The NCAA is the worst run organization that I have seen. The sad thing is all these highly educated individuals still cannot tell their head from their *******. They have continually kicked the can and ignored what was coming. .
(06-21-2021 06:40 PM)domer1978 Wrote: [ -> ]The NCAA is the worst run organization that I have seen. The sad thing is all these highly educated individuals still cannot tell their head from their *******. They have continually kicked the can and ignored what was coming. .
I fairness to the NCAA, one could argue that their approach has worked. The NCAA is, apparently, a "walking anti-trust violation". And yet despite that, for all these many decades they have been able to operate that way, to the benefit of their member schools, making money while not paying players beyond the cost of scholarships, even up to this very moment.
And as far as I could read, even in writing up a 9-0 loss for the NCAA, there was still plenty of deferential language in that opinion towards the NCAA's notion of having a unique special mission. I am by no means convinced that the courts are going to throw open the doors to full-on pay for play. They even said today that conferences could have stricter anti-pay rules than the modest gains for players carved out by the district court.
So I'm not sure the NCAA's "business model" doesn't have life in it still.
(06-21-2021 08:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (06-21-2021 06:40 PM)domer1978 Wrote: [ -> ]The NCAA is the worst run organization that I have seen. The sad thing is all these highly educated individuals still cannot tell their head from their *******. They have continually kicked the can and ignored what was coming. .
I fairness to the NCAA, one could argue that their approach has worked. The NCAA is, apparently, a "walking anti-trust violation". And yet despite that, for all these many decades they have been able to operate that way, to the benefit of their member schools, making money while not paying players beyond the cost of scholarships, even up to this very moment.
And as far as I could read, even in writing up a 9-0 loss for the NCAA, there was still plenty of deferential language in that opinion towards the NCAA's notion of having a unique special mission. I am by no means convinced that the courts are going to throw open the doors to full-on pay for play. They even said today that conferences could have stricter anti-pay rules than the modest gains for players carved out by the district court.
So I'm not sure the NCAA's "business model" doesn't have life in it still.
I think it was a strategic mistake to fight the appellate court's opinion.
(06-21-2021 08:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (06-21-2021 06:40 PM)domer1978 Wrote: [ -> ]The NCAA is the worst run organization that I have seen. The sad thing is all these highly educated individuals still cannot tell their head from their *******. They have continually kicked the can and ignored what was coming. .
I fairness to the NCAA, one could argue that their approach has worked. The NCAA is, apparently, a "walking anti-trust violation". And yet despite that, for all these many decades they have been able to operate that way, to the benefit of their member schools, making money while not paying players beyond the cost of scholarships, even up to this very moment.
And as far as I could read, even in writing up a 9-0 loss for the NCAA, there was still plenty of deferential language in that opinion towards the NCAA's notion of having a unique special mission. I am by no means convinced that the courts are going to throw open the doors to full-on pay for play. They even said today that conferences could have stricter anti-pay rules than the modest gains for players carved out by the district court.
So I'm not sure the NCAA's "business model" doesn't have life in it still.
Their approach, as you call it, has been the last vestige of indentured servitude in this nation. I'm about the farthest thing from a liberal (in the new, non economic, sense of the word) as you will find and what the NCAA has done is to grow fat off of the backs of first rural and city poor whites and then from African Americans as well as the aforementioned. Those who played called each other "fellow sufferers" when they reminisce about playing days. Bad knees, ankles, shoulders, backs, and now the named CTEs are the legacy that far more have than a pro pension (also hard won).
So that piss poor bureaucracy you cite contributed little to nothing to the mid life pain and suffering of those who played and never made money at it. The NCAA sucked up to schools who also profited with little care past playing days and usually not even a completed education.
I hope they give them more in stipends, insurance, and an open ended opportunity to complete that education at any time.
I love the sport and have always hated to see those past eligibility or pro appeal tossed out and forgotten like yesterday's news.
The NCAA and schools have been two good old boys making money and getting exposure from a group who were vulnerable to the dreams of boys only to wake up back in their hometowns and old hoods but without the hope and health they left with. It is, and always was, disgraceful.
(06-21-2021 09:29 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (06-21-2021 08:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (06-21-2021 06:40 PM)domer1978 Wrote: [ -> ]The NCAA is the worst run organization that I have seen. The sad thing is all these highly educated individuals still cannot tell their head from their *******. They have continually kicked the can and ignored what was coming. .
I fairness to the NCAA, one could argue that their approach has worked. The NCAA is, apparently, a "walking anti-trust violation". And yet despite that, for all these many decades they have been able to operate that way, to the benefit of their member schools, making money while not paying players beyond the cost of scholarships, even up to this very moment.
And as far as I could read, even in writing up a 9-0 loss for the NCAA, there was still plenty of deferential language in that opinion towards the NCAA's notion of having a unique special mission. I am by no means convinced that the courts are going to throw open the doors to full-on pay for play. They even said today that conferences could have stricter anti-pay rules than the modest gains for players carved out by the district court.
So I'm not sure the NCAA's "business model" doesn't have life in it still.
Their approach, as you call it, has been the last vestige of indentured servitude in this nation. I'm about the farthest thing from a liberal (in the new, non economic, sense of the word) as you will find and what the NCAA has done is to grow fat off of the backs of first rural and city poor whites and then from African Americans as well as the aforementioned. Those who played called each other "fellow sufferers" when they reminisce about playing days. Bad knees, ankles, shoulders, backs, and now the named CTEs are the legacy that far more have than a pro pension (also hard won).
So that piss poor bureaucracy you cite contributed little to nothing to the mid life pain and suffering of those who played and never made money at it. The NCAA sucked up to schools who also profited with little care past playing days and usually not even a completed education.
I hope they give them more in stipends, insurance, and an open ended opportunity to complete that education at any time.
I love the sport and have always hated to see those past eligibility or pro appeal tossed out and forgotten like yesterday's news.
The NCAA and schools have been two good old boys making money and getting exposure from a group who were vulnerable to the dreams of boys only to wake up back in their hometowns and old hoods but without the hope and health they left with. It is, and always was, disgraceful.
The last few years of watching college ball has been more difficult because of the CTE issue. I want to root on my team, but I want them taken care of educationally and health wise if required.
The NCAA is basically what you get when academics try to run a business.
(06-21-2021 08:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (06-21-2021 06:40 PM)domer1978 Wrote: [ -> ]The NCAA is the worst run organization that I have seen. The sad thing is all these highly educated individuals still cannot tell their head from their *******. They have continually kicked the can and ignored what was coming. .
I fairness to the NCAA, one could argue that their approach has worked. The NCAA is, apparently, a "walking anti-trust violation". And yet despite that, for all these many decades they have been able to operate that way, to the benefit of their member schools, making money while not paying players beyond the cost of scholarships, even up to this very moment.
