Tiger Board Logo

Donor's Den General Leaderboards TNET coins™ POTD Hall of Fame Map FAQ
GIVE AN AWARD
Use your TNET coins™ to grant this post a special award!

W
50
Big Brain
90
Love it!
100
Cheers
100
Helpful
100
Made Me Smile
100
Great Idea!
150
Mind Blown
150
Caring
200
Flammable
200
Hear ye, hear ye
200
Bravo
250
Nom Nom Nom
250
Take My Coins
500
Ooo, Shiny!
700
Treasured Post!
1000

YOUR BALANCE
TNET: Supreme Court rules unanimously against NCAA, criticizes its amateurism model
storage This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.
Archives - Tiger Boards Archive
add New Topic
Replies: 69
| visibility 1

TNET: Supreme Court rules unanimously against NCAA, criticizes its amateurism model


Jun 21, 2021, 10:48 AM

 
Supreme Court rules unanimously against NCAA, criticizes its amateurism model

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously against the NCAA in the amateurism case of NCAA v. Alston on Monday. The ramifications of the case were one of the factors involved in the process for the new Name, Image and Likeness rules to come. The Monday decision release did not directly rule on that, b (Photo: Charles Nye / USATODAY) Read Update »


flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: TNET: Supreme Court rules unanimously against NCAA, criticizes its amateurism model


Jun 21, 2021, 11:02 AM

Back to the ol drawing board

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I can't argue with the ruling.


Jun 21, 2021, 11:13 AM

College football and men's basketball players absolutely make a ton of money for their schools. I don't like these changes, but I must acknowledge that the days of purity and innocence in big time college athletics are behind us. Honestly, they have been gone a long time.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

"All those 'Fire Brownell' guys can kiss it." -Joseph Girard III

"Everybody needs to know that Coach Brownell is arguably the best coach to come through Clemson." -PJ Hall


Re: I can't argue with the ruling.


Jun 21, 2021, 11:17 AM

After reading the SCOTUS opinion, it looks like the "days of purity and innocence" never actually existed. As with most things in life, it looks like the mythology never really aligned with the reality.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: I can't argue with the ruling.


Jun 21, 2021, 12:38 PM

That’s actually not true. If you go back to the 70s and even the 80s there were only a handful of college football games on TV in any given weekend. It wasn’t until widespread cable TV and the growth and popularity of ESPN in the 1990s and early 2000s when huge amounts of money started flowing into college athletics. Schools and athletic departments we’re not making tons of money off of sports until rather recently. Really only the last 20 years!


Message was edited by: Lowcntry_Tiger®


flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: I can't argue with the ruling.


Jun 21, 2021, 1:36 PM

Players were still getting paid prior to the explosion of TV money.

I suggest you read the opinion of the court. It documents the "complicated relationship with sports and money" that American colleges and universities have had from the beginning.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: I can't argue with the ruling.


Jun 21, 2021, 10:14 PM

I’m sorry but that’s just nonsense. Back in the 1980s when I was at Clemson there were only a few games on TV. There wasn’t a ton of money in college athletics back then. Jervey used to hold the entire athletic department for Clemson University. Think about that. We used to have way more sports and all of that was in one little small building.

There was no money back in the 60s and 70s. There is no money back in the 30s 40s and 50s. And regardless of what they say the reality is college athletes really are still amateurs and they are student athletes. Because the vast overwhelming majority of college athletes are never gonna play professional. A small small small percentage of basketball players. And 2% or less of football players.

Nobody cared about this until the money started getting big in the 90s and early 2000s.

Richardson, that used to own the Carolina Panthers, he quit playing professional football for the Baltimore Colts back in the 60s because he was making either four or $5000 and he asked for a $1000 raise and they said no. He quit playing pro football in the 60s because of $1000. Pro athletes back then used to have jobs during the off-season. And that was professional sports! So you’re gonna tell me going back throughout the entire history of college sports it was a business and about money? It takes a pretty special kind of stupid to believe that!

Just because a supreme court justice says it doesn’t make it so. The Supreme Court has made many very controversial decisions that went against precedent and against what liberal and conservative legal scholars thought would happened in the attempt to be political or to avoid looking political. The Supreme Court is political just like all other forms of politics and government. If you don’t know that you need to get your head out of your ### or out the sand or wherever you have it.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: I can't argue with the ruling.


Jun 21, 2021, 10:47 PM

You're really just proving my point here. You've bought in 100% on the mythology despite all the actual evidence to the contrary. Read the opinion. It's well sourced.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

So?***


Jun 21, 2021, 12:33 PM [ in reply to I can't argue with the ruling. ]



2024 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Geville Tiger on Clemson football , "Dabo's only problem is he has to deal with turd fans questioning every move he makes.”


The NCAA strong armed for too long and they're now left laying in their own dung.


