Page 1 of 19 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 183
  1. #1
    Supporting Member xubrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,916

    Supreme Court Will Hear Case On Player Compensation

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme...on-11608129891

    By the end of the summer, college athletics could completely change as we know it.

    In case you haven't been following, the NCAA has been accused (for a while) of being in violation of anti-trust laws, which they arguably are when it comes to the letter of the law. It has gone through the courts, the NCAA has not done so well, and the Alston case now going to be heard by the Supreme Court.

    The lower courts ruled (basically) that there should be no limits on athlete compensation so long as the compensation was some how tied to education.

    Neither side really liked that. The plaintiffs feel the players deserve a lot more than that, and the NCAA feels they don't even deserve that much. So, ironically, both are actually happy that it is going before the Supreme Court.

    And...I have no idea how they are going to rule. I've long felt that the players deserve much more than what they've been getting, but I also feel that they have been given a little more. Cost of living comes to mind. So does name, image, and likeness, but the NIL was perhaps too far overdue.

    In addition to not knowing what's going to happen, I really don't know what I want to happen anymore. I don't like the idea of the NCAA losing complete control over trying to maintain a competitive balance, but I don't like for players to be completely denied the rights to their fair market values either. If they come out and say that it is an anti-trust violation and that players can now be paid by the schools, then that will definitely be a huge change. And....they might say that.

    I can't help but there that there are things the NCAA could have done over the past...ohh...thirty years or so to keep it from getting to where it has gotten.
    "You can't fix stupid." Ron White

  2. #2
    Supporting Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,344
    Quote Originally Posted by xubrew View Post
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme...on-11608129891

    By the end of the summer, college athletics could completely change as we know it.

    In case you haven't been following, the NCAA has been accused (for a while) of being in violation of anti-trust laws, which they arguably are when it comes to the letter of the law. It has gone through the courts, the NCAA has not done so well, and the Alston case now going to be heard by the Supreme Court.

    The lower courts ruled (basically) that there should be no limits on athlete compensation so long as the compensation was some how tied to education.

    Neither side really liked that. The plaintiffs feel the players deserve a lot more than that, and the NCAA feels they don't even deserve that much. So, ironically, both are actually happy that it is going before the Supreme Court.

    And...I have no idea how they are going to rule. I've long felt that the players deserve much more than what they've been getting, but I also feel that they have been given a little more. Cost of living comes to mind. So does name, image, and likeness, but the NIL was perhaps too far overdue.

    In addition to not knowing what's going to happen, I really don't know what I want to happen anymore. I don't like the idea of the NCAA losing complete control over trying to maintain a competitive balance, but I don't like for players to be completely denied the rights to their fair market values either. If they come out and say that it is an anti-trust violation and that players can now be paid by the schools, then that will definitely be a huge change. And....they might say that.

    I can't help but there that there are things the NCAA could have done over the past...ohh...thirty years or so to keep it from getting to where it has gotten.
    The NCAA has been pretty dumb by not trying to get out in front of this (I guess they did add COL stipends a few years ago).

    I don't think players should be paid by the school outside of their scholarship and normal per diem money. However, I am all for them having unlimited NIL rights. If a car dealership is dumb enough to pay one of these players for an endorsement, more power to them. If the player wants to give private lessons to some rich booster's child, good on that player for getting some cash from someone that clearly has money to burn.

    My view is we should treat student athletes exactly the same as we treat a student at the school on a music scholarship.
    Last edited by STL_XUfan; 12-17-2020 at 01:32 PM.
    "If our season was based on A-10 awards, there壇 be a lot of empty space up in the rafters of the Cintas Center." - Chris Mack

  3. #3
    Supporting Member D-West & PO-Z's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montgomery
    Posts
    13,847
    Quote Originally Posted by STL_XUfan View Post
    The NCAA has been pretty dumb by not trying to get out in front of this (I guess they did add COL stipends a few years ago).

    I don't think players should be paid by the school outside of their scholarship and normal per diem money. However, I am all for them having unlimited NIL rights. If a car dealership is dumb enough to pay one of these players for an endorsement, more power to them. If the player wants to give private lessons to some rich booster's child, good on that player for getting some cash from someone that clearly has money to burn.

    My view is we should treat student athletes exactly the same as we treat a student at the school on a music scholarship.
    Yeah I totally agree with this.

