compete for the bball guys.

Paging Jeff Wyler and the Joseph Group...please pick up the white courtesy phone,

[XUGRAD80]

“Hello, University President? Listen, you better fire that coach and hire my guy, or I’m cutting off the pay gravy train for the players.”

I can’t see how any coach or AD is in favor of giving more power to the boosters (aka “friends of the program”).

[bjf123]

Paging Jeff Wyler and the Joseph Group...please pick up the white courtesy phone,

Wouldn’t they be helping over at Bearcat High?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Xville]

Something I hadn’t thought about but local radio discussed today was that for all the good that this will bring, there is going to be a whole lot of bad as it pertains to adults trying to cheat kids and parents out of money. Think agents were dirty before? What kind of scumbags are going to come out of the woodwork now that a lot of this stuff is legal?

[MADXSTER]

Wouldn’t they be helping over at Bearcat High?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wyler is UC. Joseph is Xavier, hint - The Joseph Club in Cintas

[bjf123]

Wyler is UC. Joseph is Xavier, hint - The Joseph Club in Cintas

D’oh! [emoji2357]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[paulxu]

“Hello, University President? Listen, you better fire that coach and hire my guy, or I’m cutting off the pay gravy train for the players.”

That apparently works when some big ticket donors want to change coaches.

[MHettel]

This man gets it.

Drew, do you remember when you said THIS .... "I am a simple man. I believe in the free market, I think monopolies are a danger to the free market." in post #151?

So, you have thoroughly confused me. Monopolies arise in a "free market" that has no rules or regulations. You seem to be against Monopolies. Which means you are in favor of rules and regulations. Do I have that right?

Then someone else suggests that the presence of "law" in a free market essentially undermines the concept of a free market. And you agree with that.

So, which is it?

Or maybe you just want players to be paid so it's "fair" and you are willing to say anything (including contradicting yourself) to further that agenda.

I dont quite get it.

[MHettel]

I really do think that the early indications of how this will work out have served to mock the whole concept.

The IDEA behind this is to allow the "student athletes" (in quotes for a reason) to get some compensation for being part of a money making endeavor, even though the value of a full scholarship (with perks) is often a substantial value....but nevermind that.

So the first NIL deal goes to .......some hot twin girls playing mid-major womens BBall. Finally some JUSTICE! Laughable.

Now, a Miami booster straight up will offer $500 cash monthly to every player (no merit or judgement involved at all) on the football team as an "opening bid" against FSU and Florida. You know that Florida and FSU will "raise" that bet right?

Will "boosters" be allowed in home visits to kids? Can they fly them out to their mansions and wine and dine them and give them an NIL offer before they sign (contingent on signing with the school). Is that "free market" enough? With there be recruiting windows, or can this just occur "willy nilly" to entice recruits?

This is already out of hand. This wont wind up being positive for 95% of college atheletes. But it will be GREAT for 5%.

Well done.

[XU '11]

I really do think that the early indications of how this will work out have served to mock the whole concept.

The IDEA behind this is to allow the "student athletes" (in quotes for a reason) to get some compensation for being part of a money making endeavor, even though the value of a full scholarship (with perks) is often a substantial value....but nevermind that.

So the first NIL deal goes to .......some hot twin girls playing mid-major womens BBall. Finally some JUSTICE! Laughable.

Now, a Miami booster straight up will offer $500 cash monthly to every player (no merit or judgement involved at all) on the football team as an "opening bid" against FSU and Florida. You know that Florida and FSU will "raise" that bet right?

Will "boosters" be allowed in home visits to kids? Can they fly them out to their mansions and wine and dine them and give them an NIL offer before they sign (contingent on signing with the school). Is that "free market" enough? With there be recruiting windows, or can this just occur "willy nilly" to entice recruits?

This is already out of hand. This wont wind up being positive for 95% of college atheletes. But it will be GREAT for 5%.

Well done.

Honestly, this is "right" for the women's basketball players. In no way is their endorsement deal a work around for schools not being allowed to pay their athletes. This is the way NIL should work. If a college athlete gets famous on TikTok or Twitch or whatever, they should be able to benefit from that just like a regular person would. Almost none of the profitability of the Cavinder twins, or of LSU gymnast Olivia Dunne, has anything to do with their athletic abilities.

