Airing of Grievances: NIL/Portal

[xubrew]

This is the asinine part. They never said that a Student Athlete couldn't transfer freely, like a "regular" student. They could transfer if they wanted, but would have to sit out a year. "Regular students" that dont play sports would also not be playing a sport the year after transferring.

I dont know why they couldnt peel this apart. 1) All student can transfer, period. Whether you are a "regular" student or a "student athlete." 2) for student athletes, if you transfer you sit out a year. IT IS IRRELEVANT for "regular student."

You arent actually treating them differently. To the extent that they are the "same" (both are students), they receive the same treatment (ability to transfer). To the extent they are different (one student is an athlete and the other is not) there are additional conditional requirements.

It doesnt make any sense to me.

Understand that what I'm about to say is what I understand the legal assessment/advice to be and not my own personal take...

Once the NLRB ruled that student-athletes fit the legal definition of an employee, which I think was they take direction, and they perform work that benefits those they are taking direction from, the transfer rules at the time were considered to be (another) potential violation of antitrust law because it unfairly limited their ability to work. Remember that initially the whole permission to contact was still in place.

Now, I think the other piece to this is they just got sick of dealing with it. It sounds like I'm joking, but I really do believe that one of the reasons we have the portal today is because compliance officers just got sick of all the paperwork and tedium that came with permission to contact. So, they just chucked it all and said anyone can go into the portal and once they're in there any school that wants to can contact them. Done and done. But, the other part to that is that there was a potential legal issue with preventing players from transferring to where they wanted to and playing where they wanted to, and they just decided they didn't want to litigate that. So...they junked it all.

[xubrew]

To more concisely sum it up...

The NCAA's position was that college sports were a part of the overall educational experience. These aren't employees! They're students! And all this coaching and competition is educational!

The opposition said "Well, then why do you have these transfer rules? If this is all educational, then why can't they transfer freely like they can in all other educational ventures?"

And as more and more litigation played out, the courts decided players were entitled to their own NIL, and the NCAA was in violation of antitrust laws, and the players were/are employees, and the players who had been denied access to the free market are now entitled to $2.8 in damages. And who knows if/when all this litigation going to stop?? And what will college sports look like when it finally does??

[paulxu]

I bet if I looked up "clusterfr$ck" in the dictionary, this would be the number 1 example.

[xubrew]

I bet if I looked up "clusterfr$ck" in the dictionary, this would be the number 1 example.

Probably so.

I wonder how different things would have been had the NCAA not been so set on dying on this hill at the time of the O'Bannon Case. I remember at about that time the proposal of a $5000 stipend for all D1 student-athletes. Schools would have had the option of paying that out on top of the scholarship if they chose to. It wasn't just voted down, it was ATOM-BOMBED down!!

But...what if it hadn't been??

What if the NCAA and its D1 members said "You know what? We'll green light the cost of living stipend (which they ventually did, but only because of the P5), and we'll greenlight a stipend of up to $5000 a year in addition to the scholarship, and we'll allow for players to make up to an additional $5000 a year off their NIL. And, we will work this out with SAAC and their leaders and finalize it."

Would the NCAA have ended up losing so much control had they done that? Would the fustercluck be anywhere near as big as it has ultimately become (and is still getting bigger)?? I was in favor of it because I thought it was fair, but if I'm being honest the biggest reason I was in favor of it was because you could see how this was all going to fall apart. Once the perpetual litigation started, it was all over. The NCAA didn't want this. If it was up to them none of htis would have been implemented. It was the courts that forced it all. Maybe if they'd have been willing to implement the stipends and NILs ten years ago at the time of the O'Bannon Case, none of this would have landed in the courts at all. Maybe college sports would still feel the way they did in 2012. But, they didn't, and it sure as hell doesn't feel the same.

...and that is ultimately my biggest grievance to air. It didn't have to be this way.

[Xville]

I’m of the opinion that if you gave them a stipend, at some point that wouldn’t have been enough either. This is where we were always going to end up. It was inevitable due to the money that has and is flowing thru college sports. I do think tv revenues at some point are either going to plateau or decrease, except for the nfl. I think it’s a bubble that’s going to burst at some point.

[xudash]

Probably so.

