Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Impact on NCAA
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,293
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 360
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #1
Impact on NCAA
SCOTS ruling on NCAA today....


Supreme Court Rejects NCAA’s Tight Limits on Athlete Benefits, Compensation


The court rules the NCAA violated antitrust law by limiting schools from competing for player talent by offering better benefits. This is the bellwether of the end of college sports as we once knew them. And, I think, is the beginning of the nails in the coffin for hope of Rice competition at a higher level.
06-21-2021 10:51 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


ExcitedOwl18 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,333
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 62
I Root For: Rice
Location: New York
Post: #2
RE: Impact on NCAA
(06-21-2021 10:51 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  SCOTS ruling on NCAA today....


Supreme Court Rejects NCAA’s Tight Limits on Athlete Benefits, Compensation


The court rules the NCAA violated antitrust law by limiting schools from competing for player talent by offering better benefits. This is the bellwether of the end of college sports as we once knew them. And, I think, is the beginning of the nails in the coffin for hope of Rice competition at a higher level.

This ruling on its own should actually play into Rice’s hands.. We should be able to offer better educational benefits-I.e. technology, internships, etc. than other universities.

BUT-as a bellwether for other rulings from the court-I agree it is not a positive.
06-21-2021 11:20 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
franklyconfused Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 517
Joined: Nov 2015
Reputation: 12
I Root For: Rice
Location: Houston
Post: #3
RE: Impact on NCAA
I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know the limits they put, but I'm curious how broadly this ruling would apply. Can an American professional team decide that they want to stop abiding by the league salary cap? If a team in an amateur community sports league decides that they want to start paying players, can they? Is it even possible to require amateurism at all, or is the ruling more "some compensation is already given, so less limited compensation must be allowed"?
06-21-2021 11:21 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,293
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 360
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #4
RE: Impact on NCAA
(06-21-2021 11:21 AM)franklyconfused Wrote:  I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know the limits they put, but I'm curious how broadly this ruling would apply. Can an American professional team decide that they want to stop abiding by the league salary cap? If a team in an amateur community sports league decides that they want to start paying players, can they? Is it even possible to require amateurism at all, or is the ruling more "some compensation is already given, so less limited compensation must be allowed"?

Some American professional leagues have explicit anti-trust exemptions --- most notably MLB.

But absent such exemption (read NFL, NBA), this is a gunshot that cannot be ignored in that sense.

Iirc, the NFL and NBA in the player association contracts with the respective unions, address this with a covenant not to sue. In the case where an impasse is reached, in this case the last NFL strike, the union voted to disband -- this kicked in the anti-trust actions by players against the league (including the suits on the resulting lockouts).

But where there is no 'player's union' (read the NCAA), this suit and result is a big deal.

My prediction -- the NCAA will split into two camps. One side will pay players and compete monetarily for them. (i.e. the true merge of minor league and 'school', so t speak). One will revert to the true ideal of amateur sports.

A couple of schools will be interesting to track in that big split -- ND, Stanford, Vandy, maybe Nothwestern. ND has had several people at the top say that they will not go down the pay to play route; but given their stature I truly wonder if that willbe the case.
06-21-2021 11:40 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
illiniowl Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,103
Joined: Dec 2006
Reputation: 68
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #5
RE: Impact on NCAA
I don't read the opinion as nearly so sweeping. The opinion preserves the NCAA's right to set limits on compensation "unrelated to education," i.e., athletic ability. In other words, the NCAA rule that says schools cannot pay athletes more than "full cost of attendance" remains valid.

The rule that does not stand is a rule that caps education-related benefits, "such as rules that limit scholarships for graduate or vocational school, payments for academic tutoring, or paid posteligibility internships." The NCAA also can "continue to limit cash awards for academic achievement—but only so long as those limits are no lower than the cash awards allowed for athletic achievement (currently $5,980 annually)." I hardly think these are significant inducements in the vast majority of cases.

So I think everything remains mostly status quo as far as schools paying kids. But the real money, of course, isn't in the schools, it's in the shoe/apparel companies and boosters. The rules on athletes being able to profit off their name/image/likeness are still being worked out and then will probably face legal challenges anyway.
06-21-2021 11:41 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,293
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 360
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #6
RE: Impact on NCAA
The impact hits the ability of third parties to pay athletes. The age old issue isn't one of university payments --- it has historically been of booster payments and booster jobs.

That aspect of enforcement is now ostensibly off the table in my reading. What has always been a dirty hidden secret now becomes open and above the table as being unpunishable.

The true glory of the Tide boosters and USC boosters can now be viewed openly for what they can muster to bring to the table.

