Quote:In a landmark decision that could reshape big-time college sports, a federal judge ruled Friday that the NCAA is in violation of the nation's antitrust laws by restricting the compensation that major college football and men's basketball student-athletes can receive for playing their sports.
U.S. District Court Judge Claudia Wilken, in a 99-page decision that followed a contentious three-week trial in June, wrote, "The Court finds that the challenged NCAA rules unreasonably restrain trade in the market for certain educational and athletic opportunities offered by NCAA Division I schools."
Wilken rejected the NCAA's arguments in defense of its economic model, saying the "justifications that the NCAA offers do not justify this restraint and could be achieved through less restrictive means" while preserving college sports competition.
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/...trust-case
Unless the NCAA decides to actually become an NFP (rather than just saying they are on tax forms), I'm going to go ahead and say college athletics will be done by 2025.
(08-08-2014 05:54 PM)BearcatMan Wrote: [ -> ]Unless the NCAA decides to actually become an NFP (rather than just saying they are on tax forms), I'm going to go ahead and say college athletics will be done by 2025.
In it's current form, yes. Schools like Texas, Alabama and O$U will be fine as they can then just bring their payments out of the shadows. This will cause a lot of schools to reconsider athletics altogether.
The NCAA's own lawyer called the NCAA a cartel in an Econ textbook. It's funny how many people don't realize how exploited college athletes are.
Yet those exploited athletes keep trying for those schollies....
This thing is gonna be dragged out for years with appeals by the NCAA, who will want the decision thrown out, and the athletes who feel the judgement was too low.
(08-09-2014 08:41 AM)beck Wrote: [ -> ]Yet those exploited athletes keep trying for those schollies....
You must not understand how market power works.
NFL players are exploited by owners. They still try for contracts that pay them millions of dollars.
In the decision, the courts held that a scholarship is not a valid quid pro quo. I have heard that from someone on this board before.....
(08-11-2014 09:14 AM)QSECOFR Wrote: [ -> ]In the decision, the courts held that a scholarship is not a valid quid pro quo. I have heard that from someone on this board before.....
you're not suggesting that was me, were you?
(08-11-2014 01:24 PM)Lush Wrote: [ -> ] (08-11-2014 09:14 AM)QSECOFR Wrote: [ -> ]In the decision, the courts held that a scholarship is not a valid quid pro quo. I have heard that from someone on this board before.....
you're not suggesting that was me, were you?
No one ever refers to you.
(08-11-2014 01:28 PM)ctipton Wrote: [ -> ] (08-11-2014 01:24 PM)Lush Wrote: [ -> ] (08-11-2014 09:14 AM)QSECOFR Wrote: [ -> ]In the decision, the courts held that a scholarship is not a valid quid pro quo. I have heard that from someone on this board before.....
you're not suggesting that was me, were you?
No one ever refers to you.
that once wasn't true
(08-09-2014 09:58 AM)JackieTreehorn Wrote: [ -> ]This thing is gonna be dragged out for years with appeals by the NCAA, who will want the decision thrown out, and the athletes who feel the judgement was too low.
That should be the outcome, but I am not sure it will be.
The NCAA could give two sh*ts about amateurism. Kids get paid, kids don't get paid, the NCAA is like the casino, the bigger the $$ handle the better, they make money either way. The only danger is the loss of administrative power and $$$ control over the whole revenue producing machine.
Any outcome that is acceptable to the P5 conferences will be acceptable to the NCAA no matter what lengths of absurdity the NCAA has to reach in order justify it.
(08-11-2014 01:28 PM)ctipton Wrote: [ -> ] (08-11-2014 01:24 PM)Lush Wrote: [ -> ] (08-11-2014 09:14 AM)QSECOFR Wrote: [ -> ]In the decision, the courts held that a scholarship is not a valid quid pro quo. I have heard that from someone on this board before.....
you're not suggesting that was me, were you?
No one ever refers to you.