And as far as I could read, even in writing up a 9-0 loss for the NCAA, there was still plenty of deferential language in that opinion towards the NCAA's notion of having a unique special mission. I am by no means convinced that the courts are going to throw open the doors to full-on pay for play. They even said today that conferences could have stricter anti-pay rules than the modest gains for players carved out by the district court.
So I'm not sure the NCAA's "business model" doesn't have life in it still.
I don't see how it still has life in it, unless the NFL starts there own development league and starts drafting players out of high school or, there is a break away of college teams that go pro and leave behind a shell, that can just give out scholarships/stipends/NIL and not have to pay players a salary but that's about it.
At this point I'm not sure if there will be any amateurism left in the USA including High School and maybe Middle school.
(06-21-2021 09:29 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (06-21-2021 08:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (06-21-2021 06:40 PM)domer1978 Wrote: [ -> ]The NCAA is the worst run organization that I have seen. The sad thing is all these highly educated individuals still cannot tell their head from their *******. They have continually kicked the can and ignored what was coming. .
I fairness to the NCAA, one could argue that their approach has worked. The NCAA is, apparently, a "walking anti-trust violation". And yet despite that, for all these many decades they have been able to operate that way, to the benefit of their member schools, making money while not paying players beyond the cost of scholarships, even up to this very moment.
And as far as I could read, even in writing up a 9-0 loss for the NCAA, there was still plenty of deferential language in that opinion towards the NCAA's notion of having a unique special mission. I am by no means convinced that the courts are going to throw open the doors to full-on pay for play. They even said today that conferences could have stricter anti-pay rules than the modest gains for players carved out by the district court.
So I'm not sure the NCAA's "business model" doesn't have life in it still.
Their approach, as you call it, has been the last vestige of indentured servitude in this nation. I'm about the farthest thing from a liberal (in the new, non economic, sense of the word) as you will find and what the NCAA has done is to grow fat off of the backs of first rural and city poor whites and then from African Americans as well as the aforementioned. Those who played called each other "fellow sufferers" when they reminisce about playing days. Bad knees, ankles, shoulders, backs, and now the named CTEs are the legacy that far more have than a pro pension (also hard won).
So that piss poor bureaucracy you cite contributed little to nothing to the mid life pain and suffering of those who played and never made money at it. The NCAA sucked up to schools who also profited with little care past playing days and usually not even a completed education.
I hope they give them more in stipends, insurance, and an open ended opportunity to complete that education at any time.
I love the sport and have always hated to see those past eligibility or pro appeal tossed out and forgotten like yesterday's news.
The NCAA and schools have been two good old boys making money and getting exposure from a group who were vulnerable to the dreams of boys only to wake up back in their hometowns and old hoods but without the hope and health they left with. It is, and always was, disgraceful.
FWIW, I was just responding to the claim that the NCAA has been ineptly run. IMO, given the NCAA's practice of maintaining a brazenly anti-trust operation in the face of the law, they have been successful at doing it, arguably remarkably so.
But about the moral dimension, IMO there are complications. One is that truth be told, the typical college athlete is probably not worth on the open market more than the value of the scholarship they receive. Heck, they are probably worth less than that. How much is the typical men's soccer player or women's track and field athlete worth? Not much. The college athletics deal as offered by the NCAA is a good deal for them. They profit from it.
And heck, this applies to football as well, and even at the elite schools. How much is the 70th guy on Alabama's football roster worth? Probably the value of his scholarship. The 70th guy at Western Michigan or San Jose State probably less.
So I would say that *most* athletes probably get a good deal from the NCAA model. The value of their scholarships is worth more than the value of their athletic contributions to their schools. The athletes who have been 'exploited' are the top athletes in the two revenue sports of football and basketball. And even for many of them, the system has worked.
E.g., say Trevor Lawrence has been exploited by Clemson if you want, but he's about to sign a deal guaranteeing him about $30 million even if he ends up being an NFL flop, so that seems like a good deal overall. Shaq was "exploited" at LSU, but then went on to make $25 million a year in the NBA, so not worthy of many tears. It's a smaller subset of guys - like Ed O'Bannon at UCLA, one of the original plaintiffs in one of these lawsuits I think - who were college stars and made their schools lots of money, but then never cashed in in the pros - who are the "victims". And there's just not a lot of them compared to the population of athletes.
Probably the right decision but you're fooling yourselves if you think this will be a good thing for fans.
On a side note, good that players will make millions now (I guess) but it's not the players that are driving the $ for these TV deals, etc. It's the success of the brands (Oklahoma, ND, etc) and the fans interest in them that drives the $. Fans don't care that Kyler Murray is the QB anymore than when it was Jamelle Holloway. The brand drives the bus, the players are just along for the ride. And the bus will pay the riders to take the trip.
(06-22-2021 07:35 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (06-21-2021 09:29 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (06-21-2021 08:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (06-21-2021 06:40 PM)domer1978 Wrote: [ -> ]The NCAA is the worst run organization that I have seen. The sad thing is all these highly educated individuals still cannot tell their head from their *******. They have continually kicked the can and ignored what was coming. .
I fairness to the NCAA, one could argue that their approach has worked. The NCAA is, apparently, a "walking anti-trust violation". And yet despite that, for all these many decades they have been able to operate that way, to the benefit of their member schools, making money while not paying players beyond the cost of scholarships, even up to this very moment.
And as far as I could read, even in writing up a 9-0 loss for the NCAA, there was still plenty of deferential language in that opinion towards the NCAA's notion of having a unique special mission. I am by no means convinced that the courts are going to throw open the doors to full-on pay for play. They even said today that conferences could have stricter anti-pay rules than the modest gains for players carved out by the district court.
So I'm not sure the NCAA's "business model" doesn't have life in it still.
Their approach, as you call it, has been the last vestige of indentured servitude in this nation. I'm about the farthest thing from a liberal (in the new, non economic, sense of the word) as you will find and what the NCAA has done is to grow fat off of the backs of first rural and city poor whites and then from African Americans as well as the aforementioned. Those who played called each other "fellow sufferers" when they reminisce about playing days. Bad knees, ankles, shoulders, backs, and now the named CTEs are the legacy that far more have than a pro pension (also hard won).
So that piss poor bureaucracy you cite contributed little to nothing to the mid life pain and suffering of those who played and never made money at it. The NCAA sucked up to schools who also profited with little care past playing days and usually not even a completed education.
I hope they give them more in stipends, insurance, and an open ended opportunity to complete that education at any time.
I love the sport and have always hated to see those past eligibility or pro appeal tossed out and forgotten like yesterday's news.
The NCAA and schools have been two good old boys making money and getting exposure from a group who were vulnerable to the dreams of boys only to wake up back in their hometowns and old hoods but without the hope and health they left with. It is, and always was, disgraceful.
FWIW, I was just responding to the claim that the NCAA has been ineptly run. IMO, given the NCAA's practice of maintaining a brazenly anti-trust operation in the face of the law, they have been successful at doing it, arguably remarkably so.