The Miami booster situation is what makes this thing a joke. From what I understand, the NCAA was trying to work with Congress to make the former legal and the latter illegal but ran out of time before state laws went into effect. So they threw up their hands and said "we give up, do whatever you want".

[xubrew]

I saw an estimate this morning that when you add up all the damages and legal fees that the NCAA spent on a case that was not even close to being winnable, the total bill will be well over $300 million.

I would like to say that I believe giving an average of $1 million to each of the 358 D1 institutions to be used for student-athlete benefits and compensation would have been money that was much better spent. It would have been good for the players, and the NCAA wouldn't have ended up seemingly losing complete control.

Anyway....nicely done, NCAA! They claimed they were afraid that making any sort of concessions would ruin college athletics. Well, by NOT making any concessions, I think they just ruined it way way way way more.

[MHettel]

yawn.

This player compensation issue was going to ruin college sports no matter what. At least the NCAA put up a fight. You are acting like things would just be "normal" if the NCAA didn't put up a fight. That's your agenda talking....

Nick Saban is openly talking about how his QB (who has never taken a snap) is already approaching 1M in NIL Money. Why is that any of his business? Oh, that's right. He's recruiting.

I dont know what will happen to college sports in the next few years. But I dont expect it to be recognizable.

I'm back to this idea.....no scholarships. Hell, the players and NIL advocates act like they dont have any value anyway. Take away the scholarships and have players just earn some NIL money and pay for school like the rest of the students.

[Final4]

I'm back to this idea.....no scholarships. Hell, the players and NIL advocates act like they dont have any value anyway. Take away the scholarships and have players just earn some NIL money and pay for school like the rest of the students.


That’s one approach. Here’s another one: create an organization with bylaws that can withstand scrutiny and legal challenges. All colleges are welcome to join this organization but in doing so they agree to abide by all rules and regulations as set forth by the organization. Member schools provide scholarships (where applicable) and other modest benefits to student/athletes who want to participate in this model. Schools can only schedule and play other schools that are members of this organization. It’s called college sports and the participants are referred to as amateurs. I suspect after a year or two of the shitshow that has begun the list of applicants to this new organization will be lengthy and then we can watch this semi-pro league die a slow death.

[MHettel]

That’s one approach. Here’s another one: create an organization with bylaws that can withstand scrutiny and legal challenges. All colleges are welcome to join this organization but in doing so they agree to abide by all rules and regulations as set forth by the organization. Member schools provide scholarships (where applicable) and other modest benefits to student/athletes who want to participate in this model. Schools can only schedule and play other schools that are members of this organization. It’s called college sports and the participants are referred to as amateurs. I suspect after a year or two of the shitshow that has begun the list of applicants to this new organization will be lengthy and then we can watch this semi-pro league die a slow death.

so....replace the NCAA with the NCAA?

[Final4]

so....replace the NCAA with the NCAA?

Precisely. I think it will ultimately go full circle.

[xubrew]

yawn.

This player compensation issue was going to ruin college sports no matter what. At least the NCAA put up a fight. You are acting like things would just be "normal" if the NCAA didn't put up a fight. That's your agenda talking....

Nick Saban is openly talking about how his QB (who has never taken a snap) is already approaching 1M in NIL Money. Why is that any of his business? Oh, that's right. He's recruiting.

I dont know what will happen to college sports in the next few years. But I dont expect it to be recognizable.

I'm back to this idea.....no scholarships. Hell, the players and NIL advocates act like they dont have any value anyway. Take away the scholarships and have players just earn some NIL money and pay for school like the rest of the students.


My agenda for about the last ten years was the (now futile) hope that the NCAA would not be so stubborn about refusing to change their altitude, and to see that if they didn't that they'd crash into a mountain. My agenda had been dying a slow death for years, and was pretty much totally dead back in December.

I'm not really acting like things would be normal. The whole time I was saying the norm needed to change. I am acting like the NCAA would not have just lost over $300 million due to the courts had they been proactive about keeping it out of the courts in the first place.

Spending $2000 to avoid having to pay $1000 is a pretty stubborn stance, but with that being said I still think there are times when you need to do that. This was NOT one of those times. They've now lost way more money and way more control than what they probably needed to. It wasn't winnable. Not even close. Even people who weren't in favor of player compensation had to see that the NCAA had no legal argument, and that it was all a complete waste, and that they spent a lot more and lost a lot more than what they had to.