And the power of the NCAA to regulate this diminishes under the underlying implications of this ruling.
(This post was last modified: 06-21-2021 12:13 PM by tanqtonic.)
06-21-2021 12:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


illiniowl Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,103
Joined: Dec 2006
Reputation: 68
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #7
RE: Impact on NCAA
(06-21-2021 12:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The impact hits the ability of third parties to pay athletes. The age old issue isn't one of university payments --- it has historically been of booster payments and booster jobs.

That aspect of enforcement is now ostensibly off the table in my reading. What has always been a dirty hidden secret now becomes open and above the table as being unpunishable.

The true glory of the Tide boosters and USC boosters can now be viewed openly for what they can muster to bring to the table.

And the power of the NCAA to regulate this diminishes under the underlying implications of this ruling.

From pp. 32-34 of the opinion (all citations omitted):

Fear #1:
Quote: First, the NCAA worries about the district court’s inclusion of paid posteligibility internships among the education-related benefits it approved. The NCAA fears that schools will use internships as a way of circumventing limits on payments that student-athletes may receive for athletic performance. The NCAA even imagines that boosters might promise posteligibility internships “at a sneaker company or auto dealership” with extravagant salaries as a “thinly disguised vehicle” for paying professional-level salaries.

Reality #1:
Quote: The district court enjoined only restrictions on education-related compensation or benefits “that may be made available from conferences or schools.” Accordingly, as the student-athletes concede, the injunction “does not stop the NCAA from continuing to prohibit compensation from” sneaker companies, auto dealerships, boosters, “or anyone else.” The NCAA itself seems to understand this much. Following the district court’s injunction, the organization adopted new regulations specifying that only “a conference or institution” may fund post-eligibility internships. Even when it comes to internships offered by conferences and schools, the district court left the NCAA considerable flexibility. The court refused to enjoin NCAA rules prohibiting its members from providing compensation or benefits unrelated to legitimate educational activities—thus leaving the league room to police phony internships.

Fear #2:
Quote: Second, the NCAA attacks the district court’s ruling that it may fix the aggregate limit on awards schools may give for “academic or graduation” achievement no lower than its aggregate limit on parallel athletic awards (currently $5,980 per year). The NCAA says the district court’s decree would allow a school to pay players thousands of dollars each year for minimal achievements like maintaining a passing GPA.

Reality #2:
Quote: The district court’s injunction ... leaves the NCAA free to reduce its athletic awards. And it does not ordain what criteria schools must use for their academic and graduation awards. So, once more, if the NCAA believes certain criteria are needed to ensure that academic awards are legitimately related to education, it is presently free to propose such rules—and individual conferences may adopt even stricter ones.

Fear #3:
Quote: Third, the NCAA contends that allowing schools to provide in-kind educational benefits will pose a problem. This relief focuses on allowing schools to offer scholarships for “graduate degrees” or “vocational school” and to pay for things like “computers” and “tutoring.” The NCAA fears schools might exploit this authority to give student-athletes “‘luxury cars’” “to get to class” and “other unnecessary or inordinately valuable items” only “nominally” related to education.

Reality #3:
Quote: The NCAA is free to forbid in-kind benefits unrelated to a student’s actual education; nothing stops it from enforcing a “no Lamborghini” rule.

Tanq, I do agree with you that there is a major storm on the horizon, I just don't think this 9-0 case is it. This case is limited to what schools (and conferences) themselves can provide athletes, which they weren't really falling all over themselves to do anyway.

The ability to sell one's name/image/likeness is the real Pandora's Box, which opens the door to recruits doodling their names on cocktail napkins and "selling" them to boosters and/or Nike/Adidas/UnderArmour. Today's case wasn't about that issue (except perhaps to the extent the NCAA was denied its sought-after Hail-Mary, blank-check, baseball-equivalent antitrust exemption, which was never going to happen).
(This post was last modified: 06-21-2021 12:51 PM by illiniowl.)
06-21-2021 12:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,293
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 360
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #8
RE: Impact on NCAA
But when you read the Kvanaugh concurrence --- at least in my mind you see the way it will follow;

"The NCAA's business model would be flatly illegal in almost any other industry in America, nowhere else in America can businesses get away with agreeing not to pay their workers a fair market rate on the theory that their product is defined by not paying their workers a fair market rate."

And the ruling itself really smacks the anti-trust implications of control of the issue by the NCAA. I think what you have here is a 21st century equivalent of NCAA v Oklahoma, where the SCOTUS ruling on the anti-trust reach of the organization in the end had the TV landscape changed forever.

You are correct that *this* narrow ruling isnt the deat knell. But, I can hear the dirges playing in the text of decision and in the concurrence.
(This post was last modified: 06-21-2021 05:20 PM by tanqtonic.)
06-21-2021 05:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fort Bend Owl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 25,770
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 378
I Root For: An easy win
Location:

The Parliament Awards
Post: #9
RE: Impact on NCAA
I could see some advantages to a school like Rice that plays in a large city with a lot of young athletic fans - but probably mostly for the 'non-revenue' sports that have a lot of participants at the youth levels. Sports like volleyball and soccer come to mind. What's to stop someone like Nicole Lennon selling t-shirts ("I'm a Lennon Sister" - although no one under the age of 60 even knows who the Lennon Sisters are/were) in their likeness. Bella Kilgore would be another one who could probably make a few bucks.