But about the moral dimension, IMO there are complications. One is that truth be told, the typical college athlete is probably not worth on the open market more than the value of the scholarship they receive. Heck, they are probably worth less than that. How much is the typical men's soccer player or women's track and field athlete worth? Not much. The college athletics deal as offered by the NCAA is a good deal for them. They profit from it.
And heck, this applies to football as well, and even at the elite schools. How much is the 70th guy on Alabama's football roster worth? Probably the value of his scholarship. The 70th guy at Western Michigan or San Jose State probably less.
So I would say that *most* athletes probably get a good deal from the NCAA model. The value of their scholarships is worth more than the value of their athletic contributions to their schools. The athletes who have been 'exploited' are the top athletes in the two revenue sports of football and basketball. And even for many of them, the system has worked.
E.g., say Trevor Lawrence has been exploited by Clemson if you want, but he's about to sign a deal guaranteeing him about $30 million even if he ends up being an NFL flop, so that seems like a good deal overall. Shaq was "exploited" at LSU, but then went on to make $25 million a year in the NBA, so not worthy of many tears. It's a smaller subset of guys - like Ed O'Bannon at UCLA, one of the original plaintiffs in one of these lawsuits I think - who were college stars and made their schools lots of money, but then never cashed in in the pros - who are the "victims". And there's just not a lot of them compared to the population of athletes.
The one and dones in basketball could go to Europe and make a bunch of money. But they choose college instead because the exposure and coaching increases their value.
(06-22-2021 07:35 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (06-21-2021 09:29 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (06-21-2021 08:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (06-21-2021 06:40 PM)domer1978 Wrote: [ -> ]The NCAA is the worst run organization that I have seen. The sad thing is all these highly educated individuals still cannot tell their head from their *******. They have continually kicked the can and ignored what was coming. .
I fairness to the NCAA, one could argue that their approach has worked. The NCAA is, apparently, a "walking anti-trust violation". And yet despite that, for all these many decades they have been able to operate that way, to the benefit of their member schools, making money while not paying players beyond the cost of scholarships, even up to this very moment.
And as far as I could read, even in writing up a 9-0 loss for the NCAA, there was still plenty of deferential language in that opinion towards the NCAA's notion of having a unique special mission. I am by no means convinced that the courts are going to throw open the doors to full-on pay for play. They even said today that conferences could have stricter anti-pay rules than the modest gains for players carved out by the district court.
So I'm not sure the NCAA's "business model" doesn't have life in it still.
Their approach, as you call it, has been the last vestige of indentured servitude in this nation. I'm about the farthest thing from a liberal (in the new, non economic, sense of the word) as you will find and what the NCAA has done is to grow fat off of the backs of first rural and city poor whites and then from African Americans as well as the aforementioned. Those who played called each other "fellow sufferers" when they reminisce about playing days. Bad knees, ankles, shoulders, backs, and now the named CTEs are the legacy that far more have than a pro pension (also hard won).
So that piss poor bureaucracy you cite contributed little to nothing to the mid life pain and suffering of those who played and never made money at it. The NCAA sucked up to schools who also profited with little care past playing days and usually not even a completed education.
I hope they give them more in stipends, insurance, and an open ended opportunity to complete that education at any time.
I love the sport and have always hated to see those past eligibility or pro appeal tossed out and forgotten like yesterday's news.
The NCAA and schools have been two good old boys making money and getting exposure from a group who were vulnerable to the dreams of boys only to wake up back in their hometowns and old hoods but without the hope and health they left with. It is, and always was, disgraceful.
FWIW, I was just responding to the claim that the NCAA has been ineptly run. IMO, given the NCAA's practice of maintaining a brazenly anti-trust operation in the face of the law, they have been successful at doing it, arguably remarkably so.
But about the moral dimension, IMO there are complications. One is that truth be told, the typical college athlete is probably not worth on the open market more than the value of the scholarship they receive. Heck, they are probably worth less than that. How much is the typical men's soccer player or women's track and field athlete worth? Not much. The college athletics deal as offered by the NCAA is a good deal for them. They profit from it.
And heck, this applies to football as well, and even at the elite schools. How much is the 70th guy on Alabama's football roster worth? Probably the value of his scholarship. The 70th guy at Western Michigan or San Jose State probably less.
So I would say that *most* athletes probably get a good deal from the NCAA model. The value of their scholarships is worth more than the value of their athletic contributions to their schools. The athletes who have been 'exploited' are the top athletes in the two revenue sports of football and basketball. And even for many of them, the system has worked.
E.g., say Trevor Lawrence has been exploited by Clemson if you want, but he's about to sign a deal guaranteeing him about $30 million even if he ends up being an NFL flop, so that seems like a good deal overall. Shaq was "exploited" at LSU, but then went on to make $25 million a year in the NBA, so not worthy of many tears. It's a smaller subset of guys - like Ed O'Bannon at UCLA, one of the original plaintiffs in one of these lawsuits I think - who were college stars and made their schools lots of money, but then never cashed in in the pros - who are the "victims". And there's just not a lot of them compared to the population of athletes.
A couple of things:
(1) I think that you have to look at things holistically with respect to non-revenue sports. You're correct that pretty much all non-revenue athletes are paid more than "market value" in a vacuum if you're considering a scholarship to be a form of compensation. However, we don't live in a world where universities are able to just have football and men's basketball teams without anything else due to legal (Title IX) and governance (number of sports required to be Division I) requirements. Essentially, you need those non-revenue athletes in order to enable your football and men's basketball teams to make money in the first place. From a business perspective, non-revenue sport costs are really administrative costs for being able to operate football and men's basketball teams that make money. They're sort of like a franchise fee to enter into a pro sports league or ongoing capital calls when you're investing in private equity. It's all simply a cost of doing business.
(2) It has been pointed out many times here that only a relatively small handful of athletes are losing out on maximizing their market value under the current system (e.g. the Trevor Lawrence-type players) while other athletes may be getting more than their market value (once again if you consider scholarships to be a form of compensation). However, I think this is where we're in the echo chamber of this forum compared to the rest of the world. The rest of the world is simply MUCH more bothered by rules telling Trevor Lawrence that he's getting paid nothing than the thought of non-revenue athletes getting "overpaid" if NCAA rules get shot down. The fact that some people might get overpaid simply isn't inequitable in the same way as having rules stating that superstars CAN'T get paid. It's the LATTER that's way more inequitable. That's a political and PR reality that cuts across the entire political spectrum (as evidenced by state legislatures and now the Supreme Court).
Frankly, The Athletic is overstating the case on this. Kavanaugh had no support from the other justices, and the actual decision was very limited compared to what he's talking about. There's far too much attention being paid to what is basically dicta (i.e., commentary) in an opinion by a junior justice who is not a force on the court. The other justices could have joined his concurrence, but none did. They may well eventually get to that point, but at best Kavanaugh's comments may influence lower courts in future cases some.
