(02-18-2020 01:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-18-2020 12:43 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-18-2020 10:32 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-17-2020 09:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Quo and Wedge are claiming schools that dont want to pay players can simply drop down to "scholarship only" level. My argument is that option wont be available--because if it were---everyone in FBS would take it. Thats why Im saying such a ruling would effectively end all divisions with capped levels of compensation.

Actually no, I changed my mind about that after reading a post of yours. I agree that a ruling against the NCAA would end all current divisions, because while some schools might only offer compensation that is equal in value to the current scholarship, what would be illegal is a cap limiting schools to just that level. And since current NCAA divisions are defined by the caps they place on compensating players, those divisions would have to go as caps would be illegal.

Which IMO is not a problem. There's nothing sacrosanct about NCAA divisions, certainly no reason for the federal government to preserve them.

All that said, I am by no means sure the NCAA will lose an anti-trust case on the issue of direct player compensation. A powerful argument against it would be de factor precedent - the anti-trust laws have been on the books for 100+ years, and during all that time the NCAA has run athletics on a no-compensation model, so if that model violates anti-trust laws, why wasn't it struck down immediately back in 1910 or whatever? The century-long coexistence of the NCAA model with anti-trust law strongly suggests that whatever the framers of anti-Trust legislation were trying to accomplish with their law, it was not intended to require payment to college athletes.

You can't force the schools to give compensation. So I don't think there is any threat to Division III and Division II. There are also very few athletes with professional potential and probably no money making sports in those divisions.

Could all Division I refuse to pay? Maybe. But I doubt it. The NCAA would simply have to have a division that allowed it. If everyone refused could they get sued again for collusion? Maybe. But it still wouldn't affect Division II and III.

There are labor laws. To classify a position as a volunteer and thus no pay it has to meet certain criteria otherwise you do have to pay the minimum wage. Football player may not qualify as a volunteer job. So courts could rule that if you want to have a football team you have to pay players.

Also, even if they don't require pay, if the courts rule no pay rules violate antitrust, what surely would be illegal is a rule saying you cannot pay, so all it would take is one college to break ranks and start paying and that would end that as the NCAA could not punish them.

Again that doesn't impact Division II and III.

What about musicians or band members who are required to do certain concerts without pay as part of a scholarship or part of being a member? And in HBCUs, the bands bring in more fans than the football teams.