Topic: FB Update: Jenkins case could unhinge NCAA model
Replies: 46   Last Post: Jun 22, 2014 1:42 PM by: gr82h8floridast8
This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.

[ Archives - Tiger Board Archive ]
Start New Topic
Replies: 46   Pages: 1  

FB Update: Jenkins case could unhinge NCAA model

Posted: Jun 19, 2014 5:40 PM

Jenkins case could unhinge NCAA model

Read Update »

Sorry, but I just can't pull for MJ

Posted: Jun 19, 2014 5:48 PM

In this case.

Just out of curiosity

Posted: Jun 19, 2014 5:49 PM

Would this mean that we would have to pay in all sports or just revenue generating ones?

Killing the goose

Posted: Jun 19, 2014 6:30 PM

Say the NCAA loses this case. The jocks who want to play for money win.

What happens if the 100 biggest programs, you know the biggest and best known schools in America said, "We don't want to play in a professional football league. We are ending grants in aid. We'll play intercollegiate football with whatever students show up registered and paid and in school and want to play."

Today 2500 players get a free ride from the schools to play football. In that new senario, no one would get aid. No more paid visits. No for free room and board. No more big recruiting business.

Re: Killing the goose

Posted: Jun 19, 2014 7:05 PM

Dunno if that would ultimately be a good thing or a bad thing, but at least I wouldn't blow a couple of hours every day checking to see if we landed a big time recruit.

no, most sports would just go away

Posted: Jun 19, 2014 7:21 PM

the President of SCAR said this, I would guess others schools would do the same:

"Pastides was asked what would hypothetically happen if college athletes were paid a share of the revenue earned from the use of their names and images. He said if players received some of that money, South Carolina would consider cutting athletic programs. Pastides said South Carolina would continue to participate in football and men's basketball. Baseball and women's basketball likely would also be safe, as well as any remaining women's programs to balance Title IX requirements."


Remove the restriction on attending college before being pro

Posted: Jun 19, 2014 7:51 PM

So, if the case wins, Scooter is right. Non-revenue generating sports would disappear except for enough Title IX scholarships required by law. It would crush college athletics as a whole and demolish the US dominance in nearly all Olympic sports.

Just let kids make a decision to leave high school and enter the pros, like MLB does. And give them the option to quit college at any time they wish to turn pro. Make them employees and pay them the exact amount of tuition, room and board. If they spend the money on other stuff, kick them out of school for not paying their bills.

However, the truth is that kids coming into college on football scholarships need 3-4 years to develop in order to compete in the NFL. If they declared for the NFL draft at 18, teams wouldn't draft them. Maybe the NFL would create some minor league that accomplished what colleges do today. But, why invest in that when colleges are already there and self-sufficient?

Re: Remove the restriction on attending college before being pro

Posted: Jun 19, 2014 9:20 PM

It's not an NCAA rule, it's an NFL, NBA & MLB rule...so that wouldn't work

If she's a hollerer, she'll be a screamer.
If she's a screamer, she'll get you arrested.

Yep - track, soccer, tennis, golf, volleyball, etc would

Posted: Jun 19, 2014 9:26 PM

go away.

Clemson would keep rowing because of Title 9. I could see us even dropping women's basketball.

Only men's sports Clemson would probably keep are football, basketball and baseball.

So, with a scholly being worth $50k/year, and the

Posted: Jun 19, 2014 7:28 PM

highly specialized coaching and training being worth likely the same, as a service, on an annual basis, would players then be required to pay taxes on these amounts annually as 1099 income in terms of services received?

And considering a possible shift of paying cash to play a sport, does that mean that scholarships for athletics would simply go out the window? No mas? Instead, have the kids get grants and loans to cover the difference between their pay and the services delivered, plus the costs of training?

The answer seems pretty simple. Find a few entrepreneurs out of the sports agent field to start a minor league football system. Skip that whole education thing, get paid, and let the top 1.5% of these young kids work their way to the NFL through the system.

it's fairly compelling when you take the time to read it

Posted: Jun 19, 2014 7:36 PM

In case you would like to read it before commmenting, here's the actual complaint


Only if you buy the story they are exploited victims because

Posted: Jun 19, 2014 8:13 PM

they can't "market" themselves to the highest bidders. If Jenkins and company win this case it is all over for college athletics as we know it.