Jun 21, 2021, 12:44 PM [ in reply to I can't argue with the ruling. ]

This should have been taken up years ago. The NCAA thought that the courts would always side with them because the courts had always sided with them. Now they're left scrambling. The only thing to do is scrap the NCAA and draw up a new governing body from the ground up. They created this monster by their own hand. New NIL laws will benefit the schools whose homestates jumped out in front but that will oniy last a couple of years. Soon enough they'll have a salary cap and move to a smaller roster with scout team players that are not allowed to play if they are on a scout team contract. The Portal already created an unrestricted free-agent system. You can say bye-bye to the good old days of mid-major schools having a chance to win any meaningful championship. Schools with big donors and big pockets will rule all more than they already do.

Its so sad when you see something you love, destroy itself. Goes right along with whats happening to this country. Its like watching an addict go from Tylenol 3 to Percocet to Oxycontin to heroine to the grave.

military_donation.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

The End


Jun 21, 2021, 11:15 AM

The beginning of the end of college sports.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Not the same as NIL


Jun 21, 2021, 11:18 AM

This shouldn't be confused with NIL, albeit this does help NIL move forward.

What this ruling was always about was student athletes only being able to be compensated for the value of their scholarship (that value is vastly more in some places than others).

It means colleges will no longer be restricted on their scholarship amount for what they can help provide the student part in particular-----that's the outlier (i.e., it's not about NIL specifically or giving any players more money including stipends).

From tutors to computers, post-grad scholarships, internships, study abroad programs, et al., anything that CAN help a student's education is now allowed rather than capped at a market value.

I think it's kinda silly this hasn't been changed before when you think about it but this change only happened BECAUSE former players fought for it & got it all the way to the Supreme Court.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Not the same as NIL


Jun 21, 2021, 11:21 AM

Correct, but Kavanaugh's last line from his concurring opinion doesn't bode well for the future:

"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 under ordinary principles
of antitrust law, it is not evident why college sports should
be any different. The NCAA is not above the law."

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Not the same as NIL


Jun 21, 2021, 12:42 PM

It does bode well for the future; it fixes a rights issue from the past.

Kavanaugh's statement mentions how the notion of making billions off people making zero isn't fair just because it's tradition.

And again, this is about FAIR compensation, rather than about some elite players making piles of cash from endorsements; it's about giving more than room & board with a scholarship.

Clemson already does this (& obviously they're not alone). From putt-putt courses to slides to trips & computers & tutors, shoes & clothes, et al., but now the Supreme Court says they CAN'T be limited to only the market value of a Clemson scholarship.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Not the same as NIL


Jun 21, 2021, 1:39 PM

I actually agree with you.


What I meant to say was that the ruling doesn't bode well for the NCAA's monopoly on the labor of college athletes.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Not the same as NIL


Jun 21, 2021, 3:50 PM [ in reply to Re: Not the same as NIL ]

This is a well deserved slap in the face for all those people that think the "cost" of a scholarship is enough compensation when the schools are the ones that largely make up what the "cost" is. Just because a school tells you the cost of a scholarship is $20,000 for a year, doesn't mean that it costs the school $20,000 to provide one to a student.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Not the same as NIL


Jun 21, 2021, 5:44 PM

Clemson University doesn’t provide athletic scholarships. HTH

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: TNET: Supreme Court rules unanimously against NCAA, criticizes its amateurism model


Jun 21, 2021, 11:28 AM

Well, the supreme court may have just killed college athletics. If they were just talking about football, maybe there would be a way for players to be compensated beyond their scholarship. However, the part of the opinion that I read did not even mention that as a form of compensation. But what about the 80 women on the rowing team, or the softball team, soccer team, etc. Will each athlete in a different sport be compensated differently. How will that work. I'm not sure that with the Title 9 requirements that many schools will be able to stay in the sports business.

military_donation.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I don't know how all of that would work, but i don't believe


Jun 21, 2021, 11:58 AM

Title IX would ensure equal compensation to all athletes if NCAA sports essentially become professional. At least, not in it's current form.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Title 9 will likely be challenged now.


Jun 21, 2021, 12:37 PM

If the premise is that all will/can be 'paid', Title 9 will likely also be challenged and at least modified.

Companies pay folks different salaries for the 'same' job.

Lacrosse players (male or female) will not make as much as football players, instead of scholarships it becomes "pay"....lax players (as an example) will get just enough to pay tuition/room/board ... football and basketball will be paid more.

NCAA is going to have to re-invent itself.

badge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

There's no such thing as a stupid question, just stupid people who ask questions.