    Some will say, "oh well Kentucky basketball will just get a rich booster to pay them for their car dealership and they can promise recruits more money and they will get all the top recruits." Or they will say the same about Alabama or OSU football.

    Well, hello......how will that change anything! Welcome to what is already happening. Regardless if you think they pay players or not (they probably do) they are already getting the best players anyway. It wont change anything.
    "I知 willing to sacrifice everything for this team. I知 going to dive for every loose ball, close out harder on every shot, block out for every rebound. I知 going to play harder than I致e ever played. And I need you all to follow me." -MB '17

  4. #4
    Sophomore MHettel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    2,101
    I like Mens college basketball. A lot.

    I'm indifferent about most other college sports.

    I don't really care who is and who is not making money when it comes to college sports.

    I don't want it to change. And therefore, I don't support this.

    I'll say the same thing about allow automatic eligibility for Transfers. It will change the game. And I don't want that. So I don't support it.

  5. #5
    Supporting Member xu82's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    10,445
    I like it now, the way it is. BUT, I also want to see the kids be treated fairly. I’m not sure what I want, but I am VERY worried about unintended consequences making a mess of things.

  6. #6
    Supporting Member D-West & PO-Z's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montgomery
    Posts
    13,847
    Quote Originally Posted by MHettel View Post
    I like Mens college basketball. A lot.

    I'm indifferent about most other college sports.

    I don't really care who is and who is not making money when it comes to college sports.

    I don't want it to change. And therefore, I don't support this.

    I'll say the same thing about allow automatic eligibility for Transfers. It will change the game. And I don't want that. So I don't support it.
    The transfer rule isn't going to change things nearly as much as you think. We would benefit just as much as we would be hurt. It will be a net neutral move and good for the players.

    There is very little that can be done imo to change the competitive balance in college athletics. The top dogs will remain the top dogs regardless of the rules.
    "I知 willing to sacrifice everything for this team. I知 going to dive for every loose ball, close out harder on every shot, block out for every rebound. I知 going to play harder than I致e ever played. And I need you all to follow me." -MB '17

  7. #7
    Supporting Member xubrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,916
    Unfortunately "I like it the way it is" does not qualify as a legal defense against anti-trust violations. I know the NCAA likes things the way they are. I hope they understand that simply saying that isn't going to be good enough. And...I'm not so sure they do realize that.
    "You can't fix stupid." Ron White

  8. #8
    Supporting Member GoMuskies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Wichita, KS
    Posts
    29,747
    If they screw up non-revenue sports right before my daughter gets to college I'm going to be righteously pissed.

  9. #9
    Supporting Member xu82's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    10,445
    Quote Originally Posted by GoMuskies View Post
    If they screw up non-revenue sports right before my daughter gets to college I'm going to be righteously pissed.
    And THESE are the things I’m worried about. Who gets hurt when they mean to do the right thing?

  10. #10
    Sophomore XUGRAD80's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,305
    Quote Originally Posted by GoMuskies View Post
    If they screw up non-revenue sports right before my daughter gets to college I'm going to be righteously pissed.
    They already have. In point of fact, the people pushing through bills in congress, or making the most noise, have seemingly forgotten that probably 90-95% of college athletes are those that are participating in “non-revenue” sports. If they, through their zeal to be “fair” to the athletes participating in revenue generating sports, cause athletic departments to take on additional financial burdens and/or to lose revenue that would have been used to support those other sports, it will be a shame. It will end up helping a very few, while hurting the very many. I’ve fought this bias and misconception that ALL college athletes are pampered and feted for over 40 years now. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had discussions with good people that simply don’t understand that athletes in sports like soccer, swimming, track, etc. are more likely to be paying their own way, than not. That all the schools playing football on Saturday's, but that aren’t appearing on TV, are already bleeding money. That the “billions” of dollars that football and basketball supposedly generate for the greedy universities are really on a handful of the hundreds of NCAA schools that organize, promote, and support thousands and thousands of college athletes. But that most of the court decisions, and proposed legislation, will effect EVERY schools and EVERY college athlete in some way...MOST of them negatively.

    We are going to keep going down this path and we are going to end up like it is in Europe, where that are no “university” teams, there are “club” teams.....that’s my prediction and my fear.

    https://www.si.com/college/2020/12/1...-ncaa-football

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •