Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
NCAA lawsuit on payment of student-athletes in Supreme Court - - where will it lead?
Author Message
jedclampett Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,318
Joined: Jul 2019
Reputation: 145
I Root For: Temple
Location:
Post: #1
NCAA lawsuit on payment of student-athletes in Supreme Court - - where will it lead?
Supreme Court to hear opening arguments in Alston v. NCAA, which could change the face of college sports

CBS News

Excerpts from the story:

"Against the backdrop of the biggest and most profitable event in college sports, March Madness, there is a decades-long reckoning underway that could forever change the landscape of college athletics. The Supreme Court begins hearing arguments in the case of Alston vs. National Collegiate Athletic Association on Wednesday

The case was brought by former men's and women's college athletes who argue that the NCAA's rules restricting education-related compensation violate federal antitrust law.

This is the first time in nine decades that the nation's top court will hear a case involving the NCAA. At the heart of the matter is whether there should be a cap on educational benefits athletes are allowed to receive, such as computers, science equipment and musical instruments.

The case is just a small part of a bigger battle. College athletes, often on sports scholarships, are not eligible to receive financial compensation. But those same rules do not apply to students on a music or art scholarship, who are allowed to accept outside payment for their work.

Last year, the NCAA Board of Governors proposed a plan to allow athletes to profit off their own image, but it argues it must maintain a distinction between college and professional sports

Depending on what the court decides, the ruling could be a slippery slope, opening the door to demands that college athletes get paid. That could have unforeseen consequences, hurting smaller schools and women's sports. In contrast, the big schools and moneymaking sports like football and men's basketball would benefit in recruiting and getting top talent."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/alston-vs-n...nts-begin/

.

It's very early, and the case is quite complicated, so it's hard to know how the court will handle this matter.

It seems unlikely that the court will side unilaterally with the NCAA and against the student-athletes. However, it also seems unlikely that they issue a ruling that would completely undermine the entire tradition of amateur collegiate athletics or the NCAA itself.

.

One of the keys to how the court will seek to resolve the matter is the fact that John Roberts, the Chief Justice, is known to have a strong preference to issue balanced, measured rulings, as opposed to highly controversial rulings.

From that standpoint, it seems most likely that the outcome will grant some limited concessions to the student-athletes, recognizing their right to earn a supplementary income, but within limits that will have the effect of preserving the traditional existence of the NCAA as an organization for amateur athletics.

In other words, Roberts consistently strives to "split the baby," with reference to the traditions ascribed to Solomon, and the court has usually deferred to the Chief Justice.

If the court follows that path, when their decision is announced, we might see a mostly symbolic victory for the student-athletes and those who wish to professionalize college sports - - a victory which may eventually come to be seen as having been a broader win for the continuation of amateur collegiate athletics.

If the NCAA's lawyers are skillful enough, they will make it clear that - - since this is an anti-trust case, handing a complete victory to those who would professionalize college sports would create a situation that would have an entirely different set of adverse anti-trust implications of its own. That is to say, it could make the current situation, which has already come dangerously close to a violation of anti-competitive practices with respect to the domination of the P5 conferences even worse than it already is for the vast majority of NCAA schools and conferences.

That's another important reason why the court may be most likely to hand a largely symbolic victory to the student-athlete plaintiffs, while handing a broader and more fundamental victory to the NCAA.

.
(This post was last modified: 04-19-2021 04:17 PM by jedclampett.)
04-19-2021 04:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


jedclampett Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,318
Joined: Jul 2019
Reputation: 145
I Root For: Temple
Location:
Post: #2
RE: NCAA lawsuit on payment of student-athletes in Supreme Court - - where will it lead?
.

The most interesting part of this unfolding story is not simply what the case appears to be - - an attempt by student-athletes to seek compensation above and beyond scholarship, room, board, etc.

It's the back story that is far more important and interesting and it pits the true "plaintiffs" (the P5 conferences and their broadcasting partners) against the NCAA and all the D1, DII, and DIII conferences within it.

This case is really about the attempt of the P5 conferences and their broadcasting partners to professionalize college sports.

The case was officially filed by lawyers representing the student-athletes, all right, but their case has the full backing of the powers that be that are covering their legal expenses, making it possible for the case to go all the way to the supreme court.

Whatever happens, the courts ruling will be likely to have major implications for the future of college sports.
04-19-2021 07:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GoOwls111 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,672
Joined: Jan 2019
Reputation: 62
I Root For: Owls
Location: NYC
Post: #3
RE: NCAA lawsuit on payment of student-athletes in Supreme Court - - where will it lead?
The last time the Supreme court interfered in college athletics...
NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_v._Bo...versities.

Nothing good can come out of this...
(This post was last modified: 04-25-2021 04:21 PM by GoOwls111.)
04-25-2021 11:06 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 35,513
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1897
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #4
RE: NCAA lawsuit on payment of student-athletes in Supreme Court - - where will it lead?
(04-19-2021 07:06 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  .

The most interesting part of this unfolding story is not simply what the case appears to be - - an attempt by student-athletes to seek compensation above and beyond scholarship, room, board, etc.

It's the back story that is far more important and interesting and it pits the true "plaintiffs" (the P5 conferences and their broadcasting partners) against the NCAA and all the D1, DII, and DIII conferences within it.

This case is really about the attempt of the P5 conferences and their broadcasting partners to professionalize college sports.

The case was officially filed by lawyers representing the student-athletes, all right, but their case has the full backing of the powers that be that are covering their legal expenses, making it possible for the case to go all the way to the supreme court.

Whatever happens, the courts ruling will be likely to have major implications for the future of college sports.

lol..no---this case has no connection to the P5 on the plaintiff side. The P5 has participated in the defense and is the main target. The reality is this has always been a case where federal anti-trust laws designed for companies with a profit motive are being used against a overgrown university club sport that was never designed to be profitable. Yes--college sports has been built on the backs of unpaid athletes. Yet---you could say the same thing about virtually the entire womens college athletics landscape---that was largely mandated by federal law. The fact is---there is no pot of gold. Yes there is some revenue, but taken as a whole, the 130 FBS schools spend FAR more supporting college athletics than they bring in. Athletics is largely an expense item for most schools----not a net-revenue producer.

Frankly---NIL has made this case largely irrelevant. The new coming landscape of free transfer and unrestricted NIL money flowing from boosters has already created a new wild west pay-for-play environment that will begin this summer. Its already been decided that the players will be paid and can have "free agency" to an extent. The Alston case will simply decide if the NCAA will be barred from restricting player compensation DIRECTLY FROM THE SCHOOLS to ONLY scholarship and education related expenses (it will also decide if that education related expense category will remain uncapped).

A few interesting things about this case.

1) The NCAA has already effectively lost the case with the judge finding that the NCAA engaged in anti-competitive behavior--but did not award the plaintiffs the full free agency they wanted.

2) The NCAA lost, but the judge allowed them to continue to restrict compensation to ONLY education related expenses--and indicated these education related expenses cannot be limited or capped.

3) Both sides are appealing the ruling.

4) I think the ruling is effectively moot at this point. The players or going to be paid (via NIL channeled through boosters). All this case will decide is if the schools will be compensating the players directly---opening a new way for players to be paid. The funny thing is----I think it might be better for the sport if the schools pay they players directly (more control) rather than having boosters suddenly be in control of the school recruiting process. If the schools do it---you can set up controls to make for some level of competitive balance (like a total team salary cap)--making sure talent is somewhat evenly spread about the league. If players are going to be paid---its going to be better if the schools do it directly. Can you imagine coaching a player who can tell you to screw off because he's being paid by a booster who agrees with the players point of view? I think this system where a third party is paying the players is a bad idea for many many reasons--mostly because the schools want an amateur league and are being told by yhe courts they cant have an amateur league.
(This post was last modified: 04-25-2021 12:23 PM by Attackcoog.)
04-25-2021 11:53 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jedclampett Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,318
Joined: Jul 2019
Reputation: 145
I Root For: Temple
Location:
Post: #5
RE: NCAA lawsuit on payment of student-athletes in Supreme Court - - where will it lead?
(04-25-2021 11:53 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(04-19-2021 07:06 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  .

The most interesting part of this unfolding story is not simply what the case appears to be - - an attempt by student-athletes to seek compensation above and beyond scholarship, room, board, etc.

It's the back story that is far more important and interesting and it pits the true "plaintiffs" (the P5 conferences and their broadcasting partners) against the NCAA and all the D1, DII, and DIII conferences within it.

This case is really about the attempt of the P5 conferences and their broadcasting partners to professionalize college sports.

The case was officially filed by lawyers representing the student-athletes, all right, but their case has the full backing of the powers that be that are covering their legal expenses, making it possible for the case to go all the way to the supreme court.

Whatever happens, the courts ruling will be likely to have major implications for the future of college sports.

lol..no---this case has no connection to the P5 on the plaintiff side. The P5 has participated in the defense and is the main target. The reality is this has always been a case where federal anti-trust laws designed for companies with a profit motive are being used against a overgrown university club sport that was never designed to be profitable. Yes--college sports has been built on the backs of unpaid athletes. Yet---you could say the same thing about virtually the entire womens college athletics landscape---that was largely mandated by federal law. The fact is---there is no pot of gold. Yes there is some revenue, but taken as a whole, the 130 FBS schools spend FAR more supporting college athletics than they bring in. Athletics is largely an expense item for most schools----not a net-revenue producer.

Frankly---NIL has made this case largely irrelevant. The new coming landscape of free transfer and unrestricted NIL money flowing from boosters has already created a new wild west pay-for-play environment that will begin this summer. Its already been decided that the players will be paid and can have "free agency" to an extent. The Alston case will simply decide if the NCAA will be barred from restricting player compensation DIRECTLY FROM THE SCHOOLS to ONLY scholarship and education related expenses (it will also decide if that education related expense category will remain uncapped).

A few interesting things about this case.

1) The NCAA has already effectively lost the case with the judge finding that the NCAA engaged in anti-competitive behavior--but did not award the plaintiffs the full free agency they wanted.

2) The NCAA lost, but the judge allowed them to continue to restrict compensation to ONLY education related expenses--and indicated these education related expenses cannot be limited or capped.

3) Both sides are appealing the ruling.

4) I think the ruling is effectively moot at this point. The players or going to be paid (via NIL channeled through boosters). All this case will decide is if the schools will be compensating the players directly---opening a new way for players to be paid. The funny thing is----I think it might be better for the sport if the schools pay they players directly (more control) rather than having boosters suddenly be in control of the school recruiting process. If the schools do it---you can set up controls to make for some level of competitive balance (like a total team salary cap)--making sure talent is somewhat evenly spread about the league. If players are going to be paid---its going to be better if the schools do it directly. Can you imagine coaching a player who can tell you to screw off because he's being paid by a booster who agrees with the players point of view? I think this system where a third party is paying the players is a bad idea for many many reasons--mostly because the schools want an amateur league and are being told by yhe courts they cant have an amateur league.