Yeah, that's what I'm thinking as well***


Jun 21, 2021, 9:02 PM



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: TNET: Supreme Court rules unanimously against NCAA, criticizes its amateurism model


Jun 21, 2021, 12:02 PM [ in reply to Re: TNET: Supreme Court rules unanimously against NCAA, criticizes its amateurism model ]

^^^ Gets It ^^^
Tons of questions arise from this ruling. One for me is not only @tigerlinks opine on title 9, but how does a coastal carolina compete with Clemson, and how does Clemson compete with a Texas A & M who has a very large endowment.

Perhaps I'm looking at it wrong but imo, this would be comparable to saying all migrant workers must be paid $15 bucks an hour and have benefits such as health care, dental etc. Business is going to make money so who ultimately pays the price.

2024 orange level member flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Re: TNET: Supreme Court rules unanimously against NCAA, criticizes its amateurism model


Jun 21, 2021, 12:49 PM

I see what you're saying; some schools have vastly more money than others, like Texas A&M over Clemson.

That's not where this is coming from, though, I think is part of the confusion.


Today, a school is limited by the value of its scholarship. Harvard should have the best football program by that standard.

This is just about eliminating that. Football makes Clemson more money than likely anything else. For decades now Clemson has been giving back what it can, from putt-putt courses to barbers to tutors & food on top of room-and-board plus their scholarship.

That's not to say the richer programs won't have benefits, but it's not as simple as just reaching into a university's wallet; now they can reach outside of it, and if there's one thing Clemson has shown they can do better than anyone else it's with getting value from outside its own walls, so to speak.

In other words, creativity, smarts & brand allegiance will be more valuable here than a larger endowment. It means Clemson can compete with billionaires better than ever before.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: TNET: Supreme Court rules unanimously against NCAA, criticizes its amateurism model


Jun 21, 2021, 3:19 PM

Thank you.

2024 orange level member flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Re: TNET: Supreme Court rules unanimously against NCAA, criticizes its amateurism model


Jun 21, 2021, 3:56 PM [ in reply to Re: TNET: Supreme Court rules unanimously against NCAA, criticizes its amateurism model ]


Well, the supreme court may have just killed college athletics. If they were just talking about football, maybe there would be a way for players to be compensated beyond their scholarship. However, the part of the opinion that I read did not even mention that as a form of compensation. But what about the 80 women on the rowing team, or the softball team, soccer team, etc. Will each athlete in a different sport be compensated differently. How will that work. I'm not sure that with the Title 9 requirements that many schools will be able to stay in the sports business.




The US Supreme Court opinion referenced the amount of money that is brought in by college athletics. The women's rowing team isn't bringing in any money. You don't think those non-revenue generating sports athletes already feel they don't get the same love as football, basketball, and in some cases baseball players get? What are they going to do, decline a scholarship on principle now? Take it to court? On what basis? Doesn't Title 9 only cover number of sports offered, not compensation?

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

9-0 SCOTUS to the NCAA: You must adapt to the 21st century


Jun 21, 2021, 11:33 AM

That is the bottom line.

Obscene profits must be shared with those generating them. How can a reasonable American citizen argue against that? This is a serious question. I challenge anyone here.

I also have popcorn to share so we can watch this play out together.

Will the NFL draft age minimum (must be 3 years of of high school) go down in flames too?

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I would agree with Dabo's idea...


Jun 21, 2021, 11:48 AM

If this is how its viewed then all scholarships and aid end today. Pay everyone a salary, let them pay their own tuition, living expenses, food, etc. Kids have to pay taxes and manage that process just like many of their classmates.

Its not a simple process and it'll be interesting to see how it plays out over the next 5 years. One thing you can be certain of...the system will still be 'played' and corruption will find it way to play a part.

I dont think the NFL will change though as its the NFL's rule, not the NCAA (I think).

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

No school is dumb enough to end scholarships


Jun 21, 2021, 12:11 PM

because it would kill their athletic programs unless everyone eliminated them. Fat chance.

The system is already corrupt and unfair. Only thing changing is (more) athletes will now benefit from the corruption instead of just institutions, coaches and others.

The NFL and NFLPA won't change the system because they both like it. SCOTUS might because they don't give a care about the status quo. Anyone here remember USC receiver Mike Williams challenge of the draft back in 2004? The current SCOTUS might support him.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

It means more scholarships than ever


Jun 21, 2021, 12:52 PM

While it doesn't (er, can't) change the number of FOOTBALL scholarships, for example, what it can do is provide new scholarships to players including graduates for things like PhD's.

It may mean a walk-on like Hunter Renfrow can also get a different scholarship, or a new source of aid, or the same benefits as the other players making the money for Clemson & the NCAA.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I guess you still need scholarships to make


Jun 21, 2021, 3:10 PM [ in reply to No school is dumb enough to end scholarships ]

sure teams have an equal share of quality players, so tp speak, but SCOTUS just said just said amateurism doesn't exist wihtin the NCAAs model. So, the scholarship is now 100% useless unless it serves as an allocation of expenses per player...essentially each guy gets a worth of $50,000 with $25,000 going to tuition and $25,000 his "wages" for being on the team. Thats all Dabo was saying...if its a job then lets go, do it just like its your regular job...everything applies as it would to you or I.