Players free to go elsewhere; forego education & coaching***

Posted: Jun 19, 2014 8:36 PM

Ha. I knew you wouldn't read it!

Posted: Jun 19, 2014 9:14 PM

This complaint is centered on restraint of trade vis-a-vis the Sherman Antitrust Act.

The NCAA and the Conferences have established a coercive monopoly, they are all corrupt and are finally going to be taken out to the woodshed.

I'm not happy about the long term implications, but maybe we can get something better set up for everyone involved.

I can't believe people actually are defending the NCAA.

I can't believe you are defending the illiterate players....***

Posted: Jun 19, 2014 9:21 PM

If she's a hollerer, she'll be a screamer.
If she's a screamer, she'll get you arrested.

defending colleges and their players

Posted: Jun 19, 2014 9:35 PM

Clemson would be able to better serve their interests if they weren't having to deal with the NCAA, the ACC, etc. It's a corrupt regime. The players are simply caught in the middle.

Re: I can't believe you are defending the illiterate players....***

Posted: Jun 20, 2014 11:08 AM

Illiterate? Resort to name calling because they are doing something you don't agree with? They are the ones that are putting their bodies on the line for you to come sit and watch and cheer. You have nothing to do with this and they have everything to do with it, don't let your ignorance show

They are not putting their body on the line for us...

Posted: Jun 20, 2014 7:45 PM

they're doing it for a free education and maybe a chance to go pro. That's a big difference.

You have no understanding of the case and its implications

Posted: Jun 20, 2014 5:25 AM

I read the lawsuit (and many other things).
What is compelling is that the case has no merit for many reasons:

1. The Sherman antitrust act and other federal antitrust laws cited apply to work place regulations and restraint of trade. As the players are not employees, the cited violations do not apply. As it is also a free-market, these violations do not apply. Nobody made these players sign their voluntary contracts with universities;

2. US District Court is not likely to even rule on this case as it will likely take it down to a lower court where the rulings Will only be applicable to the local level (as occurred in the Northwestern NLRB case);

3. This is a losing scenario for the players. They will lose money. Let's take an example. Tuition and fees, room and board, books and supplies for a non-resident student at Clemson for 2013 to 2014 is $40,070. Let's say that Martin Jenkins gets paid $75,000 for his services for the year (which is doubtful-only the superior players would be offered payment). Subtract out costs of attendance and that leaves $34,930. Add in the cost of coaching at $50 per hour, Four hours per day, Six days per week, 36 weeks per year equals $43,200. We are now at $-8270. He uses the Athletic facilities at $10 per day, six days per week, 36 weeks per year equals $2160. We are now at $-6110. Add in the cost of health insurance policy at $3000 per year and a disability policy of $1500 per year. We're now at $-12,770. He won't get paid for any time that he is not healthy or participating, as happened two years ago, I believe, but would still be responsible for the expenses. I haven't even accounted for personal expenses.

He has to pay taxes on his income at 25% equals $18,750. We're now at $-31,520.

Congratulations to Martin Jenkins for wishing to lose $30,000 per year because he wants to get paid. Instead, he could've had all of these benefits for free and finished college free of debt. Do you know how many students would be ecstatic to be free of debt upon graduation from college?

4. As of the end of 2013, only 22 NCAA athletic departments made more than $5 million. Clemson and University of South Carolina were not among them. Only these 22 programs would be the ones who could initially compete in football. Eventually the highest bidder would win and competition in football would disappear. The monopolies would persevere and all interest in college football would disappear. Revenue would also disappear and programs would drop out one by one until no more college football existed.

Do the math and stop spewing out" billions of dollars" crap. There are expenses to be accounted for, not just revenue.

There's one thing I know…

Posted: Jun 20, 2014 5:33 AM

If we were playing players when Jenkins came into school he would never made it to Clemson we would have paid a much better player than him.

Remember, the NCAA is the problem here.

Posted: Jun 20, 2014 10:24 AM

Get it out of the way and allow the universities to decide what works best for them in their particular marketplace.

I've never liked the idea of a centrally controlled industry that dictates what employees are worth. Has the smell of Marxism. But hey, if that's your preference, feel free to expound further on why you feel the NCAA is so great for Clemson.

Re: Remember, the NCAA is the problem here.