.

I see it somewhat differently.

If the court had been inclined to support the judge's ruling, they wouldn't have decided to hear this case.

The Supreme Court usually doesn't take a case unless they think there is some important constitutional issue at stake.

Having said that, there's every reason to expect that the student-athletes will come out with some kind of a victory, and as you've suggested, the NCAA is probably going to have to make some concessions that it doesn't want to make.

But the Roberts Court is conservative enough (small "c" conservative, as in avoiding major upheavals and respecting existing traditions) that it is most likely going to uphold the fundamental, guiding principles of amateur athletics that gave the NCAA its raison d'etre.

.

As far as the P5 is concerned, the point still stands that, since this is an anti-trust case, the P5 might end up taking it on the chin just as much as the NCAA does. After all, this entire case is symptomatic of the professionalization of amateur athletics - - and the P5 has been the driving force toward professionalization. A small "c" conservative court would tend to respect the principle of amateur athletics, since it is a long-held tradition with roots dating back to ancient Greece. I don't believe that the Supreme Court will be inclined to reward them while punishing the NCAA.

After all, the value of a college education is one of the most important traditions that have benefited the nation, and college sports isn't about making money. It's about getting an education. A college athlete on a full scholarship is being "paid" the equivalent of $150,000 to $200,000 at many NCAA schools (tuition, R&B, etc.). That is not a trivial sum. The student-athlete doesn't have to take the scholarship and go to college, but does so willingly.

That's why it seems most likely that the court will permit the rules to evolve gradually and won't issue a ruling that will result in any radical changes.

.

.
04-25-2021 05:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


TripleA Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 51,585
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 1974
I Root For: Memphis Tigers
Location:

Memphis Hall of Fame
Post: #6
RE: NCAA lawsuit on payment of student-athletes in Supreme Court - - where will it lead?
(04-25-2021 11:53 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(04-19-2021 07:06 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  .

The most interesting part of this unfolding story is not simply what the case appears to be - - an attempt by student-athletes to seek compensation above and beyond scholarship, room, board, etc.

It's the back story that is far more important and interesting and it pits the true "plaintiffs" (the P5 conferences and their broadcasting partners) against the NCAA and all the D1, DII, and DIII conferences within it.

This case is really about the attempt of the P5 conferences and their broadcasting partners to professionalize college sports.

The case was officially filed by lawyers representing the student-athletes, all right, but their case has the full backing of the powers that be that are covering their legal expenses, making it possible for the case to go all the way to the supreme court.

Whatever happens, the courts ruling will be likely to have major implications for the future of college sports.

lol..no---this case has no connection to the P5 on the plaintiff side. The P5 has participated in the defense and is the main target. The reality is this has always been a case where federal anti-trust laws designed for companies with a profit motive are being used against a overgrown university club sport that was never designed to be profitable. Yes--college sports has been built on the backs of unpaid athletes. Yet---you could say the same thing about virtually the entire womens college athletics landscape---that was largely mandated by federal law. The fact is---there is no pot of gold. Yes there is some revenue, but taken as a whole, the 130 FBS schools spend FAR more supporting college athletics than they bring in. Athletics is largely an expense item for most schools----not a net-revenue producer.

Frankly---NIL has made this case largely irrelevant. The new coming landscape of free transfer and unrestricted NIL money flowing from boosters has already created a new wild west pay-for-play environment that will begin this summer. Its already been decided that the players will be paid and can have "free agency" to an extent. The Alston case will simply decide if the NCAA will be barred from restricting player compensation DIRECTLY FROM THE SCHOOLS to ONLY scholarship and education related expenses (it will also decide if that education related expense category will remain uncapped).

A few interesting things about this case.

1) The NCAA has already effectively lost the case with the judge finding that the NCAA engaged in anti-competitive behavior--but did not award the plaintiffs the full free agency they wanted.

2) The NCAA lost, but the judge allowed them to continue to restrict compensation to ONLY education related expenses--and indicated these education related expenses cannot be limited or capped.

3) Both sides are appealing the ruling.

4) I think the ruling is effectively moot at this point. The players or going to be paid (via NIL channeled through boosters). All this case will decide is if the schools will be compensating the players directly---opening a new way for players to be paid. The funny thing is----I think it might be better for the sport if the schools pay they players directly (more control) rather than having boosters suddenly be in control of the school recruiting process. If the schools do it---you can set up controls to make for some level of competitive balance (like a total team salary cap)--making sure talent is somewhat evenly spread about the league. If players are going to be paid---its going to be better if the schools do it directly. Can you imagine coaching a player who can tell you to screw off because he's being paid by a booster who agrees with the players point of view? I think this system where a third party is paying the players is a bad idea for many many reasons--mostly because the schools want an amateur league and are being told by yhe courts they cant have an amateur league.

We usually agree. Not this time. The court isn't going to give either side a win. It will leave the NCAA with its amateur shell, while allowing NIL, which was won in court long ago, but the NCAA has been dragging its feet.

I think having the schools administer the pay will be an unmitigated disaster, b/c:

1. The NCAA screws up everything it touches.

2. It will allow the P5 to keep advantages wherever possible.

3. If schools pay, boosters will still pay under the table. Nothing will change. Schools with big boosters will have the advantage, as always.

Also, the idea that "the schools want an amateur league and are being told by the courts they cant have an amateur league" is laughable to me. The schools want an amateur league strictly so they can avoid paying players and keep all the profits themselves, as they always have, even though the players are the ones who actually create the revenue.

And until now, coaches could make big money and could move without penalty (while schools left behind got punished for their prior indiscretions), but players couldn't. The NIL ruling and the new transfer rule are to level that playing field, IMO.

If amateur college ball is a goal, then look to D2 or D3. An enterprise that generates billions a year in revenue is decidedly not amateur. Now we're just talking about who controls the money.
04-25-2021 10:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 35,513
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1897
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #7
RE: NCAA lawsuit on payment of student-athletes in Supreme Court - - where will it lead?
(04-25-2021 10:44 PM)TripleA Wrote:  
(04-25-2021 11:53 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(04-19-2021 07:06 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  .

The most interesting part of this unfolding story is not simply what the case appears to be - - an attempt by student-athletes to seek compensation above and beyond scholarship, room, board, etc.

It's the back story that is far more important and interesting and it pits the true "plaintiffs" (the P5 conferences and their broadcasting partners) against the NCAA and all the D1, DII, and DIII conferences within it.

This case is really about the attempt of the P5 conferences and their broadcasting partners to professionalize college sports.

The case was officially filed by lawyers representing the student-athletes, all right, but their case has the full backing of the powers that be that are covering their legal expenses, making it possible for the case to go all the way to the supreme court.

Whatever happens, the courts ruling will be likely to have major implications for the future of college sports.

lol..no---this case has no connection to the P5 on the plaintiff side. The P5 has participated in the defense and is the main target. The reality is this has always been a case where federal anti-trust laws designed for companies with a profit motive are being used against a overgrown university club sport that was never designed to be profitable. Yes--college sports has been built on the backs of unpaid athletes. Yet---you could say the same thing about virtually the entire womens college athletics landscape---that was largely mandated by federal law. The fact is---there is no pot of gold. Yes there is some revenue, but taken as a whole, the 130 FBS schools spend FAR more supporting college athletics than they bring in. Athletics is largely an expense item for most schools----not a net-revenue producer.

Frankly---NIL has made this case largely irrelevant. The new coming landscape of free transfer and unrestricted NIL money flowing from boosters has already created a new wild west pay-for-play environment that will begin this summer. Its already been decided that the players will be paid and can have "free agency" to an extent. The Alston case will simply decide if the NCAA will be barred from restricting player compensation DIRECTLY FROM THE SCHOOLS to ONLY scholarship and education related expenses (it will also decide if that education related expense category will remain uncapped).

A few interesting things about this case.

1) The NCAA has already effectively lost the case with the judge finding that the NCAA engaged in anti-competitive behavior--but did not award the plaintiffs the full free agency they wanted.

2) The NCAA lost, but the judge allowed them to continue to restrict compensation to ONLY education related expenses--and indicated these education related expenses cannot be limited or capped.

3) Both sides are appealing the ruling.

4) I think the ruling is effectively moot at this point. The players or going to be paid (via NIL channeled through boosters). All this case will decide is if the schools will be compensating the players directly---opening a new way for players to be paid. The funny thing is----I think it might be better for the sport if the schools pay they players directly (more control) rather than having boosters suddenly be in control of the school recruiting process. If the schools do it---you can set up controls to make for some level of competitive balance (like a total team salary cap)--making sure talent is somewhat evenly spread about the league. If players are going to be paid---its going to be better if the schools do it directly. Can you imagine coaching a player who can tell you to screw off because he's being paid by a booster who agrees with the players point of view? I think this system where a third party is paying the players is a bad idea for many many reasons--mostly because the schools want an amateur league and are being told by yhe courts they cant have an amateur league.

We usually agree. Not this time. The court isn't going to give either side a win. It will leave the NCAA with its amateur shell, while allowing NIL, which was won in court long ago, but the NCAA has been dragging its feet.

I think having the schools administer the pay will be an unmitigated disaster, b/c:

1. The NCAA screws up everything it touches.

2. It will allow the P5 to keep advantages wherever possible.

3. If schools pay, boosters will still pay under the table. Nothing will change. Schools with big boosters will have the advantage, as always.

Also, the idea that "the schools want an amateur league and are being told by the courts they cant have an amateur league" is laughable to me. The schools want an amateur league strictly so they can avoid paying players and keep all the profits themselves, as they always have, even though the players are the ones who actually create the revenue.

And until now, coaches could make big money and could move without penalty (while schools left behind got punished for their prior indiscretions), but players couldn't. The NIL ruling and the new transfer rule are to level that playing field, IMO.

If amateur college ball is a goal, then look to D2 or D3. An enterprise that generates billions a year in revenue is decidedly not amateur. Now we're just talking about who controls the money.

If everything you said is true---then how on earth could any court ever defend not giving the players full free agency and striking down the NCAA fake "amateur model"? Yet---even you dont think they will do that. So---clearly even you know there is more to it than the points you made.