(06-21-2021 09:03 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ] (06-21-2021 08:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (06-21-2021 06:40 PM)domer1978 Wrote: [ -> ]The NCAA is the worst run organization that I have seen. The sad thing is all these highly educated individuals still cannot tell their head from their *******. They have continually kicked the can and ignored what was coming. .
I fairness to the NCAA, one could argue that their approach has worked. The NCAA is, apparently, a "walking anti-trust violation". And yet despite that, for all these many decades they have been able to operate that way, to the benefit of their member schools, making money while not paying players beyond the cost of scholarships, even up to this very moment.
And as far as I could read, even in writing up a 9-0 loss for the NCAA, there was still plenty of deferential language in that opinion towards the NCAA's notion of having a unique special mission. I am by no means convinced that the courts are going to throw open the doors to full-on pay for play. They even said today that conferences could have stricter anti-pay rules than the modest gains for players carved out by the district court.
So I'm not sure the NCAA's "business model" doesn't have life in it still.
I think it was a strategic mistake to fight the appellate court's opinion.
The players appealed part of the decision as well. This was going to SCOTUS whether the NCAA appealed or not.
(06-22-2021 11:06 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ] (06-22-2021 07:35 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (06-21-2021 09:29 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (06-21-2021 08:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (06-21-2021 06:40 PM)domer1978 Wrote: [ -> ]The NCAA is the worst run organization that I have seen. The sad thing is all these highly educated individuals still cannot tell their head from their *******. They have continually kicked the can and ignored what was coming. .
I fairness to the NCAA, one could argue that their approach has worked. The NCAA is, apparently, a "walking anti-trust violation". And yet despite that, for all these many decades they have been able to operate that way, to the benefit of their member schools, making money while not paying players beyond the cost of scholarships, even up to this very moment.
And as far as I could read, even in writing up a 9-0 loss for the NCAA, there was still plenty of deferential language in that opinion towards the NCAA's notion of having a unique special mission. I am by no means convinced that the courts are going to throw open the doors to full-on pay for play. They even said today that conferences could have stricter anti-pay rules than the modest gains for players carved out by the district court.
So I'm not sure the NCAA's "business model" doesn't have life in it still.
Their approach, as you call it, has been the last vestige of indentured servitude in this nation. I'm about the farthest thing from a liberal (in the new, non economic, sense of the word) as you will find and what the NCAA has done is to grow fat off of the backs of first rural and city poor whites and then from African Americans as well as the aforementioned. Those who played called each other "fellow sufferers" when they reminisce about playing days. Bad knees, ankles, shoulders, backs, and now the named CTEs are the legacy that far more have than a pro pension (also hard won).
So that piss poor bureaucracy you cite contributed little to nothing to the mid life pain and suffering of those who played and never made money at it. The NCAA sucked up to schools who also profited with little care past playing days and usually not even a completed education.
I hope they give them more in stipends, insurance, and an open ended opportunity to complete that education at any time.
I love the sport and have always hated to see those past eligibility or pro appeal tossed out and forgotten like yesterday's news.
The NCAA and schools have been two good old boys making money and getting exposure from a group who were vulnerable to the dreams of boys only to wake up back in their hometowns and old hoods but without the hope and health they left with. It is, and always was, disgraceful.
FWIW, I was just responding to the claim that the NCAA has been ineptly run. IMO, given the NCAA's practice of maintaining a brazenly anti-trust operation in the face of the law, they have been successful at doing it, arguably remarkably so.
But about the moral dimension, IMO there are complications. One is that truth be told, the typical college athlete is probably not worth on the open market more than the value of the scholarship they receive. Heck, they are probably worth less than that. How much is the typical men's soccer player or women's track and field athlete worth? Not much. The college athletics deal as offered by the NCAA is a good deal for them. They profit from it.
And heck, this applies to football as well, and even at the elite schools. How much is the 70th guy on Alabama's football roster worth? Probably the value of his scholarship. The 70th guy at Western Michigan or San Jose State probably less.
So I would say that *most* athletes probably get a good deal from the NCAA model. The value of their scholarships is worth more than the value of their athletic contributions to their schools. The athletes who have been 'exploited' are the top athletes in the two revenue sports of football and basketball. And even for many of them, the system has worked.
E.g., say Trevor Lawrence has been exploited by Clemson if you want, but he's about to sign a deal guaranteeing him about $30 million even if he ends up being an NFL flop, so that seems like a good deal overall. Shaq was "exploited" at LSU, but then went on to make $25 million a year in the NBA, so not worthy of many tears. It's a smaller subset of guys - like Ed O'Bannon at UCLA, one of the original plaintiffs in one of these lawsuits I think - who were college stars and made their schools lots of money, but then never cashed in in the pros - who are the "victims". And there's just not a lot of them compared to the population of athletes.
A couple of things:
(1) I think that you have to look at things holistically with respect to non-revenue sports. You're correct that pretty much all non-revenue athletes are paid more than "market value" in a vacuum if you're considering a scholarship to be a form of compensation. However, we don't live in a world where universities are able to just have football and men's basketball teams without anything else due to legal (Title IX) and governance (number of sports required to be Division I) requirements. Essentially, you need those non-revenue athletes in order to enable your football and men's basketball teams to make money in the first place. From a business perspective, non-revenue sport costs are really administrative costs for being able to operate football and men's basketball teams that make money. They're sort of like a franchise fee to enter into a pro sports league or ongoing capital calls when you're investing in private equity. It's all simply a cost of doing business.
(2) It has been pointed out many times here that only a relatively small handful of athletes are losing out on maximizing their market value under the current system (e.g. the Trevor Lawrence-type players) while other athletes may be getting more than their market value (once again if you consider scholarships to be a form of compensation). However, I think this is where we're in the echo chamber of this forum compared to the rest of the world. The rest of the world is simply MUCH more bothered by rules telling Trevor Lawrence that he's getting paid nothing than the thought of non-revenue athletes getting "overpaid" if NCAA rules get shot down. The fact that some people might get overpaid simply isn't inequitable in the same way as having rules stating that superstars CAN'T get paid. It's the LATTER that's way more inequitable. That's a political and PR reality that cuts across the entire political spectrum (as evidenced by state legislatures and now the Supreme Court).
The second point is the larger concern. I think if this fully plays out, a large number of schools will be out of the athletics business altogether--or will drop to a pure student athlete "D3" type model. That is a simple reality that anyone with any basic foresight can see. In such a world---the affect of such an outcome for the VAST majority of student athletes is negative.
Im reminded of city councils that in a heart felt emotional rush of social justice fever attempt to help the downtrodden by defunding the police and ending bail. Then a year later these same city councils are shocked by the rising murder rates, rising crime rates, and the exodus of people from their community.