Posted: Jun 20, 2014 10:32 AM

#Take down the big man


Did you read what he posted? Think it's a smart idea to "take down the NCAA" and in turn make players now in debt and poor...for the "payday" that goes right back out the door when they treat you like an employee, and you pay for the extra benefits? And then you realize what they "pay" you doesn't quite cover the costs...

fair compensation in a free market,

Posted: Jun 20, 2014 11:02 AM

I don't understand why people are afraid of this. Yes universities will need to adjust how they do things. And that will probably mean that the offensive coordinator will probably not make 12 times what the governor in the state makes.

Revenues of the Clemson football program totaled $69 million last year. We claimed over $67 million in expenses. With this kind of budget, we have no reason to be afraid of a free market system. Nor should the players.

Pick a soapbox that you actually understand, sport.

Posted: Jun 20, 2014 11:25 AM

The free market is alive and well in college athletics. Not one single soul is required, conscripted, forced, or compelled in any manner to participate. You're simply throwing out wild accusations with no basis in reality.

You consistently fail to address the fact that these scholarship athletes are already receiving close to $100,000 in benefits annually as it stands today, even if they ride the bench - there's no way around this fact, my man.

I will take it a step further and say that your stance is actually ANTI-free market, and thus anti-American or whatever you've been spouting. You want the courts to FORCE an anti-free market scenario on college athletics. Alternatives exist - did you follow my earlier link to the many semi-pro and club leagues in existence? Competition is alive and well. Now, the competition to college athletics may suck, and lack any market interest, but guess what? [drum roll] That's how a free market works. Forcing limiting conditions on institutions that produce a superior product is not "free market", it's just the opposite.

Sure colleges make money on revenue sports, lots of money, and it's about to increase. But where does this money go? It goes back into the programs... enhancing facilities and supporting staff, of which these athletes, and those that follow, are the direct beneficiaries. It also helps maintain a much wider swath of athletics programs at any particular institution, again enhancing the experience for all involved.

Having said that, I do believe that the line as it is currently drawn is a bit too far to one side in terms of finances for the athletes, but only as it affects the "get around" money that they lack access to today - not salaries as if they were paid employees (they're not). There used to be a provision for this, and it was removed years ago preventing it. Every college kid could use a little get around cash. I have no problem there.

I'm disappointed in Martin Jenkins for suing Clemson for what he feels has been a situation of the school taking advantage of him. The $300,000 in benefits he's received over his tenure here, the national exposure he's provided through the team's on-field success (much of that compliments of his teammates as he's been oft-injured and off the field), and the priceless element of the collegiate experience in general, degree or not, say different.

not my soapbox, just having some fun with ya'll

Posted: Jun 20, 2014 11:44 AM

I do love the college game more than any other sport and I'll be sad if it is diminished. But let's face it, college athletics is being run into the ground by a screwed up system. The NCAA hasn't evolved. It has no credibility anymore and institutions are forced to comply with arcane rulings. Let's move on. Keep the football leagues and the playoffs. Let the universities decide how they will compete within those leagues and let the players decide what they think is fair compensation as far as grant-in-aid, walk-around money, and the like.

As for the semipro link. I looked at it and was impressed with how unrealistic your arguement truly is. ;)

The alternative landscape isn't pretty at this moment, but

Posted: Jun 20, 2014 12:25 PM

it does exist thanks to the free market. Who's to say these rich law firms couldn't step up and help fund a new minor league football program for their clients? If all these players are indeed getting ripped off by colleges as the suit argues, then certainly there's a large enough cost/revenue imbalance to warrant a profitable non-collegiate alternative.

we already have the minor leagues for NFL

Posted: Jun 20, 2014 12:46 PM

SEC, Big 10, Big 12, ACC, Pac 10 are essentially that now. The conferences have already created their own marketplace. Let them decide how they want to proceed, without the NCAA trying to legislate.

I believe Martin Jenkins tried to set up his own cell phone business and was told by the NCAA that he wasn't allowed to use his own name to sell his products. Now he made the choice to give up certain freedoms when he signed the grant-in-aid agreement because Clemson and it's players are "forced" to comply with NCAA rules due to the NCAA's coercive monopoly. Jenkins vs ACC/NCAA not Jenkins vs Clemson.