All Im saying is if your going to effectively blow up the whole amateur model---then at least replace it with a professional NFL/NBA type model we know will work pretty well....not this idiotic NIL third party pay-for-play crap. When Phil Knight buys the Bama starting 24 to win a national championship for his Ducks---everyone will suddenly start crying about how the "sport is broken". lol...Ill just be laughing my butt off thinking---how could you guys NOT see this coming? That said--this train is rolling and Ive already mentioned it in multiple threads---NIL is starting in just few months whether the NCAA likes it not. Schools need to be figuring out how to organize their well heeled boosters to give NIL deals to key recruits. Schools need to be learning how to carefully aim their billionaire super-fans at recruiting targets like a cash fire hose. Those schools that arent getting ready for the new NIL era RIGHT NOW are going to be left behind by the schools that are getting ready to do those things---because its coming THIS SUMMER.
(This post was last modified: 04-25-2021 11:58 PM by Attackcoog.)
04-25-2021 11:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TripleA Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 51,585
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 1974
I Root For: Memphis Tigers
Location:

Memphis Hall of Fame
Post: #8
RE: NCAA lawsuit on payment of student-athletes in Supreme Court - - where will it lead?
(04-25-2021 11:43 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(04-25-2021 10:44 PM)TripleA Wrote:  
(04-25-2021 11:53 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(04-19-2021 07:06 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  .

The most interesting part of this unfolding story is not simply what the case appears to be - - an attempt by student-athletes to seek compensation above and beyond scholarship, room, board, etc.

It's the back story that is far more important and interesting and it pits the true "plaintiffs" (the P5 conferences and their broadcasting partners) against the NCAA and all the D1, DII, and DIII conferences within it.

This case is really about the attempt of the P5 conferences and their broadcasting partners to professionalize college sports.

The case was officially filed by lawyers representing the student-athletes, all right, but their case has the full backing of the powers that be that are covering their legal expenses, making it possible for the case to go all the way to the supreme court.

Whatever happens, the courts ruling will be likely to have major implications for the future of college sports.

lol..no---this case has no connection to the P5 on the plaintiff side. The P5 has participated in the defense and is the main target. The reality is this has always been a case where federal anti-trust laws designed for companies with a profit motive are being used against a overgrown university club sport that was never designed to be profitable. Yes--college sports has been built on the backs of unpaid athletes. Yet---you could say the same thing about virtually the entire womens college athletics landscape---that was largely mandated by federal law. The fact is---there is no pot of gold. Yes there is some revenue, but taken as a whole, the 130 FBS schools spend FAR more supporting college athletics than they bring in. Athletics is largely an expense item for most schools----not a net-revenue producer.

Frankly---NIL has made this case largely irrelevant. The new coming landscape of free transfer and unrestricted NIL money flowing from boosters has already created a new wild west pay-for-play environment that will begin this summer. Its already been decided that the players will be paid and can have "free agency" to an extent. The Alston case will simply decide if the NCAA will be barred from restricting player compensation DIRECTLY FROM THE SCHOOLS to ONLY scholarship and education related expenses (it will also decide if that education related expense category will remain uncapped).

A few interesting things about this case.

1) The NCAA has already effectively lost the case with the judge finding that the NCAA engaged in anti-competitive behavior--but did not award the plaintiffs the full free agency they wanted.

2) The NCAA lost, but the judge allowed them to continue to restrict compensation to ONLY education related expenses--and indicated these education related expenses cannot be limited or capped.

3) Both sides are appealing the ruling.

4) I think the ruling is effectively moot at this point. The players or going to be paid (via NIL channeled through boosters). All this case will decide is if the schools will be compensating the players directly---opening a new way for players to be paid. The funny thing is----I think it might be better for the sport if the schools pay they players directly (more control) rather than having boosters suddenly be in control of the school recruiting process. If the schools do it---you can set up controls to make for some level of competitive balance (like a total team salary cap)--making sure talent is somewhat evenly spread about the league. If players are going to be paid---its going to be better if the schools do it directly. Can you imagine coaching a player who can tell you to screw off because he's being paid by a booster who agrees with the players point of view? I think this system where a third party is paying the players is a bad idea for many many reasons--mostly because the schools want an amateur league and are being told by yhe courts they cant have an amateur league.

We usually agree. Not this time. The court isn't going to give either side a win. It will leave the NCAA with its amateur shell, while allowing NIL, which was won in court long ago, but the NCAA has been dragging its feet.

I think having the schools administer the pay will be an unmitigated disaster, b/c:

1. The NCAA screws up everything it touches.

2. It will allow the P5 to keep advantages wherever possible.

3. If schools pay, boosters will still pay under the table. Nothing will change. Schools with big boosters will have the advantage, as always.

Also, the idea that "the schools want an amateur league and are being told by the courts they cant have an amateur league" is laughable to me. The schools want an amateur league strictly so they can avoid paying players and keep all the profits themselves, as they always have, even though the players are the ones who actually create the revenue.

And until now, coaches could make big money and could move without penalty (while schools left behind got punished for their prior indiscretions), but players couldn't. The NIL ruling and the new transfer rule are to level that playing field, IMO.

If amateur college ball is a goal, then look to D2 or D3. An enterprise that generates billions a year in revenue is decidedly not amateur. Now we're just talking about who controls the money.

If everything you said is true---then how on earth could any court ever defend not giving the players full free agency and striking down the NCAA fake "amateur model"? Yet---even you dont think they will do that. So---clearly even you know there is more to it than the points you made.

All Im saying is if your going to effectively blow up the whole amateur model---then at least replace it with a professional NFL/NBA type model we know will work pretty well....not this idiotic NIL third party pay-for-play crap. When Phil Knight buys the Bama starting 24 to win a national championship for his Ducks---everyone will suddenly start crying about how the "sport is broken". lol...Ill just be laughing my butt off thinking---how could you guys NOT see this coming? That said--this train is rolling and Ive already mentioned it in multiple threads---NIL is starting in just few months whether the NCAA likes it not. Schools need to be figuring out how to organize their well heeled boosters to give NIL deals to key recruits. Schools need to be learning how to carefully aim their billionaire super-fans at recruiting targets like a cash fire hose. Those schools that arent getting ready for the new NIL era RIGHT NOW are going to be left behind by the schools that are getting ready to do those things---because its coming THIS SUMMER.

You are misreading my comment. The courts aren't going to throw the NCAA a bone b/c they think it's the right ruling. They're just not willing to completely tear it down yet. My guess is the courts give them admin power over payments as a consolation prize, and that will screw things up worse than you fear.

P.S. Do you actually think Phil Knight has not already been buying the Ducks every player they could get, for years now? Come on...

NIL isn't going to change much at the top. Those players have been getting paid by boosters since the 1960s. I see NIL as a good thing, b/c it will allow lesser players to receive some compensation commensurate with their talent, that they would not normally receive. There isn't going to be some giant influx of booster money that wasn't there before. Boosters who wanted to pay to play have been doing that forever. The difference will be NIL opportunities for more players not at the top rung of under the table payments.

You see it as the wild wild West. I see it as business as usual, but if the schools are put in charge, they will make it worse, and less equitable for non-P5 schools. Also, you make it sound like NIL is a booster payment, when in fact, it's compensation by any company for use of a player's name, image or likeness. Essentially ad money that the school previously kept for themselves. Boosters just funneling cash to players to go to a school will still be illegal, although enforcement may become more laughable than it already is.

I just don't see your doomsday scenario, or your angst over the poor NCAA not getting to run an amateur league, while they make billions for their own organization.
(This post was last modified: 04-26-2021 12:53 AM by TripleA.)
04-26-2021 12:47 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tigerjeb Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 29,807
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 594
I Root For: Memphis Tigers
Location: gone fishing

CrappiesDonatorsMemphis Hall of Fame
Post: #9
RE: NCAA lawsuit on payment of student-athletes in Supreme Court - - where will it lead?
all I ask is that all this puts college athletic facilities on the property tax rolls, NIL payments on the payroll tax rolls & removes the tax exemption for donations. its a business now, treat it like one
(This post was last modified: 04-26-2021 07:12 AM by tigerjeb.)
04-26-2021 07:12 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Atlanta Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,365
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 526
I Root For: Memphis Tigers
Location: Metro Atlanta
Post: #10
RE: NCAA lawsuit on payment of athletes in Supreme Court - - where will it lead?
If the SC & several states have already ruled/passed legislation, why not just let individual players who are able, to negotiate & manage their own NIL compensation directly. It would keep the NCAA & schools out of the process directly & allow the athlete to get a market driven value. Of course make it taxable income just like the rest of us & schools would have no way to interfere or further skim income off the backs of those who are responsible for their revenue. It would also at least make the undercover payments come to light & possibly reduce those practices.
04-26-2021 08:58 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 35,513
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1897
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #11
RE: NCAA lawsuit on payment of student-athletes in Supreme Court - - where will it lead?
(04-26-2021 12:47 AM)TripleA Wrote:  
(04-25-2021 11:43 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(04-25-2021 10:44 PM)TripleA Wrote:  
(04-25-2021 11:53 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(04-19-2021 07:06 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  .

The most interesting part of this unfolding story is not simply what the case appears to be - - an attempt by student-athletes to seek compensation above and beyond scholarship, room, board, etc.

It's the back story that is far more important and interesting and it pits the true "plaintiffs" (the P5 conferences and their broadcasting partners) against the NCAA and all the D1, DII, and DIII conferences within it.

This case is really about the attempt of the P5 conferences and their broadcasting partners to professionalize college sports.

The case was officially filed by lawyers representing the student-athletes, all right, but their case has the full backing of the powers that be that are covering their legal expenses, making it possible for the case to go all the way to the supreme court.

Whatever happens, the courts ruling will be likely to have major implications for the future of college sports.

lol..no---this case has no connection to the P5 on the plaintiff side. The P5 has participated in the defense and is the main target. The reality is this has always been a case where federal anti-trust laws designed for companies with a profit motive are being used against a overgrown university club sport that was never designed to be profitable. Yes--college sports has been built on the backs of unpaid athletes. Yet---you could say the same thing about virtually the entire womens college athletics landscape---that was largely mandated by federal law. The fact is---there is no pot of gold. Yes there is some revenue, but taken as a whole, the 130 FBS schools spend FAR more supporting college athletics than they bring in. Athletics is largely an expense item for most schools----not a net-revenue producer.

Frankly---NIL has made this case largely irrelevant. The new coming landscape of free transfer and unrestricted NIL money flowing from boosters has already created a new wild west pay-for-play environment that will begin this summer. Its already been decided that the players will be paid and can have "free agency" to an extent. The Alston case will simply decide if the NCAA will be barred from restricting player compensation DIRECTLY FROM THE SCHOOLS to ONLY scholarship and education related expenses (it will also decide if that education related expense category will remain uncapped).

A few interesting things about this case.

1) The NCAA has already effectively lost the case with the judge finding that the NCAA engaged in anti-competitive behavior--but did not award the plaintiffs the full free agency they wanted.

2) The NCAA lost, but the judge allowed them to continue to restrict compensation to ONLY education related expenses--and indicated these education related expenses cannot be limited or capped.

3) Both sides are appealing the ruling.