Similarly---if we continue down the anti-trust pay-for-play rabbit hole----the long term reality we are heading for will be a negative affect for the vast majority of college athletes. How people cant see that is very similar to how these city councils were absolutely blind to the long term negative consequences of their dramatic changes in policy. I think the current decision reflects that at least some of the justices understand the consequences---and that will keep the negative consequences at bay, at least for now....
(06-22-2021 12:01 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (06-22-2021 11:06 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ] (06-22-2021 07:35 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (06-21-2021 09:29 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (06-21-2021 08:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]I fairness to the NCAA, one could argue that their approach has worked. The NCAA is, apparently, a "walking anti-trust violation". And yet despite that, for all these many decades they have been able to operate that way, to the benefit of their member schools, making money while not paying players beyond the cost of scholarships, even up to this very moment.
And as far as I could read, even in writing up a 9-0 loss for the NCAA, there was still plenty of deferential language in that opinion towards the NCAA's notion of having a unique special mission. I am by no means convinced that the courts are going to throw open the doors to full-on pay for play. They even said today that conferences could have stricter anti-pay rules than the modest gains for players carved out by the district court.
So I'm not sure the NCAA's "business model" doesn't have life in it still.
Their approach, as you call it, has been the last vestige of indentured servitude in this nation. I'm about the farthest thing from a liberal (in the new, non economic, sense of the word) as you will find and what the NCAA has done is to grow fat off of the backs of first rural and city poor whites and then from African Americans as well as the aforementioned. Those who played called each other "fellow sufferers" when they reminisce about playing days. Bad knees, ankles, shoulders, backs, and now the named CTEs are the legacy that far more have than a pro pension (also hard won).
So that piss poor bureaucracy you cite contributed little to nothing to the mid life pain and suffering of those who played and never made money at it. The NCAA sucked up to schools who also profited with little care past playing days and usually not even a completed education.
I hope they give them more in stipends, insurance, and an open ended opportunity to complete that education at any time.
I love the sport and have always hated to see those past eligibility or pro appeal tossed out and forgotten like yesterday's news.
The NCAA and schools have been two good old boys making money and getting exposure from a group who were vulnerable to the dreams of boys only to wake up back in their hometowns and old hoods but without the hope and health they left with. It is, and always was, disgraceful.
FWIW, I was just responding to the claim that the NCAA has been ineptly run. IMO, given the NCAA's practice of maintaining a brazenly anti-trust operation in the face of the law, they have been successful at doing it, arguably remarkably so.
But about the moral dimension, IMO there are complications. One is that truth be told, the typical college athlete is probably not worth on the open market more than the value of the scholarship they receive. Heck, they are probably worth less than that. How much is the typical men's soccer player or women's track and field athlete worth? Not much. The college athletics deal as offered by the NCAA is a good deal for them. They profit from it.
And heck, this applies to football as well, and even at the elite schools. How much is the 70th guy on Alabama's football roster worth? Probably the value of his scholarship. The 70th guy at Western Michigan or San Jose State probably less.
So I would say that *most* athletes probably get a good deal from the NCAA model. The value of their scholarships is worth more than the value of their athletic contributions to their schools. The athletes who have been 'exploited' are the top athletes in the two revenue sports of football and basketball. And even for many of them, the system has worked.
E.g., say Trevor Lawrence has been exploited by Clemson if you want, but he's about to sign a deal guaranteeing him about $30 million even if he ends up being an NFL flop, so that seems like a good deal overall. Shaq was "exploited" at LSU, but then went on to make $25 million a year in the NBA, so not worthy of many tears. It's a smaller subset of guys - like Ed O'Bannon at UCLA, one of the original plaintiffs in one of these lawsuits I think - who were college stars and made their schools lots of money, but then never cashed in in the pros - who are the "victims". And there's just not a lot of them compared to the population of athletes.
A couple of things:
(1) I think that you have to look at things holistically with respect to non-revenue sports. You're correct that pretty much all non-revenue athletes are paid more than "market value" in a vacuum if you're considering a scholarship to be a form of compensation. However, we don't live in a world where universities are able to just have football and men's basketball teams without anything else due to legal (Title IX) and governance (number of sports required to be Division I) requirements. Essentially, you need those non-revenue athletes in order to enable your football and men's basketball teams to make money in the first place. From a business perspective, non-revenue sport costs are really administrative costs for being able to operate football and men's basketball teams that make money. They're sort of like a franchise fee to enter into a pro sports league or ongoing capital calls when you're investing in private equity. It's all simply a cost of doing business.
(2) It has been pointed out many times here that only a relatively small handful of athletes are losing out on maximizing their market value under the current system (e.g. the Trevor Lawrence-type players) while other athletes may be getting more than their market value (once again if you consider scholarships to be a form of compensation). However, I think this is where we're in the echo chamber of this forum compared to the rest of the world. The rest of the world is simply MUCH more bothered by rules telling Trevor Lawrence that he's getting paid nothing than the thought of non-revenue athletes getting "overpaid" if NCAA rules get shot down. The fact that some people might get overpaid simply isn't inequitable in the same way as having rules stating that superstars CAN'T get paid. It's the LATTER that's way more inequitable. That's a political and PR reality that cuts across the entire political spectrum (as evidenced by state legislatures and now the Supreme Court).
The second point is the larger concern. I think if this fully plays out, a large number of schools will be out of the athletics business altogether--or will drop to a pure student athlete "D3" type model. That is a simple reality that anyone with any basic foresight can see. In such a world---the affect of such an outcome for the VAST majority of student athletes is negative.
Im reminded of city councils that in a heart felt emotional rush of social justice fever attempt to help the downtrodden by defunding the police and ending bail. Then a year later these same city councils are shocked by the rising murder rates, rising crime rates, and the exodus of people from their community.
Similarly---if we continue down the anti-trust pay-for-play rabbit hole----the long term reality we are heading for will be a negative affect for the vast majority of college athletes. How people cant see that is very similar to how these city councils were absolutely blind to the long term negative consequences of their dramatic changes in policy. I think the current decision reflects that at least some of the justices understand the consequences---and that will keep the negative consequences at bay, at least for now....
I believe that Quo is hyperbolic, Frank is focused on aspects with legal parallels, and that you are over estimating what increased stipend can do.
1. For decades the vast majority of football players got nothing but the opportunity for advancement to pro ball and the opportunity for an education. Very few make the Pros. And sadly, until recent memory most did not get a degree either, and almost all until recent year lost their healthcare when they left their teams.
2. Stipends and insurance won't make any players rich. They will provide them with a better means to take care of themselves. Think of it as a higher baseline of safety net. None of these guys will be millionaires unless they are a star. Fans don't realize it but many careers end on the practice field.
3. NIL is where stars will get wealthy, so this is where the Trevor's get theirs. It is true that cost of education likely exceeds athletic value for many players. But education has a poor ROI outside of STEM fields and most athletes aren't scholars.