Take the NCAA out of the equation and let the players have the freedom to pursue any opportunity they want like everyone else in life.

Re: You have no understanding of the case and its implications

Posted: Jun 20, 2014 11:13 AM

The coaches and facilities are already paid for and being paid for by the school. This doesn't make sense. NFL players don't pay a coaches salary or pay for the facilities. Ppl refuse to use common sense.

Re: You have no understanding of the case and its implications

Posted: Jun 20, 2014 4:48 PM

Where did that money come from in Clemson's case? How about the other ACC schools? How about the other 100+ schools who don't make at least $5 Million per year? The schools can charge for their expenses in any way they wish. If it doesn't come from the fans, it has to come from somewhere else. Remember that Clemson is the BEST (or second best) financially performing athletic department in the ACC. Where do you think that money is going to come from from the other schools? It's not coming from the rabid fan base from other ACC schools. You are correct. People do refuse to use common sense, especially monetary sense. Some knowledge of the facts would help with common sense. Money doesn't appear out of thin air. This isn't the NFL. That's the whole point of the conversation. (By the way, the NFL has exemptions from antitrust labor laws.)

Did I miss the part of the argument where these kids are

Posted: Jun 19, 2014 10:29 PM

being forced to play college sports? If they don't value the educational opportunity and professional training offered by NCAA-affiliated institutions while they're too young for the NFL, then don't sign up to play with one of them.

Every single one of these plaintiffs and those they feel they represent are free to not participate. There are semi-pro leagues and football clubs all over the country where they can continue playing and hone their skills.

Here's the link: http://www.semiprofootball.org/

Plenty of opportunities to choose from.

The current regime is monopolistic and anti-capitalism

Posted: Jun 20, 2014 12:16 AM

It goes against everything most Americans believe in about free markets and competition. The NCAA can't hide behind the masquerade of amatuerism in today's era of billion dollar sports contracts. Players are there to make money for the school, and if you believe otherwise, your full of crap.

Re: The current regime is monopolistic and anti-capitalism

Posted: Jun 20, 2014 5:33 AM

So, profuscious, tell us how this should play out considering your comments of "monopolistic and anti=capitalistic" actions by the NCAA and the power conferences? Complaining without offering a "lawful" solution, to me, is just bitching.

Let Market forces prevail

Posted: Jun 20, 2014 7:45 AM

Like any other industry, with no caps on earning potential. Big time college football is already run like a business and the individual universities should be the the owners of their products. Let them decide what is fair for their employees, like any other industry.

Actually its far from it

Posted: Jun 20, 2014 8:31 AM

The NCAA is nothing more than a trade association with voting members that make up the rules. If you are going to allege anti-competitive behavior, it needs to be addressed to the member universities who have granted the NCAA those powers. The NCAA, as an entity and rulebook could go away tomorrow and the universities could agree to create a completely new one with the exact same authority. The universities, most of whom are entities of the state, are generally exempt from antitrust laws.

The dirty little secret of the NCAA is that they have absolutely no authority, especially when it comes to football. All it takes is 1 power school to disagree with the NCAA's rules, rulings or punishment and not abide by it. The NCAA could in theory ban them from NCAA tournaments, but there are no NCAA run tournaments in "Power conference" football.

Winston & Strawn LLP is a big time firm

Posted: Jun 19, 2014 7:51 PM

They have a good shot at winning this case.

Check out their website:



Posted: Jun 19, 2014 9:21 PM

If she's a hollerer, she'll be a screamer.
If she's a screamer, she'll get you arrested.

Re: Winston & Strawn LLP is a big time firm

Posted: Jun 19, 2014 10:59 PM

The complaint reads like a hot headed political speech meant to incite the uninformed to riot. I take that to mean the legal merits of the case are not clear and unavoidable. Time will tell how this comes out at the first, second, and third levels of the legal system.

Re: Jenkins case could put a real damper

Posted: Jun 19, 2014 8:14 PM

on our oculus plans if he wins.

As a fan, I want a part of the cut, too. Without fans, none

Posted: Jun 19, 2014 10:04 PM

of this money would be made.

If the athletes want to make a difference and really "fix" the corruption, hey, seek a cease and desist. Request that the money-making "unfair" practices be stopped.