4) I think the ruling is effectively moot at this point. The players or going to be paid (via NIL channeled through boosters). All this case will decide is if the schools will be compensating the players directly---opening a new way for players to be paid. The funny thing is----I think it might be better for the sport if the schools pay they players directly (more control) rather than having boosters suddenly be in control of the school recruiting process. If the schools do it---you can set up controls to make for some level of competitive balance (like a total team salary cap)--making sure talent is somewhat evenly spread about the league. If players are going to be paid---its going to be better if the schools do it directly. Can you imagine coaching a player who can tell you to screw off because he's being paid by a booster who agrees with the players point of view? I think this system where a third party is paying the players is a bad idea for many many reasons--mostly because the schools want an amateur league and are being told by yhe courts they cant have an amateur league.

We usually agree. Not this time. The court isn't going to give either side a win. It will leave the NCAA with its amateur shell, while allowing NIL, which was won in court long ago, but the NCAA has been dragging its feet.

I think having the schools administer the pay will be an unmitigated disaster, b/c:

1. The NCAA screws up everything it touches.

2. It will allow the P5 to keep advantages wherever possible.

3. If schools pay, boosters will still pay under the table. Nothing will change. Schools with big boosters will have the advantage, as always.

Also, the idea that "the schools want an amateur league and are being told by the courts they cant have an amateur league" is laughable to me. The schools want an amateur league strictly so they can avoid paying players and keep all the profits themselves, as they always have, even though the players are the ones who actually create the revenue.

And until now, coaches could make big money and could move without penalty (while schools left behind got punished for their prior indiscretions), but players couldn't. The NIL ruling and the new transfer rule are to level that playing field, IMO.

If amateur college ball is a goal, then look to D2 or D3. An enterprise that generates billions a year in revenue is decidedly not amateur. Now we're just talking about who controls the money.

If everything you said is true---then how on earth could any court ever defend not giving the players full free agency and striking down the NCAA fake "amateur model"? Yet---even you dont think they will do that. So---clearly even you know there is more to it than the points you made.

All Im saying is if your going to effectively blow up the whole amateur model---then at least replace it with a professional NFL/NBA type model we know will work pretty well....not this idiotic NIL third party pay-for-play crap. When Phil Knight buys the Bama starting 24 to win a national championship for his Ducks---everyone will suddenly start crying about how the "sport is broken". lol...Ill just be laughing my butt off thinking---how could you guys NOT see this coming? That said--this train is rolling and Ive already mentioned it in multiple threads---NIL is starting in just few months whether the NCAA likes it not. Schools need to be figuring out how to organize their well heeled boosters to give NIL deals to key recruits. Schools need to be learning how to carefully aim their billionaire super-fans at recruiting targets like a cash fire hose. Those schools that arent getting ready for the new NIL era RIGHT NOW are going to be left behind by the schools that are getting ready to do those things---because its coming THIS SUMMER.

You are misreading my comment. The courts aren't going to throw the NCAA a bone b/c they think it's the right ruling. They're just not willing to completely tear it down yet. My guess is the courts give them admin power over payments as a consolation prize, and that will screw things up worse than you fear.

P.S. Do you actually think Phil Knight has not already been buying the Ducks every player they could get, for years now? Come on...

NIL isn't going to change much at the top. Those players have been getting paid by boosters since the 1960s. I see NIL as a good thing, b/c it will allow lesser players to receive some compensation commensurate with their talent, that they would not normally receive. There isn't going to be some giant influx of booster money that wasn't there before. Boosters who wanted to pay to play have been doing that forever. The difference will be NIL opportunities for more players not at the top rung of under the table payments.

You see it as the wild wild West. I see it as business as usual, but if the schools are put in charge, they will make it worse, and less equitable for non-P5 schools. Also, you make it sound like NIL is a booster payment, when in fact, it's compensation by any company for use of a player's name, image or likeness. Essentially ad money that the school previously kept for themselves. Boosters just funneling cash to players to go to a school will still be illegal, although enforcement may become more laughable than it already is.

I just don't see your doomsday scenario, or your angst over the poor NCAA not getting to run an amateur league, while they make billions for their own organization.

If you think that, then there is no way you have read the actual laws. With rare exception, most of the 19 states that have new NIL laws will bar any school, organization, or league from enforcing ANY restriction on player NIL earnings. In fairness—-a few states have included clauses that attempt to limit it to legit economically viable NIL deals, but they are going to find that personal appearance fees will be impossible to limit as the value of those fees reflect personal preference and vanity (the value is up to the eye of the beholder). That said, the vast majority of these new state NIL laws that have been passed bar leagues, schools, and organizations from making ANY restrictions on a players NIL earnings.

So yes, when legislators leave a loophole that large—of course boosters will use it. I mean—you’ve made the claim that wide spread funneling of money to players by boosters already exists despite it being illegal—if true—of course the funneling of money to players will explode when it’s actually legalized. Like I said earlier—schools that aren’t getting their boosters prepared and organized for this purpose will be left in the dust by schools that are organizing their boosters. The only way I see to limit NIL deals to legit NIL is to bar boosters from offering NIL. Since few of the state laws even attempt to do that---the only chance that might happen would be from the Feds. One federal proposal (the Gonzales bill) does make an attempt to do just that---but thats not the only bill vying for congressional support. Last I heard, Corey Booker's rival bill makes no attempt to control boosters---in fact--his proposal goes even beyond NIL. For instance---Booker's proposed legislation would require the conferences to share the TV revenue with the players.

Maybe they will eventually get it right and there will not be a wild west---but---this much is obvious. They arent going to get it right by this summer....so, at a minimum--its becoming increasing clear there is going to be a wild west free agency period that starts this summer.
(This post was last modified: 04-26-2021 12:19 PM by Attackcoog.)
04-26-2021 10:17 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GoOwls111 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,672
Joined: Jan 2019
Reputation: 62
I Root For: Owls
Location: NYC
Post: #12
RE: NCAA lawsuit on payment of student-athletes in Supreme Court - - where will it lead?
Best bet is for "The other 5 FBS conferences" to sue for equal access to the CFP... Why does ND have vote but BYU, LU, Army, and other independents do not have a vote?

Put that other group in the position the NCAA was in when Oklahoma and Georgia Sued the NCAA.
04-26-2021 12:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TripleA Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 51,585
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 1974
I Root For: Memphis Tigers
Location:

Memphis Hall of Fame
Post: #13
RE: NCAA lawsuit on payment of student-athletes in Supreme Court - - where will it lead?
(04-26-2021 10:17 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(04-26-2021 12:47 AM)TripleA Wrote:  
(04-25-2021 11:43 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(04-25-2021 10:44 PM)TripleA Wrote:  
(04-25-2021 11:53 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  lol..no---this case has no connection to the P5 on the plaintiff side. The P5 has participated in the defense and is the main target. The reality is this has always been a case where federal anti-trust laws designed for companies with a profit motive are being used against a overgrown university club sport that was never designed to be profitable. Yes--college sports has been built on the backs of unpaid athletes. Yet---you could say the same thing about virtually the entire womens college athletics landscape---that was largely mandated by federal law. The fact is---there is no pot of gold. Yes there is some revenue, but taken as a whole, the 130 FBS schools spend FAR more supporting college athletics than they bring in. Athletics is largely an expense item for most schools----not a net-revenue producer.

Frankly---NIL has made this case largely irrelevant. The new coming landscape of free transfer and unrestricted NIL money flowing from boosters has already created a new wild west pay-for-play environment that will begin this summer. Its already been decided that the players will be paid and can have "free agency" to an extent. The Alston case will simply decide if the NCAA will be barred from restricting player compensation DIRECTLY FROM THE SCHOOLS to ONLY scholarship and education related expenses (it will also decide if that education related expense category will remain uncapped).

A few interesting things about this case.

1) The NCAA has already effectively lost the case with the judge finding that the NCAA engaged in anti-competitive behavior--but did not award the plaintiffs the full free agency they wanted.

2) The NCAA lost, but the judge allowed them to continue to restrict compensation to ONLY education related expenses--and indicated these education related expenses cannot be limited or capped.

3) Both sides are appealing the ruling.

4) I think the ruling is effectively moot at this point. The players or going to be paid (via NIL channeled through boosters). All this case will decide is if the schools will be compensating the players directly---opening a new way for players to be paid. The funny thing is----I think it might be better for the sport if the schools pay they players directly (more control) rather than having boosters suddenly be in control of the school recruiting process. If the schools do it---you can set up controls to make for some level of competitive balance (like a total team salary cap)--making sure talent is somewhat evenly spread about the league. If players are going to be paid---its going to be better if the schools do it directly. Can you imagine coaching a player who can tell you to screw off because he's being paid by a booster who agrees with the players point of view? I think this system where a third party is paying the players is a bad idea for many many reasons--mostly because the schools want an amateur league and are being told by yhe courts they cant have an amateur league.

We usually agree. Not this time. The court isn't going to give either side a win. It will leave the NCAA with its amateur shell, while allowing NIL, which was won in court long ago, but the NCAA has been dragging its feet.

I think having the schools administer the pay will be an unmitigated disaster, b/c:

1. The NCAA screws up everything it touches.

2. It will allow the P5 to keep advantages wherever possible.

3. If schools pay, boosters will still pay under the table. Nothing will change. Schools with big boosters will have the advantage, as always.

Also, the idea that "the schools want an amateur league and are being told by the courts they cant have an amateur league" is laughable to me. The schools want an amateur league strictly so they can avoid paying players and keep all the profits themselves, as they always have, even though the players are the ones who actually create the revenue.

And until now, coaches could make big money and could move without penalty (while schools left behind got punished for their prior indiscretions), but players couldn't. The NIL ruling and the new transfer rule are to level that playing field, IMO.

If amateur college ball is a goal, then look to D2 or D3. An enterprise that generates billions a year in revenue is decidedly not amateur. Now we're just talking about who controls the money.

If everything you said is true---then how on earth could any court ever defend not giving the players full free agency and striking down the NCAA fake "amateur model"? Yet---even you dont think they will do that. So---clearly even you know there is more to it than the points you made.

All Im saying is if your going to effectively blow up the whole amateur model---then at least replace it with a professional NFL/NBA type model we know will work pretty well....not this idiotic NIL third party pay-for-play crap. When Phil Knight buys the Bama starting 24 to win a national championship for his Ducks---everyone will suddenly start crying about how the "sport is broken". lol...Ill just be laughing my butt off thinking---how could you guys NOT see this coming? That said--this train is rolling and Ive already mentioned it in multiple threads---NIL is starting in just few months whether the NCAA likes it not. Schools need to be figuring out how to organize their well heeled boosters to give NIL deals to key recruits. Schools need to be learning how to carefully aim their billionaire super-fans at recruiting targets like a cash fire hose. Those schools that arent getting ready for the new NIL era RIGHT NOW are going to be left behind by the schools that are getting ready to do those things---because its coming THIS SUMMER.