Yes, the NCAA is corrupt and unfair in how they govern, but it will only get worse. You are telling multi-million dollar businesses (school athletic departments) and those who partner with them (alumni, sponsors, etc.) that it is ok to compensate kids....you get where Im going with this...it'll become a bid war on the upper echelon of kids in recruiting. Then lets not forget that its gonna be very unfair to see certain male athletes in certain sports make the big bucks....since it becomes a private affair and players essentially become employees, athletic programs now become subject to the same workplace challenges with "fairness". Has ot be equity in there somewhere and you know lawsuits will follow.

No idea how they set parameters for this but its a major headache in setting this up. Its just not a simple....these kids deserve money. So many hurdles to make it work.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: 9-0 SCOTUS to the NCAA: You must adapt to the 21st century


Jun 21, 2021, 12:05 PM [ in reply to 9-0 SCOTUS to the NCAA: You must adapt to the 21st century ]

I don't know. Those profits are not generated equally amongst schools. We already have a case of the haves and the have nots and while it is possible under the current setup to break into the top, it is hard to do. Going forward it is going to get harder as teams with money can now essentially pay more for a player. As more of these policy changes come in that gap is going to grow over time.

Maybe I am wrong, maybe it doesn't change a thing in the long run but I just don't see how.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: 9-0 SCOTUS to the NCAA: You must adapt to the 21st century


Jun 21, 2021, 12:15 PM

Agree with you.

Inequity between college programs and between conferences will likely grow but the SCOTUS is basically saying that isn't their problem (because it's not a constitutional issue).

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

There is also the disparity between schools in a given conference.


Jun 21, 2021, 12:48 PM [ in reply to Re: 9-0 SCOTUS to the NCAA: You must adapt to the 21st century ]

Do you think we will see a change to conference contracts because Vandy doesn’t generate any where near the value of Alabama. And Duke doesn’t generate near the value as a Clemson or FSU. They may think so, but TV execs have stated in the past that the ACC contract is about 80% football and 20% basketball. Can you imagine the disaster a split contract would be to negotiate. Or the likelihood that some conferences would want to split??

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

There is also the disparity between schools in a given conference.


Jun 21, 2021, 12:48 PM [ in reply to Re: 9-0 SCOTUS to the NCAA: You must adapt to the 21st century ]

Do you think we will see a change to conference contracts because Vandy doesn’t generate any where near the value of Alabama. And Duke doesn’t generate near the value as a Clemson or FSU. They may think so, but TV execs have stated in the past that the ACC contract is about 80% football and 20% basketball. Can you imagine the disaster a split contract would be to negotiate. Or the likelihood that some conferences would want to split??

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: 9-0 SCOTUS to the NCAA: You must adapt to the 21st century


Jun 21, 2021, 12:22 PM [ in reply to 9-0 SCOTUS to the NCAA: You must adapt to the 21st century ]

You didn't mention the obscene profits generated by the rowing teams, soccer teams, etc. How is that going to work? I still don't see how it will work when the most money is generated by a fraction of the students, yet I assume the ruling will apply to all college athletes. If it is left to the NCAA to figure it out ..... well, we have seen what they are capable of!

military_donation.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: 9-0 SCOTUS to the NCAA: You must adapt to the 21st century


Jun 21, 2021, 12:27 PM

I have no clue how it will work.

SCOTUS: Our responsibility isn't to say how to fix it and fallout isn't our problem.

Title IX makes resolving this 10x harder.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: 9-0 SCOTUS to the NCAA: You must adapt to the 21st century


Jun 21, 2021, 12:47 PM [ in reply to 9-0 SCOTUS to the NCAA: You must adapt to the 21st century ]

But what you have to understand is they’re not saying football or basketball they’re talking about all sports, which means they are wrong. If you are a top division football or basketball player, you could make an argument thar they are under compensated, but all other sports are grossly overcompensated. There is no market for the overwhelming majority of college athletes. But they get scholarships and other benefits that are worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Also, there are no professional sports for the overwhelming majority of college athletes. There is no market.

Also, only about 2% of all college football players ever play in the NFL. Which means 98% of college football players actually do not have a market to earn compensation. Therefore 98% of college football players are actually being overcompensated now when you look at the value of a scholarship and all the other benefits they get.

This is far far far more complicated than people realize. And the NCAA only has themselves to blame. Had they made some changes years ago the courts never would’ve gotten involved and opened the door for what could ruin and destroy college athletics!

