CSNbbs

NCAA caps on money for scholarships to basketball and football players eliminated, look for the NCAA to appeal.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoda...2887122002

Well, everything we once knew is out the window. Now the dawn of the mega conferences...

From what I am reading, there can be no limits on anything relates to education. So players cannot be prevented from receiving any form of computer stipend, book stipend, food stipend, or anything else that can somehow be tied to education, like possibly a transportation stipend

The NCAA cannot. Individual conferences can.

(03-08-2019 09:05 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ]Well, everything we once knew is out the window. Now the dawn of the mega conferences...

Of course the NCAA will appeal, and they will lose the appeal. It will merely buy time for the conferences to make their plans. And for conference schools who can not or will not operate in a no caps system time to make arrangements to form or join conferences which shall be scholarship only.

It's going to hit basketball as well and possibly baseball and hockey.

Now they'll have to work out how to keep Title IX fully funded. I have a feeling allowing the schools to pay players but operate as tax exempt entities if they fully fund Title IX will be the compromise but that will take time as well.

The Big 10 and SEC likely won't lose members outside of the potential for Northwestern and Vanderbilt to possibly reconsider. I suspect this will hit the ACC a little bit harder than most, but still not more than maybe 2 or 3.

I wouldn't be surprised at all to see a P3 or P4 of 60 schools emerge from this.

(03-08-2019 09:36 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-08-2019 09:05 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ]Well, everything we once knew is out the window. Now the dawn of the mega conferences...

Of course the NCAA will appeal, and they will lose the appeal. It will merely buy time for the conferences to make their plans. And for conference schools who can not or will not operate in a no caps system time to make arrangements to form or join conferences which shall be scholarship only.

It's going to hit basketball as well and possibly baseball and hockey.

Now they'll have to work out how to keep Title IX fully funded. I have a feeling allowing the schools to pay players but operate as tax exempt entities if they fully fund Title IX will be the compromise but that will take time as well.

The Big 10 and SEC likely won't lose members outside of the potential for Northwestern and Vanderbilt to possibly reconsider. I suspect this will hit the ACC a little bit harder than most, but still not more than maybe 2 or 3.

I wouldn't be surprised at all to see a P3 or P4 of 60 schools emerge from this.

Wouldn’t paid players simply be employees and not fall under Title9?

(03-08-2019 09:43 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-08-2019 09:36 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-08-2019 09:05 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ]Well, everything we once knew is out the window. Now the dawn of the mega conferences...

Of course the NCAA will appeal, and they will lose the appeal. It will merely buy time for the conferences to make their plans. And for conference schools who can not or will not operate in a no caps system time to make arrangements to form or join conferences which shall be scholarship only.

It's going to hit basketball as well and possibly baseball and hockey.

Now they'll have to work out how to keep Title IX fully funded. I have a feeling allowing the schools to pay players but operate as tax exempt entities if they fully fund Title IX will be the compromise but that will take time as well.

The Big 10 and SEC likely won't lose members outside of the potential for Northwestern and Vanderbilt to possibly reconsider. I suspect this will hit the ACC a little bit harder than most, but still not more than maybe 2 or 3.

I wouldn't be surprised at all to see a P3 or P4 of 60 schools emerge from this.

Wouldn’t paid players simply be employees and not fall under Title9?

Yes, which is exactly why the politically hot issue of Title IX will probably merit tax exempt status for the schools if they use revenue from paid athletics to pay for it. It's a guess but they either work out something like that or they won't be as many kinds of women's sports. Once football and basketball pay players there is the question of taxes on profits.

This ruling has just started a massive shift that will take a few years to play out and to work out the kinks and complexities that will arise out of it.

The whole purpose of the NCAA was to manage amateur athletics. That will now be moot for revenue sports. The NCAA will have a role in non revenue sports moving forward but I think we'll need a new governing structure for the professional sports. That's why some compromise will have to be worked on Title IX funding.

(03-08-2019 09:36 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-08-2019 09:05 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ]Well, everything we once knew is out the window. Now the dawn of the mega conferences...

Of course the NCAA will appeal, and they will lose the appeal. It will merely buy time for the conferences to make their plans. And for conference schools who can not or will not operate in a no caps system time to make arrangements to form or join conferences which shall be scholarship only.

It's going to hit basketball as well and possibly baseball and hockey.

Now they'll have to work out how to keep Title IX fully funded. I have a feeling allowing the schools to pay players but operate as tax exempt entities if they fully fund Title IX will be the compromise but that will take time as well.

The Big 10 and SEC likely won't lose members outside of the potential for Northwestern and Vanderbilt to possibly reconsider. I suspect this will hit the ACC a little bit harder than most, but still not more than maybe 2 or 3.

