(12-13-2018 09:46 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Think of department dynamics as well. Jerry makes $50k a year as the 8th man on the bench, but Jenny makes $30k as a first-team all-conference starter with a professional league opportunity ? Hello lawsuit and bad publicity.

We're too fractured as a society to understand that maybe Jerry is worth more than Jenny. And too stupid to realize that Jenny is more valuable to the university than Jerry.

But, if the athletic department is run officially as a business to make money then Jenny is not worth more if her team doesn't turn a profit.

What will happen is that the paid sports (those which turn a profit) will be managed separately. If you continue to have track & field, gymnastics, soccer, etc. they will fall under Title IX, they will be operated as non revenue sports, and those which are Olympic in nature might fall under IOC, or AOC, guidelines.

Another offshoot of this will be a reduction in number of sports offered by the university and a rise in club level sports.

Law and the interpretation of law has consequences and the same judge handling this case handled the image compensation case.

The world as we know it in college athletics may change by February of 2019 and if it is stalled by appeal it won't be more than another year.

(12-13-2018 06:41 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(12-12-2018 10:53 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  If this comes to pass. A lot of revenue could be generated by having a video game again.

Would almost make all of this worth it if we could get that back. That is the biggest headacratcher in sports right now

I would be ecstatic if EA Sports NCAA Football came back. One of the best series ever. Absolute shame that it was cancelled.

(12-13-2018 10:26 AM)templefootballfan Wrote:  how does this effect title 9
players become employees, there not getting benifits
does title 9 stop or softball picture make 100,000 yr [equal wages]
what about band, cheerleaders, dance team.
students working research would now be employees, debate team

From the article:

"In 2015, the NCAA settled a portion of the Alston complaint for $208 million. That affected athletes who did not get the cost-of-attendance stipend from 2009-17. The average amount received by those former athletes is $6,700."

When the first round of player paychecks is issued, we will have estblished the amount of back pay due to these same former athletes. I think this is why a decision for the plaintiff will be the end of athletic scholarships and a move (as suggested by Delany) to the Div. III model.

What would this do for the Private P5 FBS programs?

Baylor
Boston College
BYU
Duke
Miami
Northwestern
Notre Dame
Stanford
Syracuse
TCU
USC
Vanderbilt
Wake Forest

Or Tulane? Tulsa?

(12-13-2018 09:46 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Think of department dynamics as well. Jerry makes $50k a year as the 8th man on the bench, but Jenny makes $30k as a first-team all-conference starter with a professional league opportunity ? Hello lawsuit and bad publicity.

We're too fractured as a society to understand that maybe Jerry is worth more than Jenny. And too stupid to realize that Jenny is more valuable to the university than Jerry.

THIS.

While I'm sure people's intentions are good, there's a certain road that's paved with them.

Some folks are in such a rush to "pay" players, they aren't stopping to THINK about the repercussions.

One of those repercussions will be AD's and University Head Honchos having to take part in some difficult and uncomfortable conversations, like WHO and WHAT sports are actually worth more $$$.

Try explaining to (in many cases) predominantly "progressive" faculty that the women's field hockey team isn't as valuable as the men's baseball team or the woman's basketball players sholdn't be paid as much as their male counterparts.

Yet those are the EXACT decisions that will have to be made if we start paying to play.

(12-13-2018 10:56 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(12-13-2018 06:41 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(12-12-2018 10:53 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  If this comes to pass. A lot of revenue could be generated by having a video game again.

Would almost make all of this worth it if we could get that back. That is the biggest headacratcher in sports right now

I would be ecstatic if EA Sports NCAA Football came back. One of the best series ever. Absolute shame that it was cancelled.

Yup.

I'm not really a gamer, but I guarantee you that if they announced tomorrow that an ncaa football game was coming back I'd immediately buy an Xbox One or PS4 and I'd be in line at midnight on release day to buy the game. And I know tons of people that would do the same.

(12-13-2018 10:55 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-13-2018 09:46 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Think of department dynamics as well. Jerry makes $50k a year as the 8th man on the bench, but Jenny makes $30k as a first-team all-conference starter with a professional league opportunity ? Hello lawsuit and bad publicity.

We're too fractured as a society to understand that maybe Jerry is worth more than Jenny. And too stupid to realize that Jenny is more valuable to the university than Jerry.

But, if the athletic department is run officially as a business to make money then Jenny is not worth more if her team doesn't turn a profit.

You don't have to explain that to me. I'm a normal guy with a business background.

You need to explain that to Outrage Twitter, the New York Times headline writers, and female Senators.

(12-13-2018 09:44 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-13-2018 09:24 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  I think you'd be killing the golden goose.

Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

Bad. Unless you have something against geese.

What you'd end up with is worse than what you have now.

(12-13-2018 11:10 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(12-13-2018 10:55 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-13-2018 09:46 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Think of department dynamics as well. Jerry makes $50k a year as the 8th man on the bench, but Jenny makes $30k as a first-team all-conference starter with a professional league opportunity ? Hello lawsuit and bad publicity.

We're too fractured as a society to understand that maybe Jerry is worth more than Jenny. And too stupid to realize that Jenny is more valuable to the university than Jerry.

But, if the athletic department is run officially as a business to make money then Jenny is not worth more if her team doesn't turn a profit.

You don't have to explain that to me. I'm a normal guy with a business background.

You need to explain that to Outrage Twitter, the New York Times headline writers, and female Senators.

That will be the speed bump in this whole thing.

Normal, rational, thinking people will be able to tell the difference, but in today's "woke" society where false equivalence is the new norm, that will be a hard sell.

If I had a crystal ball, I could see pro sports leagues starting "minor league" systems and colleges going back to sports being for "student athletes" and less as farm systems.