Just like I’ve been saying with NIL. Only a tiny handful of college football and basketball players are going to make any significant money.


Message was edited by: Lowcntry_Tiger®


flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: 9-0 SCOTUS to the NCAA: You must adapt to the 21st century


Jun 21, 2021, 12:53 PM [ in reply to 9-0 SCOTUS to the NCAA: You must adapt to the 21st century ]

MoCity said:

That is the bottom line.

Obscene profits must be shared with those generating them. How can a reasonable American citizen argue against that? This is a serious question. I challenge anyone here.

I also have popcorn to share so we can watch this play out together.

Will the NFL draft age minimum (must be 3 years of of high school) go down in flames too?




One problem is those profits do not go to schools but go to other athletic programs specifically female programs which do not generate any revenue but must be treated in the same manner as revenue sports. So the same dollar cannot be given to both men's football/basketball players AND players on women's teams. So should all the money go to football players and let the nonrevenue sports kick sand? Cant have it both ways...

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: 9-0 SCOTUS to the NCAA: You must adapt to the 21st century


Jun 21, 2021, 1:12 PM [ in reply to 9-0 SCOTUS to the NCAA: You must adapt to the 21st century ]

MoCity,
It’s not that simple. Football, and to a smaller extent basketball for some schools, pay for all the other college sports programs. That’s where the money is going. If that money is now going to go to the football players and basketball players, that’s fine, you can certainly argue that they deserve it, I wouldn’t disagree. However, all of the other non-revenue sports are now at risk of being shuttered since they may not be getting the same funding from football revenues.
My concern may be misguided, but that’s what I see is the biggest effect from this ruling.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: 9-0 SCOTUS to the NCAA: You must adapt to the 21st century


Jun 21, 2021, 2:08 PM [ in reply to 9-0 SCOTUS to the NCAA: You must adapt to the 21st century ]

MoCity said:

Will the NFL draft age minimum (must be 3 years of of high school) go down in flames too?




I don't think I've ever seen any kid right out of High School that could physically or mentally compete in the NFL.... just sayin....

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpgmilitary_donation.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: 9-0 SCOTUS to the NCAA: You must adapt to the 21st century


Jun 21, 2021, 3:59 PM [ in reply to 9-0 SCOTUS to the NCAA: You must adapt to the 21st century ]

MoCity said:

That is the bottom line.

Obscene profits must be shared with those generating them. How can a reasonable American citizen argue against that? This is a serious question. I challenge anyone here.

I also have popcorn to share so we can watch this play out together.

Will the NFL draft age minimum (must be 3 years of of high school) go down in flames too?




I don't think the NFL draft eligibility rule will change because that is an NFL rule, not an NCAA rule. Currently there are no age discrimination laws in America that protect people under 40 years old.

I also think the age rule is collectively bargained in the NFL, and veteran players probably don't want the pool of candidates able to take their jobs increased.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: TNET: Supreme Court rules unanimously against NCAA, criticizes its amateurism model


Jun 21, 2021, 11:51 AM

I don’t know how this case was argued, but one issue I have is that these people are students, not workers. They have voluntarily joined a school that operates a certain way, based on that school’s voluntary joining of another organization, the NCAA. It seems to me that organizations can be created and members of that organization can join or not join, depending on if they like or don’t like said organization’s rules. If a student athlete doesn’t like the rules, they can join a different organization. They can go pro, or they can start some other league/organization. What the supreme court is saying, is that your organization can’t have rules about compensation/finances, or they have to submit those rules to the Supreme Court for approval. I don’t understand that.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: TNET: Supreme Court rules unanimously against NCAA, criticizes its amateurism model


Jun 21, 2021, 2:15 PM

Here is an excerpt from Kavanaugh's concurring opinion that addresses your points:

"The NCAA acknowledges that it controls the market for college athletes. The NCAA concedes that its compensation rules set the price of student athlete labor at a below-market rate. And the NCAA recognizes that student athletes currently have no meaningful ability to negotiate with the NCAA over the compensation rules.

The NCAA nonetheless asserts that its compensation rules are procompetitive because those rules help define the product of college sports. Specifically, the NCAA says that colleges may decline to pay student athletes because the defining feature of college sports, according to the NCAA, is that the student athletes are not paid.

In my view, that argument is circular and unpersuasive. The NCAA couches its arguments for not paying student athletes in innocuous labels. But the labels cannot disguise the reality: The NCAA’s business model would be flatly illegal in almost any other industry in America. All of the restaurants in a region cannot come together to cut cooks’ wages on the theory that “customers prefer” to eat food from low-paid cooks. Law firms cannot conspire to cabin lawyers’ salaries in the name of providing legal services out of a “love of the law.” Hospitals cannot agree to cap nurses’ income in order to create a “purer” form of helping the sick. News organizations cannot join forces to curtail pay to reporters to preserve a “tradition” of public-minded journalism. Movie studios cannot collude to slash benefits to camera crews to kindle a “spirit of amateurism” in Hollywood.