I wouldn't be surprised at all to see a P3 or P4 of 60 schools emerge from this.

I've long said that the SEC could move to 24 and completely change the landscape--sparking a reactionary expansion by the Big Ten into PAC 12 and further entrenching in the Northeast.

So now there will be no more behind the scene payments? I actually think the opposite about schools like Vanderbilt and Northwestern. They have a lot of big money donors that can step in and pay for all those transportation stipends. The “Bill Whatever Transportation Stipend” could now become the norm.

(03-08-2019 10:04 PM)esayem Wrote: [ -> ]So now there will be no more behind the scene payments? I actually think the opposite about schools like Vanderbilt and Northwestern. They have a lot of big money donors that can step in and pay for all those transportation stipends. The “Bill Whatever Transportation Stipend” could now become the norm.

I think Northwestern will be all in. Vandy has been resistant to the SEC's desires for them to up their capacity and provide amenities at a very rustic stadium. I wouldn't be surprised if out of this Vandy seeks to be the first partial member of the SEC and compete in Baseball and Basketball, but opt out of football at the no cap level. We'll see.

Question I have is this enough for ND to back off. Saavy Jack (Swarbrick) has said they will not do the employee model.

(03-08-2019 10:24 PM)domer1978 Wrote: [ -> ]Question I have is this enough for ND to back off. Saavy Jack (Swarbrick) has said they will not do the employee model.

I kind of doubt that they would withdraw from competing at the top level. The whole identity of the school is too closely tied to their sports history. It's what makes them unique.

But boy if they did step it down to a scholarship only participation what would that do to the ACC?

Remember the real hidden issue here is if any member who signed the GOR opts out it opens up the whole GOR which would then need to be resigned by everyone. It other words it opens up a window for others to leave. And since the total value of a school to the conference is altered by circumstances beyond their control (Alston) there probably would not be any court that would force compliance of a contract that legally had been substantially altered.

I must be reading this differently from everyone else who has posted in this thread. To me, it looks like the NCAA won.

Quote:The NCAA "may continue ... to limit compensation and benefits that are unrelated to education," Wilken ruled.

She also said that the association may adopt a definition of compensation and benefits that are “related to education.”

The NCAA can still outlaw things like Will Wade's "strong ass offer" to a player's family and/or street agent because the NCAA can say that's not related to education and the courts would back them up on that.

Can't pay Zion Williamson the multi-million salary he is worth to Duke -- can't pay him above the table, anyway. Above the table, you can only add a few more peanuts to the peanuts that the athletes already get.

The under the table payments made through skeezy bagmen will continue, because the judge opened the door only a tiny crack and said the NCAA can keep it from opening any wider than that.

(03-08-2019 10:47 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]I must be reading this differently from everyone else who has posted in this thread. To me, it looks like the NCAA won.

Quote:The NCAA "may continue ... to limit compensation and benefits that are unrelated to education," Wilken ruled.

She also said that the association may adopt a definition of compensation and benefits that are “related to education.”

The NCAA can still outlaw things like Will Wade's "strong ass offer" to a player's family and/or street agent because the NCAA can say that's not related to education and the courts would back them up on that.

Can't pay Zion Williamson the multi-million salary he is worth to Duke -- can't pay him above the table, anyway. Above the table, you can only add a few more peanuts to the peanuts that the athletes already get.

The under the table payments made through skeezy bagmen will continue, because the judge opened the door only a tiny crack and said the NCAA can keep it from opening any wider than that.

Agreed. The NCAA technically lost on the caps related to education that might go beyond the current full cost of attendance amounts, but they won on being able to restrict non-educational compensation (which is what we mean by “paying players”). Let’s put it this way: I’m personally a total supporter of paying players and I don’t believe that the ruling in this case helped that cause at all.

Since the NCAA is also at D1, 2 and 3, I think this would include all the schools in all 3 divisions. How many FCS schools who could actually move up and how many FBS who can't do it? This is going be a flood gates to open as other athletes will sue the NCAA. Athletes from D2 and D3 will sue. This could open NAIA up for athletes to sue them for wanting to be paid like the D1 players. I would have ruled against Alston pointing out they are already getting paid in scholarships.

(03-08-2019 10:56 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-08-2019 10:47 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]I must be reading this differently from everyone else who has posted in this thread. To me, it looks like the NCAA won.

Quote:The NCAA "may continue ... to limit compensation and benefits that are unrelated to education," Wilken ruled.

She also said that the association may adopt a definition of compensation and benefits that are “related to education.”