You are misreading my comment. The courts aren't going to throw the NCAA a bone b/c they think it's the right ruling. They're just not willing to completely tear it down yet. My guess is the courts give them admin power over payments as a consolation prize, and that will screw things up worse than you fear.

P.S. Do you actually think Phil Knight has not already been buying the Ducks every player they could get, for years now? Come on...

NIL isn't going to change much at the top. Those players have been getting paid by boosters since the 1960s. I see NIL as a good thing, b/c it will allow lesser players to receive some compensation commensurate with their talent, that they would not normally receive. There isn't going to be some giant influx of booster money that wasn't there before. Boosters who wanted to pay to play have been doing that forever. The difference will be NIL opportunities for more players not at the top rung of under the table payments.

You see it as the wild wild West. I see it as business as usual, but if the schools are put in charge, they will make it worse, and less equitable for non-P5 schools. Also, you make it sound like NIL is a booster payment, when in fact, it's compensation by any company for use of a player's name, image or likeness. Essentially ad money that the school previously kept for themselves. Boosters just funneling cash to players to go to a school will still be illegal, although enforcement may become more laughable than it already is.

I just don't see your doomsday scenario, or your angst over the poor NCAA not getting to run an amateur league, while they make billions for their own organization.

If you think that, then there is no way you have read the actual laws. With rare exception, most of the 19 states that have new NIL laws will bar any school, organization, or league from enforcing ANY restriction on player NIL earnings. In fairness—-a few states have included clauses that attempt to limit it to legit economically viable NIL deals, but they are going to find that personal appearance fees will be impossible to limit as the value of those fees reflect personal preference and vanity (the value is up to the eye of the beholder). That said, the vast majority of these new state NIL laws that have been passed bar leagues, schools, and organizations from making ANY restrictions on a players NIL earnings.

So yes, when legislators leave a loophole that large—of course boosters will use it. I mean—you’ve made the claim that wide spread funneling of money to players by boosters already exists despite it being illegal—if true—of course the funneling of money to players will explode when it’s actually legalized. Like I said earlier—schools that aren’t getting their boosters prepared and organized for this purpose will be left in the dust by schools that are organizing their boosters. The only way I see to limit NIL deals to legit NIL is to bar boosters from offering NIL. Since few of the state laws even attempt to do that---the only chance that might happen would be from the Feds. One federal proposal (the Gonzales bill) does make an attempt to do just that---but thats not the only bill vying for congressional support. Last I heard, Corey Booker's rival bill makes no attempt to control boosters---in fact--his proposal goes even beyond NIL. For instance---Booker's proposed legislation would require the conferences to share the TV revenue with the players.

Maybe they will eventually get it right and there will not be a wild west---but---this much is obvious. They arent going to get it right by this summer....so, at a minimum--its becoming increasing clear there is going to be a wild west free agency period that starts this summer.

Yes, I have read some of the laws. IMO, there should not be restrictions. This is where we disagree.

You seem to think it's some sort of disaster to let athletes earn money off their name, image or likeness. I say it's capitalism.

The idea that college sports is an amateur enterprise is ludicrous. The only thing amateur about it is the NCAA and universities have managed to keep all the revenue to themselves while operating under the guise of amateurism.

I agree with Jeb. Remove all the protections from the law, and tax the NCAA like any other business. And let entrepreneurs pay the players legally for their services.

For some reason, you seem to think this will result in a flood of outright booster payments to athletes. No, only the very best players, the "game changers" so to speak, usually get significant under the table payments. As I said, that won't change. There aren't an unlimited supply of boosters at each school throwing around hundreds of thousands, and that has been a thing forever.

What will change are businesses jumping in to pay players to do ads for them. You know who gets that money right now? The damn schools. They charge fees to businesses to license the university name or likeness. Now the players can do it themselves, and the businesses can bypass the universities.

And NIL will likely go much farther down the food chain than just the game changers, so it becomes more equitable for more players. You see this as some unmitigated disaster, I see it as righting a wrong that has been perpetuated for a century.

My concern is the courts won't carry it out completely, will devise some half ass measures b/c of the political clout of the universities, and it will be worse than ever.

But not because it's a murky legal decision, b/c it's a too harsh reality for the poor downtrodden universities who want to perpetuate the sham amateur system so they keep all the money.
(This post was last modified: 04-26-2021 12:46 PM by TripleA.)
04-26-2021 12:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 35,513
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1897
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #14
RE: NCAA lawsuit on payment of student-athletes in Supreme Court - - where will it lead?
(04-26-2021 12:44 PM)TripleA Wrote:  
(04-26-2021 10:17 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(04-26-2021 12:47 AM)TripleA Wrote:  
(04-25-2021 11:43 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(04-25-2021 10:44 PM)TripleA Wrote:  We usually agree. Not this time. The court isn't going to give either side a win. It will leave the NCAA with its amateur shell, while allowing NIL, which was won in court long ago, but the NCAA has been dragging its feet.

I think having the schools administer the pay will be an unmitigated disaster, b/c:

1. The NCAA screws up everything it touches.

2. It will allow the P5 to keep advantages wherever possible.

3. If schools pay, boosters will still pay under the table. Nothing will change. Schools with big boosters will have the advantage, as always.

Also, the idea that "the schools want an amateur league and are being told by the courts they cant have an amateur league" is laughable to me. The schools want an amateur league strictly so they can avoid paying players and keep all the profits themselves, as they always have, even though the players are the ones who actually create the revenue.

And until now, coaches could make big money and could move without penalty (while schools left behind got punished for their prior indiscretions), but players couldn't. The NIL ruling and the new transfer rule are to level that playing field, IMO.

If amateur college ball is a goal, then look to D2 or D3. An enterprise that generates billions a year in revenue is decidedly not amateur. Now we're just talking about who controls the money.

If everything you said is true---then how on earth could any court ever defend not giving the players full free agency and striking down the NCAA fake "amateur model"? Yet---even you dont think they will do that. So---clearly even you know there is more to it than the points you made.

All Im saying is if your going to effectively blow up the whole amateur model---then at least replace it with a professional NFL/NBA type model we know will work pretty well....not this idiotic NIL third party pay-for-play crap. When Phil Knight buys the Bama starting 24 to win a national championship for his Ducks---everyone will suddenly start crying about how the "sport is broken". lol...Ill just be laughing my butt off thinking---how could you guys NOT see this coming? That said--this train is rolling and Ive already mentioned it in multiple threads---NIL is starting in just few months whether the NCAA likes it not. Schools need to be figuring out how to organize their well heeled boosters to give NIL deals to key recruits. Schools need to be learning how to carefully aim their billionaire super-fans at recruiting targets like a cash fire hose. Those schools that arent getting ready for the new NIL era RIGHT NOW are going to be left behind by the schools that are getting ready to do those things---because its coming THIS SUMMER.

You are misreading my comment. The courts aren't going to throw the NCAA a bone b/c they think it's the right ruling. They're just not willing to completely tear it down yet. My guess is the courts give them admin power over payments as a consolation prize, and that will screw things up worse than you fear.

P.S. Do you actually think Phil Knight has not already been buying the Ducks every player they could get, for years now? Come on...

NIL isn't going to change much at the top. Those players have been getting paid by boosters since the 1960s. I see NIL as a good thing, b/c it will allow lesser players to receive some compensation commensurate with their talent, that they would not normally receive. There isn't going to be some giant influx of booster money that wasn't there before. Boosters who wanted to pay to play have been doing that forever. The difference will be NIL opportunities for more players not at the top rung of under the table payments.

You see it as the wild wild West. I see it as business as usual, but if the schools are put in charge, they will make it worse, and less equitable for non-P5 schools. Also, you make it sound like NIL is a booster payment, when in fact, it's compensation by any company for use of a player's name, image or likeness. Essentially ad money that the school previously kept for themselves. Boosters just funneling cash to players to go to a school will still be illegal, although enforcement may become more laughable than it already is.

I just don't see your doomsday scenario, or your angst over the poor NCAA not getting to run an amateur league, while they make billions for their own organization.

If you think that, then there is no way you have read the actual laws. With rare exception, most of the 19 states that have new NIL laws will bar any school, organization, or league from enforcing ANY restriction on player NIL earnings. In fairness—-a few states have included clauses that attempt to limit it to legit economically viable NIL deals, but they are going to find that personal appearance fees will be impossible to limit as the value of those fees reflect personal preference and vanity (the value is up to the eye of the beholder). That said, the vast majority of these new state NIL laws that have been passed bar leagues, schools, and organizations from making ANY restrictions on a players NIL earnings.

So yes, when legislators leave a loophole that large—of course boosters will use it. I mean—you’ve made the claim that wide spread funneling of money to players by boosters already exists despite it being illegal—if true—of course the funneling of money to players will explode when it’s actually legalized. Like I said earlier—schools that aren’t getting their boosters prepared and organized for this purpose will be left in the dust by schools that are organizing their boosters. The only way I see to limit NIL deals to legit NIL is to bar boosters from offering NIL. Since few of the state laws even attempt to do that---the only chance that might happen would be from the Feds. One federal proposal (the Gonzales bill) does make an attempt to do just that---but thats not the only bill vying for congressional support. Last I heard, Corey Booker's rival bill makes no attempt to control boosters---in fact--his proposal goes even beyond NIL. For instance---Booker's proposed legislation would require the conferences to share the TV revenue with the players.

Maybe they will eventually get it right and there will not be a wild west---but---this much is obvious. They arent going to get it right by this summer....so, at a minimum--its becoming increasing clear there is going to be a wild west free agency period that starts this summer.

Yes, I have read some of the laws. IMO, there should not be restrictions. This is where we disagree.

You seem to think it's some sort of disaster to let athletes earn money off their name, image or likeness. I say it's capitalism.

The idea that college sports is an amateur enterprise is ludicrous. The only thing amateur about it is the NCAA and universities have managed to keep all the revenue to themselves while operating under the guise of amateurism.

I agree with Jeb. Remove all the protections from the law, and tax the NCAA like any other business. And let entrepreneurs pay the players legally for their services.

For some reason, you seem to think this will result in a flood of outright booster payments to athletes. No, only the very best players, the "game changers" so to speak, usually get significant under the table payments. As I said, that won't change. There aren't an unlimited supply of boosters at each school throwing around hundreds of thousands, and that has been a thing forever.

What will change are businesses jumping in to pay players to do ads for them. You know who gets that money right now? The damn schools. They charge fees to businesses to license the university name or likeness. Now the players can do it themselves, and the businesses can bypass the universities.

And NIL will likely go much farther down the food chain than just the game changers, so it becomes more equitable for more players. You see this as some unmitigated disaster, I see it as righting a wrong that has been perpetuated for a century.

My concern is the courts won't carry it out completely, will devise some half ass measures b/c of the political clout of the universities, and it will be worse than ever.