It would probably require a star athlete at Rice with a big following who plays in a popular sport. But it's just as likely to happen at Rice as it would be for most SEC schools in any sport outside of football or maybe baseball. And it would require the full fan experience once again, so this past athletic year isn't the best example.
06-22-2021 07:02 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Musicowl1965 Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 263
Joined: Aug 2017
Reputation: 11
I Root For: Rice
Location:
Post: #10
RE: Impact on NCAA
This could have sweeping implications for MLB's anti-trust exemption as well. I believe that exemption will be nullified in the coming years. It's frankly almost criminal how these PROFESSIONAL baseball players are compensated for the hours spent on the job. If you do the math it comes to about $2.75/hr. How that has been allowed to continue is beyond me. Conditions are improving but I think that is in response to rulings like this that might threaten the exemption. Owners can say, "look we're improving conditions" etc. while still paying them less than what they could earn at McDonalds.
06-22-2021 10:57 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Houston Owl 2 Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 132
Joined: Oct 2019
Reputation: 10
I Root For: Rice
Location:
Post: #11
RE: Impact on NCAA
The problem with NIL payments (as I understand it) is that it can become non-economic in nature.

For example, the coach at (for example SMU) really likes an offensive lineman in Laramie, WY. He has a car dealer in Plano that is "ready to help". All of a sudden the car dealer in Plano needs to advertise in Laramie, WY and is willing to pay $25K a year to the lineman...the payment has no real economic benefit to the car dealer but he is ready to support the program. let the bidding war begin.
06-22-2021 11:58 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


illiniowl Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,103
Joined: Dec 2006
Reputation: 68
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #12
RE: Impact on NCAA
(06-22-2021 07:02 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I could see some advantages to a school like Rice that plays in a large city with a lot of young athletic fans - but probably mostly for the 'non-revenue' sports that have a lot of participants at the youth levels. Sports like volleyball and soccer come to mind. What's to stop someone like Nicole Lennon selling t-shirts ("I'm a Lennon Sister" - although no one under the age of 60 even knows who the Lennon Sisters are/were) in their likeness. Bella Kilgore would be another one who could probably make a few bucks.

It would probably require a star athlete at Rice with a big following who plays in a popular sport. But it's just as likely to happen at Rice as it would be for most SEC schools in any sport outside of football or maybe baseball. And it would require the full fan experience once again, so this past athletic year isn't the best example.

When I think of athletes monetizing their NILs, I think of 2 basic ways: legitimate, as in a kid making up t-shirts and selling them to fans, like in your example; and pretextual, where a booster pays a kid for his/her picture or signature but it's really pay for play (either to induce the kid to come to the school or as an ongoing extra benefit once they're in school).

I'm sure some Rice athletes will be able to monetize their NILs in either fashion but I fail to see how that will ever be an advantage for Rice vs. other schools in recruiting & retaining athletes. The selling opportunities will always be greater at larger and/or more sports-friendly schools.
06-22-2021 02:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hambone10 Offline
Hooter
*

Posts: 35,729
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 981
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #13
RE: Impact on NCAA
The NCAA NEEDS to take this opportunity to split football into the D-league/minors vs college sports as in basketball and baseball. They likely won't because of the money involved, but basketball shows you can still make lots of money.

They won't do it.

They should do it
06-22-2021 03:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,297
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 749
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #14
RE: Impact on NCAA
(06-22-2021 03:58 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  The NCAA NEEDS to take this opportunity to split football into the D-league/minors vs college sports as in basketball and baseball. They likely won't because of the money involved, but basketball shows you can still make lots of money.

They won't do it.

They should do it

If athletes are to get paid they can damn well pay their own tuition.
06-22-2021 04:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Musicowl1965 Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 263
Joined: Aug 2017
Reputation: 11
I Root For: Rice
Location:
Post: #15
RE: Impact on NCAA
(06-22-2021 04:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(06-22-2021 03:58 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  The NCAA NEEDS to take this opportunity to split football into the D-league/minors vs college sports as in basketball and baseball. They likely won't because of the money involved, but basketball shows you can still make lots of money.

They won't do it.

They should do it

If athletes are to get paid they can damn well pay their own tuition.

With the way tuition is vastly outpacing inflation (not even close btw) then they better get paid a "damn lot of money"!!!
06-22-2021 05:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,297
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 749
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #16
RE: Impact on NCAA
(06-22-2021 05:00 PM)Musicowl1965 Wrote:  
(06-22-2021 04:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(06-22-2021 03:58 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  The NCAA NEEDS to take this opportunity to split football into the D-league/minors vs college sports as in basketball and baseball. They likely won't because of the money involved, but basketball shows you can still make lots of money.

