Supreme Court Will Hear Case On Player Compensation

[xubrew]

huh? The NIL court case was the whole thing you are discussing. Am I missing something?

College sport is about to change. It will not resemble what we have come to know. If the NCAA would have "given up" or whatever you suggest and just have allowed the players to make money or get paid or whatever, we'd still be right here.

I would like college sports to be the way it has been. I'm against changing sports as we know it. If the NIL issue was the catalyst of the change that I dont want, then I guess I'm against the NIL issue.

The fact is, nobody forced anyone to be a college athlete. They are compensated by way of a valuable scholarship, and of the course the education that comes along with it that has a long term value that can FAR exceed any NIL money.

But whatever. Whiners think it's not fair that the NCAA makes money while they get "nothing."

Wait till these guys get a shoe deal and have to come to grips that they get paid money on the backs of the Chinese sweatshop workers.

How ironic will THAT be?

YES!!! You are missing something. Like...EVERYTHING!!

The Alston Case that was before the Supreme Court is what I was talking about. It's been the only thing I've been talking about for this entire thread.

Name, Image, and Likeness allows players to make money outside of the institution on their own. That's an ENTIRELY different issue.

The Alston Case says that the NCAA is in violation of anti-trust laws by having rules against schools being allowed to pay players. In short, schools will soon be allowed pay players. Or, at the very least the NCAA can no longer have any rules against it.

See the difference now??

[MHettel]

YES!!! You are missing something. Like...EVERYTHING!!

The Alston Case that was before the Supreme Court is what I was talking about. It's been the only thing I've been talking about for this entire thread.

Name, Image, and Likeness allows players to make money outside of the institution on their own. That's an ENTIRELY different issue.

The Alston Case says that the NCAA is in violation of anti-trust laws by having rules against schools being allowed to pay players. In short, schools will soon be allowed pay players. Or, at the very least the NCAA can no longer have any rules against it.

See the difference now??

No, not really.

On one hand, you have the terminal cancer. On the other is the heart failure. Why even make a distinction between the 2? Your days are numbered.

Hope everyone gets what they hoped for!

[xubrew]

No, not really.

On one hand, you have the terminal cancer. On the other is the heart failure. Why even make a distinction between the 2? Your days are numbered.

Hope everyone gets what they hoped for!

Or…

On one hand you have type 2 diabetes. On the other hand you have heart disease. It’s time to make some lifestyle changes before it’s too late and stop ignoring every single blatantly obvious warning sign. The NCAA never did. Now it’s probably too late.

Maybe some people did get what they wanted, but the NCAA sure as hell didn’t, and neither did a lot of fans of non-power programs.

[xubrew]

And here we go...

The state of California plans to pass legislation that would allow student-athletes to share in the revenue that is generated by athletics. Up to $25,000 a year if I read it right. The NCAA objects. Well, considering the ruling in The Alston Case it won't matter how strongly the NCAA objects. I think we are one year away from schools beginning to pay players directly.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...s/11735956002/