But not because it's a murky legal decision, b/c it's a too harsh reality for the poor downtrodden universities who want to perpetuate the sham amateur system so they keep all the money.

What money? Most schools are transferring subsidies TO the athletic department to offset red ink. Just a handful of schools are transferring money FROM the athletic department to the schools. If the the amateur model is really just a devious scheme to "keep all the money"....lol...well, most schools are clearly doing it wrong.

That said, I dont care if the players share in the money. I dont care if the players get NIL. What I want is a system that makes sense. If you want the kids to be paid pro players---fine---then use a pro system. There should be multi-year contracts, team salary caps (for competitive balance), and a revenue sharing agreement between players and the schools. I just see no reason to reinvent the wheel. The NFL and NBA have the most successful leagues in the nation. There's your model.
(This post was last modified: 04-26-2021 03:29 PM by Attackcoog.)
04-26-2021 03:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TripleA Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 51,585
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 1974
I Root For: Memphis Tigers
Location:

Memphis Hall of Fame
Post: #15
RE: NCAA lawsuit on payment of student-athletes in Supreme Court - - where will it lead?
(04-26-2021 03:27 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(04-26-2021 12:44 PM)TripleA Wrote:  
(04-26-2021 10:17 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(04-26-2021 12:47 AM)TripleA Wrote:  
(04-25-2021 11:43 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  If everything you said is true---then how on earth could any court ever defend not giving the players full free agency and striking down the NCAA fake "amateur model"? Yet---even you dont think they will do that. So---clearly even you know there is more to it than the points you made.

All Im saying is if your going to effectively blow up the whole amateur model---then at least replace it with a professional NFL/NBA type model we know will work pretty well....not this idiotic NIL third party pay-for-play crap. When Phil Knight buys the Bama starting 24 to win a national championship for his Ducks---everyone will suddenly start crying about how the "sport is broken". lol...Ill just be laughing my butt off thinking---how could you guys NOT see this coming? That said--this train is rolling and Ive already mentioned it in multiple threads---NIL is starting in just few months whether the NCAA likes it not. Schools need to be figuring out how to organize their well heeled boosters to give NIL deals to key recruits. Schools need to be learning how to carefully aim their billionaire super-fans at recruiting targets like a cash fire hose. Those schools that arent getting ready for the new NIL era RIGHT NOW are going to be left behind by the schools that are getting ready to do those things---because its coming THIS SUMMER.

You are misreading my comment. The courts aren't going to throw the NCAA a bone b/c they think it's the right ruling. They're just not willing to completely tear it down yet. My guess is the courts give them admin power over payments as a consolation prize, and that will screw things up worse than you fear.

P.S. Do you actually think Phil Knight has not already been buying the Ducks every player they could get, for years now? Come on...

NIL isn't going to change much at the top. Those players have been getting paid by boosters since the 1960s. I see NIL as a good thing, b/c it will allow lesser players to receive some compensation commensurate with their talent, that they would not normally receive. There isn't going to be some giant influx of booster money that wasn't there before. Boosters who wanted to pay to play have been doing that forever. The difference will be NIL opportunities for more players not at the top rung of under the table payments.

You see it as the wild wild West. I see it as business as usual, but if the schools are put in charge, they will make it worse, and less equitable for non-P5 schools. Also, you make it sound like NIL is a booster payment, when in fact, it's compensation by any company for use of a player's name, image or likeness. Essentially ad money that the school previously kept for themselves. Boosters just funneling cash to players to go to a school will still be illegal, although enforcement may become more laughable than it already is.

I just don't see your doomsday scenario, or your angst over the poor NCAA not getting to run an amateur league, while they make billions for their own organization.

If you think that, then there is no way you have read the actual laws. With rare exception, most of the 19 states that have new NIL laws will bar any school, organization, or league from enforcing ANY restriction on player NIL earnings. In fairness—-a few states have included clauses that attempt to limit it to legit economically viable NIL deals, but they are going to find that personal appearance fees will be impossible to limit as the value of those fees reflect personal preference and vanity (the value is up to the eye of the beholder). That said, the vast majority of these new state NIL laws that have been passed bar leagues, schools, and organizations from making ANY restrictions on a players NIL earnings.

So yes, when legislators leave a loophole that large—of course boosters will use it. I mean—you’ve made the claim that wide spread funneling of money to players by boosters already exists despite it being illegal—if true—of course the funneling of money to players will explode when it’s actually legalized. Like I said earlier—schools that aren’t getting their boosters prepared and organized for this purpose will be left in the dust by schools that are organizing their boosters. The only way I see to limit NIL deals to legit NIL is to bar boosters from offering NIL. Since few of the state laws even attempt to do that---the only chance that might happen would be from the Feds. One federal proposal (the Gonzales bill) does make an attempt to do just that---but thats not the only bill vying for congressional support. Last I heard, Corey Booker's rival bill makes no attempt to control boosters---in fact--his proposal goes even beyond NIL. For instance---Booker's proposed legislation would require the conferences to share the TV revenue with the players.

Maybe they will eventually get it right and there will not be a wild west---but---this much is obvious. They arent going to get it right by this summer....so, at a minimum--its becoming increasing clear there is going to be a wild west free agency period that starts this summer.

Yes, I have read some of the laws. IMO, there should not be restrictions. This is where we disagree.

You seem to think it's some sort of disaster to let athletes earn money off their name, image or likeness. I say it's capitalism.

The idea that college sports is an amateur enterprise is ludicrous. The only thing amateur about it is the NCAA and universities have managed to keep all the revenue to themselves while operating under the guise of amateurism.

I agree with Jeb. Remove all the protections from the law, and tax the NCAA like any other business. And let entrepreneurs pay the players legally for their services.

For some reason, you seem to think this will result in a flood of outright booster payments to athletes. No, only the very best players, the "game changers" so to speak, usually get significant under the table payments. As I said, that won't change. There aren't an unlimited supply of boosters at each school throwing around hundreds of thousands, and that has been a thing forever.

What will change are businesses jumping in to pay players to do ads for them. You know who gets that money right now? The damn schools. They charge fees to businesses to license the university name or likeness. Now the players can do it themselves, and the businesses can bypass the universities.

And NIL will likely go much farther down the food chain than just the game changers, so it becomes more equitable for more players. You see this as some unmitigated disaster, I see it as righting a wrong that has been perpetuated for a century.

My concern is the courts won't carry it out completely, will devise some half ass measures b/c of the political clout of the universities, and it will be worse than ever.

But not because it's a murky legal decision, b/c it's a too harsh reality for the poor downtrodden universities who want to perpetuate the sham amateur system so they keep all the money.

What money? Most schools are transferring subsidies TO the athletic department to offset red ink. Just a handful of schools are transferring money FROM the athletic department to the schools. If the the amateur model is really just a devious scheme to "keep all the money"....lol...well, most schools are clearly doing it wrong.

That said, I dont care if the players share in the money. I dont care if the players get NIL. What I want is a system that makes sense. If you want the kids to be paid pro players---fine---then use a pro system. There should be multi-year contracts, team salary caps (for competitive balance), and a revenue sharing agreement between players and the schools. I just see no reason to reinvent the wheel. The NFL and NBA have the most successful leagues in the nation. There's your model.

You don't think P5 schools get lots of money? Not my fault most of them overspend, while the rest of us choke trying to keep up. Doesn't change the fact that billions are going somewhere, and not to the players.

I still don't understand why it bugs you for the players to make money off their own images. What makes sense to you? The NCAA administering it? Yeah, they do such a fine job with everything else.
04-26-2021 04:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 35,513
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1897
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #16
RE: NCAA lawsuit on payment of student-athletes in Supreme Court - - where will it lead?
(04-26-2021 04:58 PM)TripleA Wrote:  
(04-26-2021 03:27 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(04-26-2021 12:44 PM)TripleA Wrote:  
(04-26-2021 10:17 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(04-26-2021 12:47 AM)TripleA Wrote:  You are misreading my comment. The courts aren't going to throw the NCAA a bone b/c they think it's the right ruling. They're just not willing to completely tear it down yet. My guess is the courts give them admin power over payments as a consolation prize, and that will screw things up worse than you fear.

P.S. Do you actually think Phil Knight has not already been buying the Ducks every player they could get, for years now? Come on...

NIL isn't going to change much at the top. Those players have been getting paid by boosters since the 1960s. I see NIL as a good thing, b/c it will allow lesser players to receive some compensation commensurate with their talent, that they would not normally receive. There isn't going to be some giant influx of booster money that wasn't there before. Boosters who wanted to pay to play have been doing that forever. The difference will be NIL opportunities for more players not at the top rung of under the table payments.

You see it as the wild wild West. I see it as business as usual, but if the schools are put in charge, they will make it worse, and less equitable for non-P5 schools. Also, you make it sound like NIL is a booster payment, when in fact, it's compensation by any company for use of a player's name, image or likeness. Essentially ad money that the school previously kept for themselves. Boosters just funneling cash to players to go to a school will still be illegal, although enforcement may become more laughable than it already is.

I just don't see your doomsday scenario, or your angst over the poor NCAA not getting to run an amateur league, while they make billions for their own organization.

If you think that, then there is no way you have read the actual laws. With rare exception, most of the 19 states that have new NIL laws will bar any school, organization, or league from enforcing ANY restriction on player NIL earnings. In fairness—-a few states have included clauses that attempt to limit it to legit economically viable NIL deals, but they are going to find that personal appearance fees will be impossible to limit as the value of those fees reflect personal preference and vanity (the value is up to the eye of the beholder). That said, the vast majority of these new state NIL laws that have been passed bar leagues, schools, and organizations from making ANY restrictions on a players NIL earnings.

So yes, when legislators leave a loophole that large—of course boosters will use it. I mean—you’ve made the claim that wide spread funneling of money to players by boosters already exists despite it being illegal—if true—of course the funneling of money to players will explode when it’s actually legalized. Like I said earlier—schools that aren’t getting their boosters prepared and organized for this purpose will be left in the dust by schools that are organizing their boosters. The only way I see to limit NIL deals to legit NIL is to bar boosters from offering NIL. Since few of the state laws even attempt to do that---the only chance that might happen would be from the Feds. One federal proposal (the Gonzales bill) does make an attempt to do just that---but thats not the only bill vying for congressional support. Last I heard, Corey Booker's rival bill makes no attempt to control boosters---in fact--his proposal goes even beyond NIL. For instance---Booker's proposed legislation would require the conferences to share the TV revenue with the players.

Maybe they will eventually get it right and there will not be a wild west---but---this much is obvious. They arent going to get it right by this summer....so, at a minimum--its becoming increasing clear there is going to be a wild west free agency period that starts this summer.

Yes, I have read some of the laws. IMO, there should not be restrictions. This is where we disagree.