Price-fixing labor is price-fixing labor. And price-fixing labor is ordinarily a textbook antitrust problem because it extinguishes the free market in which individuals can otherwise obtain fair compensation for their work. See, e.g., Texaco Inc. v. Dagher, 547 U. S. 1, 5 (2006). Businesses like the NCAA cannot avoid the consequences of price-fixing labor by incorporating price-fixed labor into the definition of the product. Or to put it in more doctrinal terms, a monopsony cannot launder its price-fixing of labor by calling it product definition."

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: TNET: Supreme Court rules unanimously against NCAA, criticizes its amateurism model


Jun 21, 2021, 4:09 PM

The NCAA could have avoided this a long time ago by making the scholarship benefits more "lucrative" instead continually finding ways to give higher salaries to everyone else and keep all the money.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: TNET: Supreme Court rules unanimously against NCAA, criticizes its amateurism model


Jun 21, 2021, 10:22 PM [ in reply to Re: TNET: Supreme Court rules unanimously against NCAA, criticizes its amateurism model ]

I hate to break it to you but just because they said it does not mean it’s correct. There are a handful of players that are under compensated. But when you understand that 98% of all college football players are never going to play in the NFL they are actually overcompensated. There is no market for 98% of college football players. If it wasn’t for a scholarship most of those kids would not even go to college. They are more than fairly compensated. They’re getting a free education that other students have to go deep deep deep into debt while also working a job often to pay for that same education. And they don’t get anywhere near the quality of food they don’t get the same free healthcare, their families don’t get paid to come to Clemson for games are to go to ball games. They’re not being paid a monthly stipend plus Perdiem to go to a ball game. Even walk on players get a lot of money and benefits. If you are talking about the 2% of players that will make it to the NFL then the Supreme Court is correct. But this is the same mistake that everybody makes when they call football players professional athletes. This is the same mistake when people say that these kids are being exploited. This is the same mistake that people make when they advocate for NIL.

All of these changes. All of these new rules. All of this money. All of these things that are going to destroy not just college football but all college athletics. Are because people are irrationally acting like all players are being taken advantage of. All players are under compensated. No. They’re looking at the 2% that are the elite athletes and passing rules and regulations because of those 2% and ignoring how it’s gonna affect the other 98% of college football players and pretty much won hundred percent of all other college athletes.

It’s the same thing as running America based on passing rules for the 3 1/2% of the population that is gay and the 1/10 of 1% of the population that is transgendered. You don’t run a country based on appeasing a tiny tiny percentage. You run a country because of us best for 330 million people. Not a tiny sliver of the population. That’s exactly what they’re doing. They are legislating based on the elite and ignoring the masses.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Who wants to pay my Little League team next?


Jun 21, 2021, 12:03 PM

We could recruit a better team if we paid them more.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: TNET: Supreme Court rules unanimously against NCAA, criticizes its amateurism model


Jun 21, 2021, 12:33 PM

Given this ruling against the NCAA as a governing body of intercollegiate athletics, I don’t see any difference in high school state governing bodies having any say over the mega high schools that generate large sums of money, travel around the country and appear on TV like ESPN. Why would age affect the compensation issue? So, in effect, this ruling will also kill off any amateur appearance of any sports that generate revenue. This should then also apply to the Little League World Series. Way to go Men In Black.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: TNET: Supreme Court rules unanimously against NCAA, criticizes its amateurism model


Jun 21, 2021, 4:11 PM

Calhoun2 said:

Given this ruling against the NCAA as a governing body of intercollegiate athletics, I don’t see any difference in high school state governing bodies having any say over the mega high schools that generate large sums of money, travel around the country and appear on TV like ESPN. Why would age affect the compensation issue? So, in effect, this ruling will also kill off any amateur appearance of any sports that generate revenue. This should then also apply to the Little League World Series. Way to go Men In Black.


Do high schools have TV or endorsement contracts, or do they just have donations and sponsorships?

I am really asking.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: TNET: Supreme Court rules unanimously against NCAA, criticizes its amateurism model


Jun 21, 2021, 6:00 PM

It is very much a minority, but there is high school TV. There are also HS stadiums that are bigger and draw more people to a home game than some power 5 colleges. There is at least enough money involved to get Chad Morris? to leave the college ranks to return to the HS ranks.