(12-13-2018 10:48 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-13-2018 05:34 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  I wonder how Pay-For-Play would affect the Title IX budget.

It will knock it in the head. The Title IX folks would have to come back at the schools with some kind of equal hiring bill based on numbers instead of equitable income because women's sports don't turn a profit period.

30 years ago women's basketball did at a few schools, but even UConn and Tennessee run in the red now.

And this won't just impact football, men's basketball and in some places baseball and hockey will be impacted as well.

Both the men's hockey in Alaska could wind up on the chopping blocks. We already have D2 and D3 schools play a sport or 2 at the D1 level. This could hurt them. Johns Hopkins in the Big 10 LAX could be forced to pay for play as well.

(12-13-2018 11:10 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(12-13-2018 10:55 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-13-2018 09:46 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Think of department dynamics as well. Jerry makes $50k a year as the 8th man on the bench, but Jenny makes $30k as a first-team all-conference starter with a professional league opportunity ? Hello lawsuit and bad publicity.

We're too fractured as a society to understand that maybe Jerry is worth more than Jenny. And too stupid to realize that Jenny is more valuable to the university than Jerry.

But, if the athletic department is run officially as a business to make money then Jenny is not worth more if her team doesn't turn a profit.

You don't have to explain that to me. I'm a normal guy with a business background.

You need to explain that to Outrage Twitter, the New York Times headline writers, and female Senators.

I know that. But in responding to you, I'm pointing out to their minions here that law has consequences and we are about to get both barrels of it at once and those consequences are going to put a lot of sports fans in the trauma unit!

(12-13-2018 05:32 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-12-2018 06:49 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Conferences are quietly preparing for the sea-changing possibility they can compensate players above current NCAA limits, significantly altering the longstanding NCAA amateurism model, according to interviews and documents obtained by CBS Sports.

A judge in the ongoing Alston vs. NCAA trial will conduct a final hearing on Dec. 18 pertaining to closing arguments. She will then decide -- likely early in 2019 -- whether scholarship limits imposed by the association violate anti-trust laws.

If the plaintiffs win, there is concern among the Power Five that a Wild West culture could take hold. The last time conferences oversaw athlete compensation was 1956 before the advent of TV, rights fees, agents and riches from the NFL and NBA.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...g-players/

One person is going to make that decision?

Not really. In the end it will go through multiple courts if the NCAA loses---probably all the way to the Supreme Court (assuming they agree to hear the case). Honestly, I think the NCAA will lose on the law---which is why Ive said for some time that the only way to save the current scholarship based amateur model is to lobby Congress for an anti-trust exemption. I think the NCAA would probably receive a very sympathetic ear---especially if the exemption includes a level of government oversight with respect to player safety, player treatment, and overall fairness with respect to access and rules enforcement within college athletics.

I say let the P5 do this, and leave the rest of us alone.

(12-13-2018 03:43 PM)Centdukesfan Wrote:  I say let the P5 do this, and leave the rest of us alone.

This would be a slippery slope. All the kids from FBS all the way down to NJCAA kids want to get paid as well. Not sure D3 would count, but we have to look at all the sports. Rodeo, SKIING and other sports not sponsored by NCAA would also want to be paid as well.

Burn it down. Minor league football.

Take it out of colleges. Make college football college football. No scholarships no nothing.

(12-13-2018 11:25 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(12-13-2018 11:10 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(12-13-2018 10:55 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-13-2018 09:46 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Think of department dynamics as well. Jerry makes $50k a year as the 8th man on the bench, but Jenny makes $30k as a first-team all-conference starter with a professional league opportunity ? Hello lawsuit and bad publicity.

We're too fractured as a society to understand that maybe Jerry is worth more than Jenny. And too stupid to realize that Jenny is more valuable to the university than Jerry.

But, if the athletic department is run officially as a business to make money then Jenny is not worth more if her team doesn't turn a profit.

You don't have to explain that to me. I'm a normal guy with a business background.

You need to explain that to Outrage Twitter, the New York Times headline writers, and female Senators.

That will be the speed bump in this whole thing.

Normal, rational, thinking people will be able to tell the difference, but in today's "woke" society where false equivalence is the new norm, that will be a hard sell.

If I had a crystal ball, I could see pro sports leagues starting "minor league" systems and colleges going back to sports being for "student athletes" and less as farm systems.

Well baseball already has one and the NBA has decided to pour real money into the G League. I have no idea what the NFL would do. I tend to agree with NIU007 though, no one is going to be happy, especially the would be student-athletes if the case is ruled in their favor.

It could force some smaller schools to downgrade like Presbyterian and some cash strap schools like the MEAC/SWAC.

(12-13-2018 10:04 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  If players are paid in accordance to the value of their likeness and name in an arms-length transaction, 99.9% are going to be sorely disappointed to learn their value.

Now if the deals are just shams to funnel booster money to players and allow the booster to declare it as business expense and send a 1099 to the player, well there could be some money made.

Do we care one way or the other? Makes no difference to me whether Nike wants to pay Zion Williamson because of his endorsement value or if it's just that a booster wants to pay to see him play one season in a Duke uniform.

(12-13-2018 10:04 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  If players are paid in accordance to the value of their likeness and name in an arms-length transaction, 99.9% are going to be sorely disappointed to learn their value.

Now if the deals are just shams to funnel booster money to players and allow the booster to declare it as business expense and send a 1099 to the player, well there could be some money made.

I doubt most boosters are in a business where they could justify paying a recruit to go play for their alma mater would be considered an ordinary and necessary business expense. Some local businesses like a restaurant or car dealership or something that want to say he's going to be their "spokesperson". Some appearances would be necessary to legitimize it.