They won't do it.

They should do it

If athletes are to get paid they can damn well pay their own tuition.

With the way tuition is vastly outpacing inflation (not even close btw) then they better get paid a "damn lot of money"!!!

Currently it's a $60K part time job for doing something most of them would do anyway. I just don't think they should have it both ways.


I think the NCAA will break into a "money" league and a "scholarship league".
06-22-2021 05:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Tomball Owl Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,731
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 58
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: Comal County
Post: #17
RE: Impact on NCAA
(06-22-2021 05:03 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(06-22-2021 05:00 PM)Musicowl1965 Wrote:  
(06-22-2021 04:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(06-22-2021 03:58 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  The NCAA NEEDS to take this opportunity to split football into the D-league/minors vs college sports as in basketball and baseball. They likely won't because of the money involved, but basketball shows you can still make lots of money.

They won't do it.

They should do it

If athletes are to get paid they can damn well pay their own tuition.

With the way tuition is vastly outpacing inflation (not even close btw) then they better get paid a "damn lot of money"!!!

Currently it's a $60K part time job for doing something most of them would do anyway. I just don't think they should have it both ways.


I think the NCAA will break into a "money" league and a "scholarship league".

That would be nice in theory, but how long before the scholarship league players want to get “paid”? I’d give it less than a few days. And I don’t see how the NCAA could say no after this ruling.
06-22-2021 05:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,293
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 360
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #18
RE: Impact on NCAA
(06-22-2021 05:52 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  
(06-22-2021 05:03 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(06-22-2021 05:00 PM)Musicowl1965 Wrote:  
(06-22-2021 04:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(06-22-2021 03:58 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  The NCAA NEEDS to take this opportunity to split football into the D-league/minors vs college sports as in basketball and baseball. They likely won't because of the money involved, but basketball shows you can still make lots of money.

They won't do it.

They should do it

If athletes are to get paid they can damn well pay their own tuition.

With the way tuition is vastly outpacing inflation (not even close btw) then they better get paid a "damn lot of money"!!!

Currently it's a $60K part time job for doing something most of them would do anyway. I just don't think they should have it both ways.


I think the NCAA will break into a "money" league and a "scholarship league".

That would be nice in theory, but how long before the scholarship league players want to get “paid”? I’d give it less than a few days. And I don’t see how the NCAA could say no after this ruling.

Then they have the option of showing their chops as a 'paid' player. I agree with Ham -- there will ba a 'paid' league and an 'education' league in the long run.

If the athletes want to be paid, they can earn their way into the 'paid' league.
06-22-2021 06:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,297
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 749
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #19
RE: Impact on NCAA
(06-22-2021 06:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(06-22-2021 05:52 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  
(06-22-2021 05:03 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(06-22-2021 05:00 PM)Musicowl1965 Wrote:  
(06-22-2021 04:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  If athletes are to get paid they can damn well pay their own tuition.

With the way tuition is vastly outpacing inflation (not even close btw) then they better get paid a "damn lot of money"!!!

Currently it's a $60K part time job for doing something most of them would do anyway. I just don't think they should have it both ways.


I think the NCAA will break into a "money" league and a "scholarship league".

That would be nice in theory, but how long before the scholarship league players want to get “paid”? I’d give it less than a few days. And I don’t see how the NCAA could say no after this ruling.

Then they have the option of showing their chops as a 'paid' player. I agree with Ham -- there will ba a 'paid' league and an 'education' league in the long run.

If the athletes want to be paid, they can earn their way into the 'paid' league.

Same as now - prove yourself in the lower league, transfer up.
06-22-2021 07:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,293
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 360
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #20
RE: Impact on NCAA
(06-22-2021 07:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(06-22-2021 06:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(06-22-2021 05:52 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  
(06-22-2021 05:03 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(06-22-2021 05:00 PM)Musicowl1965 Wrote:  With the way tuition is vastly outpacing inflation (not even close btw) then they better get paid a "damn lot of money"!!!

Currently it's a $60K part time job for doing something most of them would do anyway. I just don't think they should have it both ways.


I think the NCAA will break into a "money" league and a "scholarship league".

That would be nice in theory, but how long before the scholarship league players want to get “paid”? I’d give it less than a few days. And I don’t see how the NCAA could say no after this ruling.

Then they have the option of showing their chops as a 'paid' player. I agree with Ham -- there will ba a 'paid' league and an 'education' league in the long run.

If the athletes want to be paid, they can earn their way into the 'paid' league.

Same as now - prove yourself in the lower league, transfer up.

exactly -- but get paid (legally) on the transfer up.
06-22-2021 07:56 PM
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.