Quote Originally Posted by MHettel View Post
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??