The NCAA can still outlaw things like Will Wade's "strong ass offer" to a player's family and/or street agent because the NCAA can say that's not related to education and the courts would back them up on that.

Can't pay Zion Williamson the multi-million salary he is worth to Duke -- can't pay him above the table, anyway. Above the table, you can only add a few more peanuts to the peanuts that the athletes already get.

The under the table payments made through skeezy bagmen will continue, because the judge opened the door only a tiny crack and said the NCAA can keep it from opening any wider than that.

Agreed. The NCAA technically lost on the caps related to education that might go beyond the current full cost of attendance amounts, but they won on being able to restrict non-educational compensation (which is what we mean by “paying players”). Let’s put it this way: I’m personally a total supporter of paying players and I don’t believe that the ruling in this case helped that cause at all.

I suspect an awful lot of benefits can packaged together under the guise of “educational compensation”.

This is actually a big win for the NCAA and the established order, as it allows the NCAA to limit compensation to academic expenses.

If this ruling stands, the status quo will basically be maintained.

This reminds me of when the NFL 'lost' the antitrust suit the USFL filed against it, and was ordered to pay ..... $1, which was trebled to $3 in punitive damagss, lol.

(03-08-2019 11:08 PM)DavidSt Wrote: [ -> ]Since the NCAA is also at D1, 2 and 3, I think this would include all the schools in all 3 divisions. How many FCS schools who could actually move up and how many FBS who can't do it? This is going be a flood gates to open as other athletes will sue the NCAA. Athletes from D2 and D3 will sue. This could open NAIA up for athletes to sue them for wanting to be paid like the D1 players. I would have ruled against Alston pointing out they are already getting paid in scholarships.

I hope you find a new hobby.

Seriously, I hope you find a new hobby.

(03-08-2019 10:56 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-08-2019 10:47 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]I must be reading this differently from everyone else who has posted in this thread. To me, it looks like the NCAA won.

Quote:The NCAA "may continue ... to limit compensation and benefits that are unrelated to education," Wilken ruled.

She also said that the association may adopt a definition of compensation and benefits that are “related to education.”

The NCAA can still outlaw things like Will Wade's "strong ass offer" to a player's family and/or street agent because the NCAA can say that's not related to education and the courts would back them up on that.

Can't pay Zion Williamson the multi-million salary he is worth to Duke -- can't pay him above the table, anyway. Above the table, you can only add a few more peanuts to the peanuts that the athletes already get.

The under the table payments made through skeezy bagmen will continue, because the judge opened the door only a tiny crack and said the NCAA can keep it from opening any wider than that.

Agreed. The NCAA technically lost on the caps related to education that might go beyond the current full cost of attendance amounts, but they won on being able to restrict non-educational compensation (which is what we mean by “paying players”). Let’s put it this way: I’m personally a total supporter of paying players and I don’t believe that the ruling in this case helped that cause at all.

This is a more complete and explanatory article than the one I initially read. I tend to agree with what you and Wedge are saying. But the wiggle room here is in the granting of funding for post graduate work, and what can be called appropriate funding to fully integrate the student athletes into campus life. There are going to be a lot of determinations that are going to have to define what full integration into campus life actually means.

I do think that money for post graduate work is a solid deal. If availed upon it will provide many physically injured players, and those with dashed professional hopes with a real second chance at a profession beyond athletics.

I don't think this ruling is going to bring any initial sweeping changes. It does look like modified status quo.

(03-08-2019 10:56 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-08-2019 10:47 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]I must be reading this differently from everyone else who has posted in this thread. To me, it looks like the NCAA won.

Quote:The NCAA "may continue ... to limit compensation and benefits that are unrelated to education," Wilken ruled.

She also said that the association may adopt a definition of compensation and benefits that are “related to education.”

The NCAA can still outlaw things like Will Wade's "strong ass offer" to a player's family and/or street agent because the NCAA can say that's not related to education and the courts would back them up on that.

Can't pay Zion Williamson the multi-million salary he is worth to Duke -- can't pay him above the table, anyway. Above the table, you can only add a few more peanuts to the peanuts that the athletes already get.

The under the table payments made through skeezy bagmen will continue, because the judge opened the door only a tiny crack and said the NCAA can keep it from opening any wider than that.

Agreed. The NCAA technically lost on the caps related to education that might go beyond the current full cost of attendance amounts, but they won on being able to restrict non-educational compensation (which is what we mean by “paying players”). Let’s put it this way: I’m personally a total supporter of paying players and I don’t believe that the ruling in this case helped that cause at all.

That's my understanding as well - this ruling is far from the "Wild West".