4. What has been realized is that athletes provide a high profile function of the school's PR and they absolutely function as employees in that regard. So I ask you in real life wouldn't and shouldn't any employee expect a living wage (inclusive of the value of an education) and workman's comp if injured on the job, including long term disability? Yes.
(06-22-2021 11:53 AM)CitrusUCF Wrote: [ -> ]Frankly, The Athletic is overstating the case on this. Kavanaugh had no support from the other justices, and the actual decision was very limited compared to what he's talking about. There's far too much attention being paid to what is basically dicta (i.e., commentary) in an opinion by a junior justice who is not a force on the court. The other justices could have joined his concurrence, but none did. They may well eventually get to that point, but at best Kavanaugh's comments may influence lower courts in future cases some.
(06-21-2021 09:03 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ] (06-21-2021 08:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (06-21-2021 06:40 PM)domer1978 Wrote: [ -> ]The NCAA is the worst run organization that I have seen. The sad thing is all these highly educated individuals still cannot tell their head from their *******. They have continually kicked the can and ignored what was coming. .
I fairness to the NCAA, one could argue that their approach has worked. The NCAA is, apparently, a "walking anti-trust violation". And yet despite that, for all these many decades they have been able to operate that way, to the benefit of their member schools, making money while not paying players beyond the cost of scholarships, even up to this very moment.
And as far as I could read, even in writing up a 9-0 loss for the NCAA, there was still plenty of deferential language in that opinion towards the NCAA's notion of having a unique special mission. I am by no means convinced that the courts are going to throw open the doors to full-on pay for play. They even said today that conferences could have stricter anti-pay rules than the modest gains for players carved out by the district court.
So I'm not sure the NCAA's "business model" doesn't have life in it still.
I think it was a strategic mistake to fight the appellate court's opinion.
The players appealed part of the decision as well. This was going to SCOTUS whether the NCAA appealed or not.
No. The players appealed the district court's decision but did NOT appeal to the Supreme Court.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20...2_gfbh.pdf
"...Unsatisfied with that result, the NCAA asks the Court to
find that all of its existing restraints on athlete compensation survive
antitrust scrutiny. The student-athletes have not renewed their
across-the-board challenge and the Court thus does not consider the
rules that remain in place...."
(06-22-2021 12:27 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (06-22-2021 12:01 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (06-22-2021 11:06 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ] (06-22-2021 07:35 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (06-21-2021 09:29 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]Their approach, as you call it, has been the last vestige of indentured servitude in this nation. I'm about the farthest thing from a liberal (in the new, non economic, sense of the word) as you will find and what the NCAA has done is to grow fat off of the backs of first rural and city poor whites and then from African Americans as well as the aforementioned. Those who played called each other "fellow sufferers" when they reminisce about playing days. Bad knees, ankles, shoulders, backs, and now the named CTEs are the legacy that far more have than a pro pension (also hard won).
So that piss poor bureaucracy you cite contributed little to nothing to the mid life pain and suffering of those who played and never made money at it. The NCAA sucked up to schools who also profited with little care past playing days and usually not even a completed education.
I hope they give them more in stipends, insurance, and an open ended opportunity to complete that education at any time.
I love the sport and have always hated to see those past eligibility or pro appeal tossed out and forgotten like yesterday's news.
The NCAA and schools have been two good old boys making money and getting exposure from a group who were vulnerable to the dreams of boys only to wake up back in their hometowns and old hoods but without the hope and health they left with. It is, and always was, disgraceful.
FWIW, I was just responding to the claim that the NCAA has been ineptly run. IMO, given the NCAA's practice of maintaining a brazenly anti-trust operation in the face of the law, they have been successful at doing it, arguably remarkably so.
But about the moral dimension, IMO there are complications. One is that truth be told, the typical college athlete is probably not worth on the open market more than the value of the scholarship they receive. Heck, they are probably worth less than that. How much is the typical men's soccer player or women's track and field athlete worth? Not much. The college athletics deal as offered by the NCAA is a good deal for them. They profit from it.
And heck, this applies to football as well, and even at the elite schools. How much is the 70th guy on Alabama's football roster worth? Probably the value of his scholarship. The 70th guy at Western Michigan or San Jose State probably less.
So I would say that *most* athletes probably get a good deal from the NCAA model. The value of their scholarships is worth more than the value of their athletic contributions to their schools. The athletes who have been 'exploited' are the top athletes in the two revenue sports of football and basketball. And even for many of them, the system has worked.
E.g., say Trevor Lawrence has been exploited by Clemson if you want, but he's about to sign a deal guaranteeing him about $30 million even if he ends up being an NFL flop, so that seems like a good deal overall. Shaq was "exploited" at LSU, but then went on to make $25 million a year in the NBA, so not worthy of many tears. It's a smaller subset of guys - like Ed O'Bannon at UCLA, one of the original plaintiffs in one of these lawsuits I think - who were college stars and made their schools lots of money, but then never cashed in in the pros - who are the "victims". And there's just not a lot of them compared to the population of athletes.
A couple of things:
(1) I think that you have to look at things holistically with respect to non-revenue sports. You're correct that pretty much all non-revenue athletes are paid more than "market value" in a vacuum if you're considering a scholarship to be a form of compensation. However, we don't live in a world where universities are able to just have football and men's basketball teams without anything else due to legal (Title IX) and governance (number of sports required to be Division I) requirements. Essentially, you need those non-revenue athletes in order to enable your football and men's basketball teams to make money in the first place. From a business perspective, non-revenue sport costs are really administrative costs for being able to operate football and men's basketball teams that make money. They're sort of like a franchise fee to enter into a pro sports league or ongoing capital calls when you're investing in private equity. It's all simply a cost of doing business.
(2) It has been pointed out many times here that only a relatively small handful of athletes are losing out on maximizing their market value under the current system (e.g. the Trevor Lawrence-type players) while other athletes may be getting more than their market value (once again if you consider scholarships to be a form of compensation). However, I think this is where we're in the echo chamber of this forum compared to the rest of the world. The rest of the world is simply MUCH more bothered by rules telling Trevor Lawrence that he's getting paid nothing than the thought of non-revenue athletes getting "overpaid" if NCAA rules get shot down. The fact that some people might get overpaid simply isn't inequitable in the same way as having rules stating that superstars CAN'T get paid. It's the LATTER that's way more inequitable. That's a political and PR reality that cuts across the entire political spectrum (as evidenced by state legislatures and now the Supreme Court).
The second point is the larger concern. I think if this fully plays out, a large number of schools will be out of the athletics business altogether--or will drop to a pure student athlete "D3" type model. That is a simple reality that anyone with any basic foresight can see. In such a world---the affect of such an outcome for the VAST majority of student athletes is negative.