I do agree with one thing. I don't know what college sports will look like, but it probably won't be recognizable, and there will probably be a much bigger competitive imbalance than what we already have. As someone who loves the non-power leagues, I really do hate to see that. They could have avoided being clobbered this badly. They really could have. I feel that it was stupid to decide to die on that hill when they didn't have to. Yes, there would have been changes, but probably not quite this drastic, and certainly not this expensive.

...and the Alabama quarterback is an NIL issue. That's got nothing to do with this.

[MHettel]

...and the Alabama quarterback is an NIL issue. That's got nothing to do with this.

huh? The NIL court case was the whole thing you are discussing. Am I missing something?

College sport is about to change. It will not resemble what we have come to know. If the NCAA would have "given up" or whatever you suggest and just have allowed the players to make money or get paid or whatever, we'd still be right here.

I would like college sports to be the way it has been. I'm against changing sports as we know it. If the NIL issue was the catalyst of the change that I dont want, then I guess I'm against the NIL issue.

The fact is, nobody forced anyone to be a college athlete. They are compensated by way of a valuable scholarship, and of the course the education that comes along with it that has a long term value that can FAR exceed any NIL money.

But whatever. Whiners think it's not fair that the NCAA makes money while they get "nothing."

Wait till these guys get a shoe deal and have to come to grips that they get paid money on the backs of the Chinese sweatshop workers.

How ironic will THAT be?

[xubrew]

huh? The NIL court case was the whole thing you are discussing. Am I missing something?

College sport is about to change. It will not resemble what we have come to know. If the NCAA would have "given up" or whatever you suggest and just have allowed the players to make money or get paid or whatever, we'd still be right here.

I would like college sports to be the way it has been. I'm against changing sports as we know it. If the NIL issue was the catalyst of the change that I dont want, then I guess I'm against the NIL issue.

The fact is, nobody forced anyone to be a college athlete. They are compensated by way of a valuable scholarship, and of the course the education that comes along with it that has a long term value that can FAR exceed any NIL money.

But whatever. Whiners think it's not fair that the NCAA makes money while they get "nothing."

Wait till these guys get a shoe deal and have to come to grips that they get paid money on the backs of the Chinese sweatshop workers.

How ironic will THAT be?


YES!!! You are missing something. Like...EVERYTHING!!

The Alston Case that was before the Supreme Court is what I was talking about. It's been the only thing I've been talking about for this entire thread.

Name, Image, and Likeness allows players to make money outside of the institution on their own. That's an ENTIRELY different issue.

The Alston Case says that the NCAA is in violation of anti-trust laws by having rules against schools being allowed to pay players. In short, schools will soon be allowed pay players. Or, at the very least the NCAA can no longer have any rules against it.

See the difference now??

[MHettel]

YES!!! You are missing something. Like...EVERYTHING!!

The Alston Case that was before the Supreme Court is what I was talking about. It's been the only thing I've been talking about for this entire thread.

Name, Image, and Likeness allows players to make money outside of the institution on their own. That's an ENTIRELY different issue.

The Alston Case says that the NCAA is in violation of anti-trust laws by having rules against schools being allowed to pay players. In short, schools will soon be allowed pay players. Or, at the very least the NCAA can no longer have any rules against it.

See the difference now??

No, not really.

On one hand, you have the terminal cancer. On the other is the heart failure. Why even make a distinction between the 2? Your days are numbered.

Hope everyone gets what they hoped for!

[xubrew]

No, not really.

On one hand, you have the terminal cancer. On the other is the heart failure. Why even make a distinction between the 2? Your days are numbered.

Hope everyone gets what they hoped for!

Or…

On one hand you have type 2 diabetes. On the other hand you have heart disease. It’s time to make some lifestyle changes before it’s too late and stop ignoring every single blatantly obvious warning sign. The NCAA never did. Now it’s probably too late.

Maybe some people did get what they wanted, but the NCAA sure as hell didn’t, and neither did a lot of fans of non-power programs.

[xubrew]

And here we go...

The state of California plans to pass legislation that would allow student-athletes to share in the revenue that is generated by athletics. Up to $25,000 a year if I read it right. The NCAA objects. Well, considering the ruling in The Alston Case it won't matter how strongly the NCAA objects. I think we are one year away from schools beginning to pay players directly.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2023/04/25/ncaa-opposing-california-bill-pushing-revenue-sharing-athletes/11735956002/