But the finances are similar - HS football and HS basketball float the finances for most athletic departments. Maybe up north you get enough spectators and sponsorships in hockey and lacrosse. So, on the comments about an organization being able to control the compensation of athletes, the NCAA has a lot in common with the SC High School league or SCISA.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: TNET: Supreme Court rules unanimously against NCAA, criticizes its amateurism model


Jun 21, 2021, 12:48 PM

The end of college sports is upon us. Good luck getting my money Clemson

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: TNET: Supreme Court rules unanimously against NCAA, criticizes its amateurism model


Jun 21, 2021, 1:46 PM

If amateurism is the main driver of your college football fandom, then you are free to become a fan of Division II or Division III football. Those guys play for the love of the sport.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: TNET: Supreme Court rules unanimously against NCAA, criticizes its amateurism model


Jun 21, 2021, 6:12 PM



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: TNET: Supreme Court rules unanimously against NCAA, criticizes its amateurism model


Jun 21, 2021, 4:13 PM [ in reply to Re: TNET: Supreme Court rules unanimously against NCAA, criticizes its amateurism model ]

WeToDeep® said:

The end of college sports is upon us. Good luck getting my money Clemson


LOL. You're fandom is over because athletes will get more money than they get now.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: TNET: Supreme Court rules unanimously against NCAA, criticizes its amateurism model


Jun 21, 2021, 12:48 PM

The end of college sports is upon us. Good luck getting my money Clemson

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I'll never understand the thinking on this.


Jun 21, 2021, 1:01 PM

Student-Athletes aren't employees. They are students. If the system doesn't work because the school makes a bazillion dollars off of sports, then it doesn't work when they were making a couple bucks. The only difference is the politics.

The NCAA has a monopoly on college athletics? Hardly. You're allowed to have college athletics and not be in the NCAA. There are over 200 schools in the NAIA. And besides, that's not even the point...the question is if the NCAA has a monopoly as a platform to prepare for a professional sports career, which again...they don't. The NBA has a development league. And the NFL is more than welcome to produce a developmental league, and in truth there are some leagues out there. The fact that they aren't more robust is not the fault of the NCAA. Of course, in baseball you can go straight to the MLB, and no other sport makes a buck (okay, women's basketball...I don't know what their options are).

I'm pretty shocked that the NCAA has been so weak in defending the student-athlete format. But what's done is done. I suspect I'll watch Clemson football until Dabo moves on and then I'll probably be free of it all, except of course to occasionally check in to see how out of control the whole thing has become.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

null


Re: I'll never understand the thinking on this.


Jun 21, 2021, 1:36 PM

The NFl just got its development league and I give Dabo 1-3 years at Clemson. in this now new world of Semi Pro football and he will be coaching one of the NFL teams in Florida or Texas where there is no State tax. That is from his on mouth when talking about paying players. He want be babysitting pre-Madonna's an at the college age also dealing with agents and Mom and Dads!!

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Welp... this is one big nail that has just been driven into


Jun 21, 2021, 1:55 PM

the NCAA's coffin. After this ruling you can bet the farm that there will be a lot more lawsuits that will essentially dismantle the NCAA and their control over college athletics. In fact, the NCAA probably won't exist in 5 years...

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpgmilitary_donation.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Could be right


Jun 21, 2021, 3:15 PM

You might be right----I'm not usually a glass-half-empty kind of thinker, but the NEED for the NCAA seems to be greatly diminished with this new ruling, not to mention the NIL stuff.

Consequently, the need for a new group to enforce & administer these changes seems inescapable, IMO. I don't think the NCAA can or should do it, but it wouldn't surprise me if there are more changes than we can imagine, including losing the NCAA.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

IMO The NCAA deserves to die...


Jun 21, 2021, 3:59 PM

The NCAA is an organization that has been way to complacent with the "status quo" for a way too long. The NCAA seemed to think that as long as they took care of the "blue bloods" they could coast into the future without any repercussions. Well... their lack of initiative, forecasting the future, and general awareness of the changing world has now resulted in State Governments getting in "their business" (and suspect the Federal Government will also) with the courts now slapping them in the head.

The NCAA is going to find out very quickly that nothing lasts forever and with enough follow on lawsuits to player compensation they are going to loose all control to the point of not being needed.

IMO college athletics does need some kind of independent governing body (politicians and courts are a bad substitute). Having said that - the NCAA and it's rotten culture of do nothing innovative and treating the "chosen programs" differently than others needs to die. Perhaps a better collegiate sports governing body will come out of it - one that actually isn't afraid to smack the blue bloods as they do lesser programs when they get caught cheating. However, until the NCAA finally kicks over dead, I'm afraid we will have nothing but a free for all in the coming player compensation wars and unfortunately that will probably take the joy out of college sports for me.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpgmilitary_donation.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: TNET: Supreme Court rules unanimously against NCAA, criticizes its amateurism model


Jun 21, 2021, 4:18 PM

The part that I loved was, The NCAA Isn't Above The Law, but they have believed they were from the start of their existence!!!!