Im reminded of city councils that in a heart felt emotional rush of social justice fever attempt to help the downtrodden by defunding the police and ending bail. Then a year later these same city councils are shocked by the rising murder rates, rising crime rates, and the exodus of people from their community.
Similarly---if we continue down the anti-trust pay-for-play rabbit hole----the long term reality we are heading for will be a negative affect for the vast majority of college athletes. How people cant see that is very similar to how these city councils were absolutely blind to the long term negative consequences of their dramatic changes in policy. I think the current decision reflects that at least some of the justices understand the consequences---and that will keep the negative consequences at bay, at least for now....
I believe that Quo is hyperbolic, Frank is focused on aspects with legal parallels, and that you are over estimating what increased stipend can do.
1. For decades the vast majority of football players got nothing but the opportunity for advancement to pro ball and the opportunity for an education. Very few make the Pros. And sadly, until recent memory most did not get a degree either, and almost all until recent year lost their healthcare when they left their teams.
2. Stipends and insurance won't make any players rich. They will provide them with a better means to take care of themselves. Think of it as a higher baseline of safety net. None of these guys will be millionaires unless they are a star. Fans don't realize it but many careers end on the practice field.
3. NIL is where stars will get wealthy, so this is where the Trevor's get theirs. It is true that cost of education likely exceeds athletic value for many players. But education has a poor ROI outside of STEM fields and most athletes aren't scholars.
4. What has been realized is that athletes provide a high profile function of the school's PR and they absolutely function as employees in that regard. So I ask you in real life wouldn't and shouldn't any employee expect a living wage (inclusive of the value of an education) and workman's comp if injured on the job, including long term disability? Yes.
One thing I think makes this decision ripe to eventually fall by the wayside is it makes little sense when compared to other decisions. The decision indicates that individual leagues CAN set compensation limits---but the NCAA cannot. Ok. But isnt that EXACTLY the opposite of what the same courts found in player litigation against the NFL? My guess is that is only a matter of time before individual leagues and schools are sued and are found to be violating anti-trust law. I see no real reason that the SEC or CUSA is going to have any more success in court setting arbitrary compensation limits than the NFL did.
(06-22-2021 01:25 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (06-22-2021 12:27 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (06-22-2021 12:01 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (06-22-2021 11:06 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ] (06-22-2021 07:35 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]FWIW, I was just responding to the claim that the NCAA has been ineptly run. IMO, given the NCAA's practice of maintaining a brazenly anti-trust operation in the face of the law, they have been successful at doing it, arguably remarkably so.
But about the moral dimension, IMO there are complications. One is that truth be told, the typical college athlete is probably not worth on the open market more than the value of the scholarship they receive. Heck, they are probably worth less than that. How much is the typical men's soccer player or women's track and field athlete worth? Not much. The college athletics deal as offered by the NCAA is a good deal for them. They profit from it.
And heck, this applies to football as well, and even at the elite schools. How much is the 70th guy on Alabama's football roster worth? Probably the value of his scholarship. The 70th guy at Western Michigan or San Jose State probably less.
So I would say that *most* athletes probably get a good deal from the NCAA model. The value of their scholarships is worth more than the value of their athletic contributions to their schools. The athletes who have been 'exploited' are the top athletes in the two revenue sports of football and basketball. And even for many of them, the system has worked.
E.g., say Trevor Lawrence has been exploited by Clemson if you want, but he's about to sign a deal guaranteeing him about $30 million even if he ends up being an NFL flop, so that seems like a good deal overall. Shaq was "exploited" at LSU, but then went on to make $25 million a year in the NBA, so not worthy of many tears. It's a smaller subset of guys - like Ed O'Bannon at UCLA, one of the original plaintiffs in one of these lawsuits I think - who were college stars and made their schools lots of money, but then never cashed in in the pros - who are the "victims". And there's just not a lot of them compared to the population of athletes.
A couple of things:
(1) I think that you have to look at things holistically with respect to non-revenue sports. You're correct that pretty much all non-revenue athletes are paid more than "market value" in a vacuum if you're considering a scholarship to be a form of compensation. However, we don't live in a world where universities are able to just have football and men's basketball teams without anything else due to legal (Title IX) and governance (number of sports required to be Division I) requirements. Essentially, you need those non-revenue athletes in order to enable your football and men's basketball teams to make money in the first place. From a business perspective, non-revenue sport costs are really administrative costs for being able to operate football and men's basketball teams that make money. They're sort of like a franchise fee to enter into a pro sports league or ongoing capital calls when you're investing in private equity. It's all simply a cost of doing business.
(2) It has been pointed out many times here that only a relatively small handful of athletes are losing out on maximizing their market value under the current system (e.g. the Trevor Lawrence-type players) while other athletes may be getting more than their market value (once again if you consider scholarships to be a form of compensation). However, I think this is where we're in the echo chamber of this forum compared to the rest of the world. The rest of the world is simply MUCH more bothered by rules telling Trevor Lawrence that he's getting paid nothing than the thought of non-revenue athletes getting "overpaid" if NCAA rules get shot down. The fact that some people might get overpaid simply isn't inequitable in the same way as having rules stating that superstars CAN'T get paid. It's the LATTER that's way more inequitable. That's a political and PR reality that cuts across the entire political spectrum (as evidenced by state legislatures and now the Supreme Court).
The second point is the larger concern. I think if this fully plays out, a large number of schools will be out of the athletics business altogether--or will drop to a pure student athlete "D3" type model. That is a simple reality that anyone with any basic foresight can see. In such a world---the affect of such an outcome for the VAST majority of student athletes is negative.
Im reminded of city councils that in a heart felt emotional rush of social justice fever attempt to help the downtrodden by defunding the police and ending bail. Then a year later these same city councils are shocked by the rising murder rates, rising crime rates, and the exodus of people from their community.
Similarly---if we continue down the anti-trust pay-for-play rabbit hole----the long term reality we are heading for will be a negative affect for the vast majority of college athletes. How people cant see that is very similar to how these city councils were absolutely blind to the long term negative consequences of their dramatic changes in policy. I think the current decision reflects that at least some of the justices understand the consequences---and that will keep the negative consequences at bay, at least for now....
I believe that Quo is hyperbolic, Frank is focused on aspects with legal parallels, and that you are over estimating what increased stipend can do.
1. For decades the vast majority of football players got nothing but the opportunity for advancement to pro ball and the opportunity for an education. Very few make the Pros. And sadly, until recent memory most did not get a degree either, and almost all until recent year lost their healthcare when they left their teams.
2. Stipends and insurance won't make any players rich. They will provide them with a better means to take care of themselves. Think of it as a higher baseline of safety net. None of these guys will be millionaires unless they are a star. Fans don't realize it but many careers end on the practice field.
3. NIL is where stars will get wealthy, so this is where the Trevor's get theirs. It is true that cost of education likely exceeds athletic value for many players. But education has a poor ROI outside of STEM fields and most athletes aren't scholars.