I wonder how different things would have been had the NCAA not been so set on dying on this hill at the time of the O'Bannon Case. I remember at about that time the proposal of a $5000 stipend for all D1 student-athletes. Schools would have had the option of paying that out on top of the scholarship if they chose to. It wasn't just voted down, it was ATOM-BOMBED down!!

But...what if it hadn't been??

What if the NCAA and its D1 members said "You know what? We'll green light the cost of living stipend (which they ventually did, but only because of the P5), and we'll greenlight a stipend of up to $5000 a year in addition to the scholarship, and we'll allow for players to make up to an additional $5000 a year off their NIL. And, we will work this out with SAAC and their leaders and finalize it."

Would the NCAA have ended up losing so much control had they done that? Would the fustercluck be anywhere near as big as it has ultimately become (and is still getting bigger)?? I was in favor of it because I thought it was fair, but if I'm being honest the biggest reason I was in favor of it was because you could see how this was all going to fall apart. Once the perpetual litigation started, it was all over. The NCAA didn't want this. If it was up to them none of htis would have been implemented. It was the courts that forced it all. Maybe if they'd have been willing to implement the stipends and NILs ten years ago at the time of the O'Bannon Case, none of this would have landed in the courts at all. Maybe college sports would still feel the way they did in 2012. But, they didn't, and it sure as hell doesn't feel the same.

...and that is ultimately my biggest grievance to air. It didn't have to be this way.

IMHO, the answer to both questions is "YES!" The amount of money involved would almost certainly send attorneys and agents back to the well in search of more money for the athletes (and them).

This is a fascinating mess, but it doesn't mean that Xavier cannot or will not find a way through it. I will say the notion of basing damage amounts on NCAAT Units is laughable, but he who holds most, if not all the power laughs last.

[xubrew]

I’m of the opinion that if you gave them a stipend, at some point that wouldn’t have been enough either. This is where we were always going to end up. It was inevitable due to the money that has and is flowing thru college sports. I do think tv revenues at some point are either going to plateau or decrease, except for the nfl. I think it’s a bubble that’s going to burst at some point.

You may be right. In fact, you probably are. A stipend and NIL earnings may have bought them some time, but it would have probably eventually come to what it came to.

So...what now??

I'm of the opinion that they need to go back to the Alston Case, look at the Supreme Court's Decision, look at what Brett Kavenaugh said, and take their advice/direction. Meet with the D1 SAAC Roster, agree on some of the rules in regards to eligibility, roster size, season limits, academic eligibility, and...oh yes...HOW THE PLAYERS WILL BE PAID, and come to an agreement! They've GOT to protect themselves from future litigation, and until they do this I think they will keep getting taken to court. The House Case is not the end.

So, what will probably actually happen is that htey'll have their summer meetings, and in those meetings discuss how they are optimistic about getting an antitrust exemption from Congress. They will be banking 100% on this and will make no plans whatsoever for any sort or safeguards if it doesn't happen, and pretty soon they'll be back in court again for another multi-billion dollar lawsuit and will be just as vulnerable as they are now because they'll still be in violation of antitrust laws.

[MHettel]

What are they gonna do with the marching Band? Or the Cheerleaders? Seriously? What can you point to about a football player that also doesnt apply to a flute player (insert joke here).

[xubrew]

What are they gonna do with the marching Band? Or the Cheerleaders? Seriously? What can you point to about a football player that also doesnt apply to a flute player (insert joke here).

Well, those aren’t NCAA sports and aren’t under any sort of NCAA governance at all, so why do anything? Cheerleaders have always been allowed to work on campus as student workers and even have jobs in the athletic department, and a lot of schools pay their bands to play at football and basketball games. For years that was a major contention from the players. Why does the band get paid and not us?

[Xville]

Well, those aren’t NCAA sports and aren’t under any sort of NCAA governance at all, so why do anything? Cheerleaders have always been allowed to work on campus as student workers and even have jobs in the athletic department, and a lot of schools pay their bands to play at football and basketball games. For years that was a major contention from the players. Why does the band get paid and not us?

Hmm is that the case at all schools? Could be completely wrong here but I thought that at Kentucky for instance the cheerleaders are on scholarship. Is that not thru the ncaa?