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Re: TNET: Supreme Court rules unanimously against NCAA, criticizes its amateurism model


Jun 21, 2021, 4:29 PM

My leanings towards less government and libertarian views on many issues make me support this ruling from an intellectual standpoint but at the same time I suspect when all the ramifications of this ruling shake out I will probably be less enthused about the product.

It's honestly been a sham for many years. Many athletes could not even begin to gain entrance into Clemson on their academic credentials. Yet at Clemson, Dabo has pushed these kids to gain a degree which is life altering for these kids. Once the thin veneer of college "amateur" athletics has been removed, I suspect the flow of cash into many college sports programs from alumni will diminish. I contribute a good bit of money to IPTAY under the current arrangement. I give zero dollars to the Greenville Drive and rarely go to a game despite the fact that the quality of baseball far exceeds that of college baseball teams.

I fully understand why the athletes want a piece of the pie, but when this is all figured out, the end result may be detrimental to a lot of college athletes. I think the ruling is fair and just and I hope I'm wrong re: the unintended consequences. Stay tuned.

2024 orange level member flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

The can of worms has been opened


Jun 21, 2021, 5:29 PM



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

That's kinda brilliant


Jun 21, 2021, 5:33 PM

This may be the end result of a lot of this.

Maybe it's for the best?

I'm not sure. In a sense, some players who play in college will always be paid less than they're worth, so to speak, even with these new changes & NIL. The ones who are elite enough to go straight to the pros will be few, for sure, but maybe that's the way it always should have been?

Interesting thoughts. I hate the idea of college football not having any elite talents, but Renfrow is such a great example of the opposite I can't stop thinking about it now. Can of worms, indeed!

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: That's kinda brilliant


Jun 21, 2021, 5:53 PM



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: The can of worms has been opened


Jun 21, 2021, 5:40 PM [ in reply to The can of worms has been opened ]

Yes you do that the the liberal networks want cover college/ amateur sports anymore and we actually might return to , if you want to see college sports you actually have to go to the games again. The other consequences of this is what if Past players want to go back and figure what they would have been worth during their time and sue the schools or the NCAA

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: The can of worms has been opened


Jun 21, 2021, 6:10 PM

My ADD mind has been all over the place with this Pandora’s box! Our baseball team could actually benefit from this because kids might turn down the draft out of high school to get the college experience and make up some of the money turned down with NILin college. Players like Will Taylor and Bubba Chandler might actually come on to our Tigers for 3 years.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: The can of worms has been opened


Jun 22, 2021, 11:12 AM [ in reply to Re: The can of worms has been opened ]

If the NCAA wasn't greedy and trying to keep all the money for themselves, they wouldn't be in this situation. For example, EA Sports tried to pay the student athletes for their image and likeness, and the NCAA declined it. It was worth it to EA to pay a sum of money to all the athletes represented in the game for the millions upon millions they stood to make. The NCAA said no.

https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2014/6/4/5779102/ea-sports-ncaa-lawsuit-pay-players



The (plaintiffs) will present documentary evidence and testimony from Joel Linzner of EA at trial that while EA abided by the prohibition on paying college athletes for the use of their (likeness) in NCAA-lisenced videogames, it nonetheless wanted to obtain the rights for more precise likenesses and the names of every college athlete on each roster, for which EA was willing to pay more to the NCAA and the college athletes themselves.

Players in other sports are compensated ahead of time for the use of their likenesses in video games, as EA does with the NFLPA when making its NFL games.

EA and the NCAA had attempted to get around the likeness issue by not using players' names and claiming the players in the games were random. However, the NCAA knew EA based their "random" players on real athletes and an EA producer admitted to using real players. EA canceled its college football series amid the ongoing legal battle.

EA had hoped to use names, even if that meant paying the athletes, because it knew customers wanted that.


flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: TNET: Supreme Court rules unanimously against NCAA, criticizes its amateurism model***


Jun 21, 2021, 7:01 PM



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: TNET: Supreme Court rules unanimously against NCAA, criticizes its amateurism model***


Jun 21, 2021, 7:01 PM



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: TNET: Supreme Court rules unanimously against NCAA, criticizes its amateurism model***


Jun 21, 2021, 7:14 PM

I will reply to myself, since I idiotically hit post before typing anything. What I meant to say is: I think we were already on this road. It was already getting so expensive to have the whole game day experience, that I believe many fans will stay home rather than pay hundreds per game ticket to sit in the upper deck and watch us throttle UNCC. Tickets, parking, lodging, the tailgate paraphernalia - I was already far beyond rationalizing. I just happened to love it. Now, depending on how this goes, probably not so much. I can see it coming down to where all the money comes from when no one really cares that much. That’s already where I am universally with pro sports. Maybe it’s just me; YMMV.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Replies: 69
| visibility 1
Archives - Tiger Boards Archive
add New Topic