4. What has been realized is that athletes provide a high profile function of the school's PR and they absolutely function as employees in that regard. So I ask you in real life wouldn't and shouldn't any employee expect a living wage (inclusive of the value of an education) and workman's comp if injured on the job, including long term disability? Yes.
One thing I think makes this decision ripe to eventually fall by the wayside is it makes little sense when compared to other decisions. The decision indicates that individual leagues CAN set compensation limits---but the NCAA cannot. Ok. But isnt that EXACTLY the opposite of what the same courts found in player litigation against the NFL? My guess is that is only a matter of time before individual leagues and schools are sued and are found to be violating anti-trust law. I see no real reason that the SEC or CUSA is going to have any more success in court setting arbitrary compensation limits than the NFL did.
Did I say they would? It will become an open market plain and simple.
(06-22-2021 09:51 AM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ]The one and dones in basketball could go to Europe and make a bunch of money. But they choose college instead because the exposure and coaching increases their value.
IMO most choose the one-and-done in college route for other reasons.
1) A lot of US high school players are going to shy away from the language and cultural adjustments required to live in Europe for a year or two. Maybe that's why a few players who want to skip high school (eg LaMelo Ball) played in Australia for a year before entering the NBA draft.
2) European pro ball is a higher level of competition than college basketball, and that's a double-edged sword. Going from high school to a top European team is like a baseball player going from high school to AAA baseball, whereas going to college basketball is like going from high school to class A baseball. For the very best players in Europe (eg Luka Doncic), playing at that level accelerates their development and fast-tracks their future NBA career. For players who don't develop as quickly, playing pro ball in Europe would make their weaknesses very obvious, whereas college basketball probably won't. The top Euro leagues are also a lot more physical than college hoops, which is ok if a player is built like Luka Doncic, but tougher if a 19-year-old player is 6-1 and 160 pounds.
3) It's a misnomer to call one-and-done "college basketball" because it is almost all basketball and very little college. All you have to do is stay barely eligible for one semester, then turn pro before the spring semester ends.
(06-22-2021 01:29 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (06-22-2021 01:25 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (06-22-2021 12:27 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (06-22-2021 12:01 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (06-22-2021 11:06 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ]A couple of things:
(1) I think that you have to look at things holistically with respect to non-revenue sports. You're correct that pretty much all non-revenue athletes are paid more than "market value" in a vacuum if you're considering a scholarship to be a form of compensation. However, we don't live in a world where universities are able to just have football and men's basketball teams without anything else due to legal (Title IX) and governance (number of sports required to be Division I) requirements. Essentially, you need those non-revenue athletes in order to enable your football and men's basketball teams to make money in the first place. From a business perspective, non-revenue sport costs are really administrative costs for being able to operate football and men's basketball teams that make money. They're sort of like a franchise fee to enter into a pro sports league or ongoing capital calls when you're investing in private equity. It's all simply a cost of doing business.
(2) It has been pointed out many times here that only a relatively small handful of athletes are losing out on maximizing their market value under the current system (e.g. the Trevor Lawrence-type players) while other athletes may be getting more than their market value (once again if you consider scholarships to be a form of compensation). However, I think this is where we're in the echo chamber of this forum compared to the rest of the world. The rest of the world is simply MUCH more bothered by rules telling Trevor Lawrence that he's getting paid nothing than the thought of non-revenue athletes getting "overpaid" if NCAA rules get shot down. The fact that some people might get overpaid simply isn't inequitable in the same way as having rules stating that superstars CAN'T get paid. It's the LATTER that's way more inequitable. That's a political and PR reality that cuts across the entire political spectrum (as evidenced by state legislatures and now the Supreme Court).
The second point is the larger concern. I think if this fully plays out, a large number of schools will be out of the athletics business altogether--or will drop to a pure student athlete "D3" type model. That is a simple reality that anyone with any basic foresight can see. In such a world---the affect of such an outcome for the VAST majority of student athletes is negative.
Im reminded of city councils that in a heart felt emotional rush of social justice fever attempt to help the downtrodden by defunding the police and ending bail. Then a year later these same city councils are shocked by the rising murder rates, rising crime rates, and the exodus of people from their community.
Similarly---if we continue down the anti-trust pay-for-play rabbit hole----the long term reality we are heading for will be a negative affect for the vast majority of college athletes. How people cant see that is very similar to how these city councils were absolutely blind to the long term negative consequences of their dramatic changes in policy. I think the current decision reflects that at least some of the justices understand the consequences---and that will keep the negative consequences at bay, at least for now....
I believe that Quo is hyperbolic, Frank is focused on aspects with legal parallels, and that you are over estimating what increased stipend can do.
1. For decades the vast majority of football players got nothing but the opportunity for advancement to pro ball and the opportunity for an education. Very few make the Pros. And sadly, until recent memory most did not get a degree either, and almost all until recent year lost their healthcare when they left their teams.
2. Stipends and insurance won't make any players rich. They will provide them with a better means to take care of themselves. Think of it as a higher baseline of safety net. None of these guys will be millionaires unless they are a star. Fans don't realize it but many careers end on the practice field.
3. NIL is where stars will get wealthy, so this is where the Trevor's get theirs. It is true that cost of education likely exceeds athletic value for many players. But education has a poor ROI outside of STEM fields and most athletes aren't scholars.
4. What has been realized is that athletes provide a high profile function of the school's PR and they absolutely function as employees in that regard. So I ask you in real life wouldn't and shouldn't any employee expect a living wage (inclusive of the value of an education) and workman's comp if injured on the job, including long term disability? Yes.
One thing I think makes this decision ripe to eventually fall by the wayside is it makes little sense when compared to other decisions. The decision indicates that individual leagues CAN set compensation limits---but the NCAA cannot. Ok. But isnt that EXACTLY the opposite of what the same courts found in player litigation against the NFL? My guess is that is only a matter of time before individual leagues and schools are sued and are found to be violating anti-trust law. I see no real reason that the SEC or CUSA is going to have any more success in court setting arbitrary compensation limits than the NFL did.
Did I say they would? It will become an open market plain and simple.
No--and I wasnt aiming that comment at you. Ive seen a number of people saying this isnt that big a deal since conferences can still place compensation rules (Ive even noted that myself). However, after thinking about it a bit---Ive realized that it wont be long before that ability is stripped from the conferences because thats an issue that hinges on already decided law due to previous NFL cases. My sense is we are headed for pay-for-play and there's probably not much we can do about it. Its just a matter of time. At that time, the big revenue programs will form a pay-for-play league and everyone else will either cut sports altogether or create a lower "scholarship only" or "D3" (completely amatuer) type league. I think that would probably be fine as long as there is an upper level "free market pay-for-pay" league alternative for the players. If you arent good enough to make that "pro-lite" league---then I think most courts would agree you are an "amateur".