The fact that the athletes want "their cut" is the rub. They are amateurs. Coaches are not. Schools/institutions require a lot of money to fund the scholarships, travel, facilities, etc. that athletes have come to expect. One day, the athletes will be professionals, either professional athletes or professionals in another field. Then they can worry about their fair compensation.

If any party is making an "unfair profit," then the goal should be to fix that. I'm not saying the law permits such a fix...I'm only focused on the "problem." The amateurism is what makes all of this special. Pay the players, and college sports become nothing special. Players don't deserve to be called students of an institution of higher learning if they are hired athletes. You can call it by any name you want, but it's not hard. It's very simple. One of the few remaining sports driven by spirit and pure pride is about to be sacrificed over the love of money.

Paying the players "their fair share" only extends and expands the opportunism, greed, etc. It fixes nothing. The losers are the fans of college sports and the schools' alumni and students. It isn't about the athletes. It's about the STUDENTS, some of whom are STUDENT-ATHLETES. It's about the former STUDENTS. And it's about the FANS who love the school despite not having been students.

It is very sad.

Start paying them and I'll stop paying

Posted: Jun 19, 2014 11:35 PM

Iptay........they get a paycheck they can pay for tuition books tutors etc.

There are plenty of people that work multiple jobs in order to fund their education

We do Chicken right...it's not just for frying anymore!

Start paying them and then they can be fired

Posted: Jun 20, 2014 8:34 AM

Drop a TD pass....fired and replaced the next day.

Miss a game winning field goal...pack up your office. You're fired.

It will be just like the NFL. No continuity or job security.

Killing College football!***

Posted: Jun 20, 2014 8:00 AM

The only winners will be the lawyers, as usual***

Posted: Jun 20, 2014 8:03 AM

Rap Sucks.

Posted: Jun 20, 2014 9:35 AM

That is all.

This will make college sports obsolete. No reason to watch

Posted: Jun 20, 2014 10:23 AM

if it is just a minor league for the NFL.

A lot of you pulling for this don't realize that the secondary and tertiary consequences would eliminate college sports a national past-time. When markets are open, capital flows upward and begins to centralize. Look at the MLB compared to the NFL. The NFL is the best sport, and its the most competitive, with the most parity. Because of REGULATIONS.

I don't want a govt that regulates my personal choices, but I sure as hail want a organization regulating sports. Pure capitalism only works with all out war.

Re: This will make college sports obsolete. No reason to watch

Posted: Jun 22, 2014 1:42 PM

There must be a governing body of some sort where all institutions have an equal voice (representation) and are in agreement to be bound by any resulting rules. If not, then competition between universities will be destroyed. Even if Clemson turned out to be one of those dominant few, do you really want to be champions of a competition that only has five or so teams representing?

That being said, the players also have a right to organize a union. Let them make demands for pay, the use of their names to pursue financial gain, etc. as a union with the threat of strike to give it teeth. Then the universities can decide as a group if they want to agree to those demands or replace the players.

I for one believe it is the level competitive field and not the individual players that ultimately make any sport interesting. Sure there are stories within the context of the whole like Johnny Football that make for interesting conversation. However, if Texas A&M had the only college football team in America, who would give a crap?

In summary, the reason people watch any sporting event is because of competition. You want as much as possible for factors other than money to determine the outcome of games. If not, then like the previous poster said, the money will pool into the pockets of a select few universities and any competition that is not exclusively between those universities will be a foregone conclusion and not very interesting. It would be like Clemson vs. SC State every weekend. Sure an upset is theoretically possible but highly unlikely because the financial playing field is not equal.

As a side note, do you think these hypothetical super rich universities, in the absence of any restraining hand, might pay talented players to ride the pine just so another university couldn't hire them? Only so many people can play at one time. What happens to the long term earning potential of those players that are riding the bench?

No offense Martin...But under your free market scenario, you

Posted: Jun 20, 2014 5:19 PM

would be manning the Fry station by now, not getting a free education....It's a shame it's being wasted...

Replies: 46   Pages: 1  


FB GAME: Wake Forest
FOR SALE: 2 Tickets for sale, Homecoming vs Wake Forest, Section TDK, Row L. Asking $150 for the pair. Also ...

Buy or Sell CU Tickets and More in Tiger Tickets!

[ Archives - Tiger Board Archive ]
Start New Topic
4271 people have read this post