You seem to think it's some sort of disaster to let athletes earn money off their name, image or likeness. I say it's capitalism.

The idea that college sports is an amateur enterprise is ludicrous. The only thing amateur about it is the NCAA and universities have managed to keep all the revenue to themselves while operating under the guise of amateurism.

I agree with Jeb. Remove all the protections from the law, and tax the NCAA like any other business. And let entrepreneurs pay the players legally for their services.

For some reason, you seem to think this will result in a flood of outright booster payments to athletes. No, only the very best players, the "game changers" so to speak, usually get significant under the table payments. As I said, that won't change. There aren't an unlimited supply of boosters at each school throwing around hundreds of thousands, and that has been a thing forever.

What will change are businesses jumping in to pay players to do ads for them. You know who gets that money right now? The damn schools. They charge fees to businesses to license the university name or likeness. Now the players can do it themselves, and the businesses can bypass the universities.

And NIL will likely go much farther down the food chain than just the game changers, so it becomes more equitable for more players. You see this as some unmitigated disaster, I see it as righting a wrong that has been perpetuated for a century.

My concern is the courts won't carry it out completely, will devise some half ass measures b/c of the political clout of the universities, and it will be worse than ever.

But not because it's a murky legal decision, b/c it's a too harsh reality for the poor downtrodden universities who want to perpetuate the sham amateur system so they keep all the money.

What money? Most schools are transferring subsidies TO the athletic department to offset red ink. Just a handful of schools are transferring money FROM the athletic department to the schools. If the the amateur model is really just a devious scheme to "keep all the money"....lol...well, most schools are clearly doing it wrong.

That said, I dont care if the players share in the money. I dont care if the players get NIL. What I want is a system that makes sense. If you want the kids to be paid pro players---fine---then use a pro system. There should be multi-year contracts, team salary caps (for competitive balance), and a revenue sharing agreement between players and the schools. I just see no reason to reinvent the wheel. The NFL and NBA have the most successful leagues in the nation. There's your model.

You don't think P5 schools get lots of money? Not my fault most of them overspend, while the rest of us choke trying to keep up. Doesn't change the fact that billions are going somewhere, and not to the players.

I still don't understand why it bugs you for the players to make money off their own images. What makes sense to you? The NCAA administering it? Yeah, they do such a fine job with everything else.

lol, honestly---I just said in the last post I dont care if they are paid or if they get NIL. Im just saying--if your are going to pay them like pro players---then do it with a pro model that makes sense. Pros have methods of keeping some sense of competitive balance--primarily the draft and team salary caps. Cant have a draft---but a negotiated revenue split and a team salary cap makes sense. The teams would decide how much of their salary cap to give to any one player and how long a contract the player needs to sign to get it----the players would decide what offer they want to take---just like the pros. Its basically the same model the NFL and NBA use. lol...The NCAA just mails the checks. Even the NCAA cant screw that up.

The only way to make NIL viable is to get the boosters out of it. Define a booster very clearly and simply forbid ANY NIL from a booster to a player. It might work if you do that---but I havent seem a single state law that even attempts to do that....
(This post was last modified: 04-26-2021 06:20 PM by Attackcoog.)
04-26-2021 06:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
slhNavy91 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,153
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Navy
Location:
Post: #17
RE: NCAA lawsuit on payment of student-athletes in Supreme Court - - where will it lead?
(04-26-2021 06:13 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(04-26-2021 04:58 PM)TripleA Wrote:  
(04-26-2021 03:27 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(04-26-2021 12:44 PM)TripleA Wrote:  
(04-26-2021 10:17 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  If you think that, then there is no way you have read the actual laws. With rare exception, most of the 19 states that have new NIL laws will bar any school, organization, or league from enforcing ANY restriction on player NIL earnings. In fairness—-a few states have included clauses that attempt to limit it to legit economically viable NIL deals, but they are going to find that personal appearance fees will be impossible to limit as the value of those fees reflect personal preference and vanity (the value is up to the eye of the beholder). That said, the vast majority of these new state NIL laws that have been passed bar leagues, schools, and organizations from making ANY restrictions on a players NIL earnings.

So yes, when legislators leave a loophole that large—of course boosters will use it. I mean—you’ve made the claim that wide spread funneling of money to players by boosters already exists despite it being illegal—if true—of course the funneling of money to players will explode when it’s actually legalized. Like I said earlier—schools that aren’t getting their boosters prepared and organized for this purpose will be left in the dust by schools that are organizing their boosters. The only way I see to limit NIL deals to legit NIL is to bar boosters from offering NIL. Since few of the state laws even attempt to do that---the only chance that might happen would be from the Feds. One federal proposal (the Gonzales bill) does make an attempt to do just that---but thats not the only bill vying for congressional support. Last I heard, Corey Booker's rival bill makes no attempt to control boosters---in fact--his proposal goes even beyond NIL. For instance---Booker's proposed legislation would require the conferences to share the TV revenue with the players.

Maybe they will eventually get it right and there will not be a wild west---but---this much is obvious. They arent going to get it right by this summer....so, at a minimum--its becoming increasing clear there is going to be a wild west free agency period that starts this summer.

Yes, I have read some of the laws. IMO, there should not be restrictions. This is where we disagree.

You seem to think it's some sort of disaster to let athletes earn money off their name, image or likeness. I say it's capitalism.

The idea that college sports is an amateur enterprise is ludicrous. The only thing amateur about it is the NCAA and universities have managed to keep all the revenue to themselves while operating under the guise of amateurism.

I agree with Jeb. Remove all the protections from the law, and tax the NCAA like any other business. And let entrepreneurs pay the players legally for their services.

For some reason, you seem to think this will result in a flood of outright booster payments to athletes. No, only the very best players, the "game changers" so to speak, usually get significant under the table payments. As I said, that won't change. There aren't an unlimited supply of boosters at each school throwing around hundreds of thousands, and that has been a thing forever.

What will change are businesses jumping in to pay players to do ads for them. You know who gets that money right now? The damn schools. They charge fees to businesses to license the university name or likeness. Now the players can do it themselves, and the businesses can bypass the universities.

And NIL will likely go much farther down the food chain than just the game changers, so it becomes more equitable for more players. You see this as some unmitigated disaster, I see it as righting a wrong that has been perpetuated for a century.

My concern is the courts won't carry it out completely, will devise some half ass measures b/c of the political clout of the universities, and it will be worse than ever.

But not because it's a murky legal decision, b/c it's a too harsh reality for the poor downtrodden universities who want to perpetuate the sham amateur system so they keep all the money.

What money? Most schools are transferring subsidies TO the athletic department to offset red ink. Just a handful of schools are transferring money FROM the athletic department to the schools. If the the amateur model is really just a devious scheme to "keep all the money"....lol...well, most schools are clearly doing it wrong.

That said, I dont care if the players share in the money. I dont care if the players get NIL. What I want is a system that makes sense. If you want the kids to be paid pro players---fine---then use a pro system. There should be multi-year contracts, team salary caps (for competitive balance), and a revenue sharing agreement between players and the schools. I just see no reason to reinvent the wheel. The NFL and NBA have the most successful leagues in the nation. There's your model.

You don't think P5 schools get lots of money? Not my fault most of them overspend, while the rest of us choke trying to keep up. Doesn't change the fact that billions are going somewhere, and not to the players.

I still don't understand why it bugs you for the players to make money off their own images. What makes sense to you? The NCAA administering it? Yeah, they do such a fine job with everything else.


lol, honestly---I just said in the last post I dont care if they are paid or if they get NIL. Im just saying--if your are going to pay them like pro players---then do it with a pro model that makes sense. Pros have methods of keeping some sense of competitive balance--primarily the draft and team salary caps. Cant have a draft---but a negotiated revenue split and a team salary cap makes sense. The teams would decide how much of their salary cap to give to any one player and how long a contract the player needs to sign to get it----the players would decide what offer they want to take---just like the pros. Its basically the same model the NFL and NBA use. lol...The NCAA just mails the checks. Even the NCAA cant screw that up.

The only way to make NIL viable is to get the boosters out of it. Define a booster very clearly and simply forbid ANY NIL from a booster to a player. It might work if you do that---but I havent seem a single state law that even attempts to do that....

The NCAA definition of "booster" is:
Quote:Boosters, referred to by the NCAA as “representatives of the institution’s athletic interests,” include anyone who has:
-Provided a donation in order to obtain season tickets for any sport at the university.
-Participated in or has been a member of an organization promoting the university’s athletics programs.
-Made financial contributions to the athletic department or to a university booster organization.
-Arranged for or provided employment for enrolled student-athletes.
-Assisted or has been requested by university staff to assist in the recruitment of prospective student-athletes.
-Assisted in providing benefits to enrolled student athletes or their families.
-Been involved otherwise in promoting university athletics.

Once an individual is identified as a “representative of the institution’s athletics interests,” the person retains that identity forever.
https://www.ncaa.org/enforcement/role-boosters

The fourth and sixth bullet points say, to me, that anyone in the NIL game actually becomes a booster.

I expect to see
- NCAA keep schools from paying directly
- then the NCAA weaponizes bureaucracy -- for example creates some kind of "NIL Clearinghouse" with all kinds of paperwork and opaque rules, that any potential grantor of NIL $ has to be registered.
- and "retains that identity forever will probably still apply...so a local business who paid athletes for endorsements after jumping through all the hoops but after a couple years decides against it...could unknowingly and unknown to the school create a problem years later.

Nike, UA, and adidas have the lawyers and accountants to get through that, and will deliver on NIL payments. In general that means the rich will get richer. Outside of the bigs, guys and gals who get some buzz could be added to the rolls also, and good for them.
Maybe Big Ed's Car Lot in Collegetown can pay the local stars to be on his ads, and might go through the paperwork hassle.
Johnny Bigbucks, who more resembles the stereotype of "booster" may just decide to keep using his bagman.

The college's compliance teams will have to keep an eye on Johnny Bigbucks like they always have AND will have to track more legitimate endorsements etc as well. Again, the bigs do better because they can afford to hire more compliance personnel where smaller schools can't.
04-26-2021 07:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 35,513
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1897
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #18
RE: NCAA lawsuit on payment of student-athletes in Supreme Court - - where will it lead?
(04-26-2021 07:14 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  
(04-26-2021 06:13 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(04-26-2021 04:58 PM)TripleA Wrote:  
(04-26-2021 03:27 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(04-26-2021 12:44 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Yes, I have read some of the laws. IMO, there should not be restrictions. This is where we disagree.

You seem to think it's some sort of disaster to let athletes earn money off their name, image or likeness. I say it's capitalism.

The idea that college sports is an amateur enterprise is ludicrous. The only thing amateur about it is the NCAA and universities have managed to keep all the revenue to themselves while operating under the guise of amateurism.

I agree with Jeb. Remove all the protections from the law, and tax the NCAA like any other business. And let entrepreneurs pay the players legally for their services.

For some reason, you seem to think this will result in a flood of outright booster payments to athletes. No, only the very best players, the "game changers" so to speak, usually get significant under the table payments. As I said, that won't change. There aren't an unlimited supply of boosters at each school throwing around hundreds of thousands, and that has been a thing forever.

What will change are businesses jumping in to pay players to do ads for them. You know who gets that money right now? The damn schools. They charge fees to businesses to license the university name or likeness. Now the players can do it themselves, and the businesses can bypass the universities.

And NIL will likely go much farther down the food chain than just the game changers, so it becomes more equitable for more players. You see this as some unmitigated disaster, I see it as righting a wrong that has been perpetuated for a century.

My concern is the courts won't carry it out completely, will devise some half ass measures b/c of the political clout of the universities, and it will be worse than ever.

But not because it's a murky legal decision, b/c it's a too harsh reality for the poor downtrodden universities who want to perpetuate the sham amateur system so they keep all the money.

What money? Most schools are transferring subsidies TO the athletic department to offset red ink. Just a handful of schools are transferring money FROM the athletic department to the schools. If the the amateur model is really just a devious scheme to "keep all the money"....lol...well, most schools are clearly doing it wrong.

That said, I dont care if the players share in the money. I dont care if the players get NIL. What I want is a system that makes sense. If you want the kids to be paid pro players---fine---then use a pro system. There should be multi-year contracts, team salary caps (for competitive balance), and a revenue sharing agreement between players and the schools. I just see no reason to reinvent the wheel. The NFL and NBA have the most successful leagues in the nation. There's your model.

You don't think P5 schools get lots of money? Not my fault most of them overspend, while the rest of us choke trying to keep up. Doesn't change the fact that billions are going somewhere, and not to the players.

I still don't understand why it bugs you for the players to make money off their own images. What makes sense to you? The NCAA administering it? Yeah, they do such a fine job with everything else.


lol, honestly---I just said in the last post I dont care if they are paid or if they get NIL. Im just saying--if your are going to pay them like pro players---then do it with a pro model that makes sense. Pros have methods of keeping some sense of competitive balance--primarily the draft and team salary caps. Cant have a draft---but a negotiated revenue split and a team salary cap makes sense. The teams would decide how much of their salary cap to give to any one player and how long a contract the player needs to sign to get it----the players would decide what offer they want to take---just like the pros. Its basically the same model the NFL and NBA use. lol...The NCAA just mails the checks. Even the NCAA cant screw that up.

The only way to make NIL viable is to get the boosters out of it. Define a booster very clearly and simply forbid ANY NIL from a booster to a player. It might work if you do that---but I havent seem a single state law that even attempts to do that....

The NCAA definition of "booster" is:
Quote:Boosters, referred to by the NCAA as “representatives of the institution’s athletic interests,” include anyone who has:
-Provided a donation in order to obtain season tickets for any sport at the university.
-Participated in or has been a member of an organization promoting the university’s athletics programs.
-Made financial contributions to the athletic department or to a university booster organization.
-Arranged for or provided employment for enrolled student-athletes.
-Assisted or has been requested by university staff to assist in the recruitment of prospective student-athletes.
-Assisted in providing benefits to enrolled student athletes or their families.
-Been involved otherwise in promoting university athletics.

Once an individual is identified as a “representative of the institution’s athletics interests,” the person retains that identity forever.
https://www.ncaa.org/enforcement/role-boosters

The fourth and sixth bullet points say, to me, that anyone in the NIL game actually becomes a booster.

I expect to see
- NCAA keep schools from paying directly
- then the NCAA weaponizes bureaucracy -- for example creates some kind of "NIL Clearinghouse" with all kinds of paperwork and opaque rules, that any potential grantor of NIL $ has to be registered.
- and "retains that identity forever will probably still apply...so a local business who paid athletes for endorsements after jumping through all the hoops but after a couple years decides against it...could unknowingly and unknown to the school create a problem years later.

Nike, UA, and adidas have the lawyers and accountants to get through that, and will deliver on NIL payments. In general that means the rich will get richer. Outside of the bigs, guys and gals who get some buzz could be added to the rolls also, and good for them.
Maybe Big Ed's Car Lot in Collegetown can pay the local stars to be on his ads, and might go through the paperwork hassle.
Johnny Bigbucks, who more resembles the stereotype of "booster" may just decide to keep using his bagman.

The college's compliance teams will have to keep an eye on Johnny Bigbucks like they always have AND will have to track more legitimate endorsements etc as well. Again, the bigs do better because they can afford to hire more compliance personnel where smaller schools can't.

Correct. The issue with the laws being passed is they literally say that no school, league, or organization can bar or restrict in any way athlete NIL revenue. So any existing school, conference, or NCAA rule restricting anyone from paying student athletes NIL revenue is not only voided in those states—it will actually become illegal when these laws go into effect this summer. It will be illegal in 19 states over the next few years based on the states that have already passed NIL laws. The feds are working on a couple of national laws that would override the state laws (that could potentially create some states vs feds lawsuits where the laws differ in a way certain states decide they don’t like).
(This post was last modified: 04-27-2021 03:55 AM by Attackcoog.)
04-27-2021 03:46 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jedclampett Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,318
Joined: Jul 2019
Reputation: 145
I Root For: Temple
Location:
Post: #19
RE: NCAA lawsuit on payment of student-athletes in Supreme Court - - where will it lead?
(04-27-2021 03:46 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(04-26-2021 07:14 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  
(04-26-2021 06:13 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(04-26-2021 04:58 PM)TripleA Wrote:  
(04-26-2021 03:27 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  What money? Most schools are transferring subsidies TO the athletic department to offset red ink. Just a handful of schools are transferring money FROM the athletic department to the schools. If the the amateur model is really just a devious scheme to "keep all the money"....lol...well, most schools are clearly doing it wrong.

That said, I dont care if the players share in the money. I dont care if the players get NIL. What I want is a system that makes sense. If you want the kids to be paid pro players---fine---then use a pro system. There should be multi-year contracts, team salary caps (for competitive balance), and a revenue sharing agreement between players and the schools. I just see no reason to reinvent the wheel. The NFL and NBA have the most successful leagues in the nation. There's your model.

You don't think P5 schools get lots of money? Not my fault most of them overspend, while the rest of us choke trying to keep up. Doesn't change the fact that billions are going somewhere, and not to the players.

I still don't understand why it bugs you for the players to make money off their own images. What makes sense to you? The NCAA administering it? Yeah, they do such a fine job with everything else.


lol, honestly---I just said in the last post I dont care if they are paid or if they get NIL. Im just saying--if your are going to pay them like pro players---then do it with a pro model that makes sense. Pros have methods of keeping some sense of competitive balance--primarily the draft and team salary caps. Cant have a draft---but a negotiated revenue split and a team salary cap makes sense. The teams would decide how much of their salary cap to give to any one player and how long a contract the player needs to sign to get it----the players would decide what offer they want to take---just like the pros. Its basically the same model the NFL and NBA use. lol...The NCAA just mails the checks. Even the NCAA cant screw that up.

The only way to make NIL viable is to get the boosters out of it. Define a booster very clearly and simply forbid ANY NIL from a booster to a player. It might work if you do that---but I havent seem a single state law that even attempts to do that....

The NCAA definition of "booster" is:
Quote:Boosters, referred to by the NCAA as “representatives of the institution’s athletic interests,” include anyone who has:
-Provided a donation in order to obtain season tickets for any sport at the university.
-Participated in or has been a member of an organization promoting the university’s athletics programs.
-Made financial contributions to the athletic department or to a university booster organization.
-Arranged for or provided employment for enrolled student-athletes.
-Assisted or has been requested by university staff to assist in the recruitment of prospective student-athletes.
-Assisted in providing benefits to enrolled student athletes or their families.
-Been involved otherwise in promoting university athletics.

Once an individual is identified as a “representative of the institution’s athletics interests,” the person retains that identity forever.
https://www.ncaa.org/enforcement/role-boosters

The fourth and sixth bullet points say, to me, that anyone in the NIL game actually becomes a booster.

I expect to see
- NCAA keep schools from paying directly
- then the NCAA weaponizes bureaucracy -- for example creates some kind of "NIL Clearinghouse" with all kinds of paperwork and opaque rules, that any potential grantor of NIL $ has to be registered.
- and "retains that identity forever will probably still apply...so a local business who paid athletes for endorsements after jumping through all the hoops but after a couple years decides against it...could unknowingly and unknown to the school create a problem years later.

Nike, UA, and adidas have the lawyers and accountants to get through that, and will deliver on NIL payments. In general that means the rich will get richer. Outside of the bigs, guys and gals who get some buzz could be added to the rolls also, and good for them.
Maybe Big Ed's Car Lot in Collegetown can pay the local stars to be on his ads, and might go through the paperwork hassle.
Johnny Bigbucks, who more resembles the stereotype of "booster" may just decide to keep using his bagman.

The college's compliance teams will have to keep an eye on Johnny Bigbucks like they always have AND will have to track more legitimate endorsements etc as well. Again, the bigs do better because they can afford to hire more compliance personnel where smaller schools can't.

Correct. The issue with the laws being passed is they literally say that no school, league, or organization can bar or restrict in any way athlete NIL revenue. So any existing school, conference, or NCAA rule restricting anyone from paying student athletes NIL revenue is not only voided in those states—it will actually become illegal when these laws go into effect this summer. It will be illegal in 19 states over the next few years based on the states that have already passed NIL laws. The feds are working on a couple of national laws that would override the state laws (that could potentially create some states vs feds lawsuits where the laws differ in a way certain states decide they don’t like).

What's really pathetic about this pretense - this ridiculous charade - is that a very small number of college athletes will end up with 90%+ of the rewards, and the rest will be left out in the cold.

The vast majority of student-athletes won't end up ahead, and even the few that do cash in will only end up with a small amount of the proceeds.

Most of the proceeds will go to their agents, handlers, lawyers and financial consultants, and they'll end up just as far behind the 8-ball as they are currently, under the present system.

Just like almost everything else in this country, it will quickly devolve into a "rich-get-richer" type of scheme.

Anybody who thinks that this case is all about helping the student-athletes is kidding themselves!

.
(This post was last modified: 04-29-2021 05:12 PM by jedclampett.)
04-29-2021 05:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Meatwad Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,208
Joined: Mar 2005
Reputation: 22
I Root For: UCF
Location:
Post: #20
RE: NCAA lawsuit on payment of student-athletes in Supreme Court - - where will it lead?
yeah but everyone will get a taste some how. when you're being recruited money can be throw your way. when you're in the transfer portal, money can be thrown your way.
04-30-2021 10:42 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2021 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2021 MyBB Group.