RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

Supreme Court hammers NCAA

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » NCAA Women's Basketball - General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11044



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/21/21 11:26 am    ::: Supreme Court hammers NCAA Reply Reply with quote

https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/21/politics/ncaa-supreme-court/index.html

I've been writing about this for (gulp) about 50 years. Have to gloat a little ...



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
summertime blues



Joined: 16 Apr 2013
Posts: 6432
Location: Shenandoah Valley


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/21/21 12:51 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

About damn time, too. I was a little iffy when I first read the header but then I saw what it was about. Go, Supremes! and FU, Emmert!(excuse the language, but he can cough up some of that salary he gets for doing exactly what?)



_________________
Don't take life so serious. It ain't nohows permanent.
It takes 3 years to build a team and 7 to build a program.--Conventional Wisdom
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 13734
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/21/21 3:47 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. Clay, I think you should demand a fair % of whatever $$ is dispensed. Cool



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 6965
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/21/21 7:26 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I read the entire Supreme Court opinion and it does not do what Clay probably hopes.

To simplify, the Supreme Court upheld everything the trial judge decided. That judge divided the NCAA's compensation/payment bans into two categories:

(1) banned payments unrelated to education, such as outright salaries for athletes; and

(2) banned payments related to education, the ones specifically mentioned being graduate/vocational scholarships, payments for academic tutoring, paid post-eligibility internships, and academic achievement awards for athletes for things like making Dean's List.

The judge held the NCAA bans on payments/compensation unrelated to education to be lawful, the plaintiffs didn't appeal that ruling, so those payments were not even before the Supreme Court.

The judge held the NCAA bans on the named educational payments to be unreasonable and hence unlawful under antitrust law. However, he went on to rule that the NCAA could limit the amounts of such educational payments by future reasonable rules.

More importantly, the judge (and unanimous Supreme Court) held that conferences and individual schools -- as opposed to the NCAA -- could continue the bans on educational payments/compensation or even make them stricter. In other words, bans on education-related payments violate antitrust law only when imposed by the NCAA, not when imposed by conferences or individual schools. This is just due to the way the collective-action antitrust laws have been historically interpreted.

So, this Supreme Court decision, by itself, does not affect current NCAA bans on paying salaries or other non-educational compensation to student-athletes, and its effect on education-related payments is difficult to calibrate.

BUT:

Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a separate concurring opinion, just for himself and which is not law, wherein he sort of predicted what might happen in future lawsuits. Recall that Kavanaugh was a basketball star in high school, played on the JV at Yale, and coaches girls basketball. Using rhetoric that Clay Kallam would love, Kavanaugh essentially invited future plaintiffs to more aggressively challenge the NCAA bans on non-educational payments, such as salaries for athletes, and hinted that he, at least, would probably find many of those bans to be unreasonable under antitrust law.

Here's some Kavanaugh, clearly cribbed from Clay Kallam:

Quote:
The bottom line is that the NCAA and its member colleges are suppressing the pay of student athletes who collectively generate billions of dollars in revenues for colleges every year. Those enormous sums of money flow to seemingly everyone except the student athletes. College presidents, athletic directors, coaches, conference commissioners, and NCAA executives take in six- and seven-figure salaries. Colleges build lavish new facilities. But the student athletes who generate the revenues, many of whom are African American and from lower-income backgrounds, end up with little or nothing.


FURTHER BUT (just my opinion):

Even if the Kavanaugh prediction comes true, it would still apply only to compensation bans imposed by the NCAA, not to bans imposed by conferences or individual schools.


Full opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-512_gfbh.pdf
FrozenLVFan



Joined: 08 Jul 2014
Posts: 2662



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/21/21 10:52 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

In regard to things like payments to athletes for internships and making the Dean's List, doesn't this open the schools up to accusations of discrimination by non-athletes who don't get those payments? And then there's the question of why anyone should get paid for making the Dean's List.


LitePal



Joined: 08 Sep 2005
Posts: 575



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/22/21 12:38 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Coaches get paid incentives if their teams have a certain GPA so why shouldn't the students get a part of that?


FrozenLVFan



Joined: 08 Jul 2014
Posts: 2662



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/22/21 2:01 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

LitePal wrote:
Coaches get paid incentives if their teams have a certain GPA so why shouldn't the students get a part of that?


A) Why should coaches get paid those incentives in the first place? They set a few rules and then academics get turned over to some Academic Development Advisor and a bunch of tutors. The latter should have student performance in their job descriptions as a parameter on which they're evaluated and receive pay raises, just like any other school employee doing a good job.

B) If a school is going to reward students for academic performance, it should be all students and not just athletes. Why do athletes get a break here for academic performance because they can shoot a jump shot and the other kids in their classes can't?

C) Why should athletes be paid for tutoring? They're usually the tutees(?) and not the tutors. Who ought to be taking home an extra check here?

I think this is all bullshit and just obscuring cash for jocks. If you think athletes should be getting money on top of their free ride to an education, then pay them for being athletes, not for being students unless you're going to pay the entire student body for being students. I can't begin to imagine how much resentment this will cause among the other students, particularly if any of this is funded out of student fees or funds earmarked for scholarships. I also couldn't tell if this ruling was supposed to apply just to D-I football and basketball players or all sports, and that's not equitable either.

JMO.


Queenie



Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 16469
Location: Queens


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/22/21 7:23 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Regarding the Dean's List thing: when I was in college, there was a partial scholarship awarded the next semester for making Dean's List the prior semester, something like $500 or $1000. (You know, enough for maybe one or two classes.) If an athlete is already on a full scholarship, and they qualify for that academic reward, it doesn't seem unreasonable to give them the cash, because it's not like it can be applied to tuition in that scenario.



_________________
"The plan is insane. You are insane… I'll need some pants."
FrozenLVFan



Joined: 08 Jul 2014
Posts: 2662



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/22/21 9:12 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

That does seem very reasonable, but I think the number of schools that give scholarships or money for making the Dean's List is relatively small.


purduefanatic



Joined: 10 Aug 2011
Posts: 2694
Location: Indiana


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/22/21 11:14 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

FrozenLVFan wrote:
That does seem very reasonable, but I think the number of schools that give scholarships or money for making the Dean's List is relatively small.


In this post-covid world we are in now and the major economic hit every single university took, I can't imagine these types of things will still be in existence for the foreseeable future.


summertime blues



Joined: 16 Apr 2013
Posts: 6432
Location: Shenandoah Valley


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/22/21 12:21 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

FrozenLVFan wrote:
LitePal wrote:
Coaches get paid incentives if their teams have a certain GPA so why shouldn't the students get a part of that?


A) Why should coaches get paid those incentives in the first place? They set a few rules and then academics get turned over to some Academic Development Advisor and a bunch of tutors. The latter should have student performance in their job descriptions as a parameter on which they're evaluated and receive pay raises, just like any other school employee doing a good job.

B) If a school is going to reward students for academic performance, it should be all students and not just athletes. Why do athletes get a break here for academic performance because they can shoot a jump shot and the other kids in their classes can't?

C) Why should athletes be paid for tutoring? They're usually the tutees(?) and not the tutors. Who ought to be taking home an extra check here?

I think this is all bullshit and just obscuring cash for jocks. If you think athletes should be getting money on top of their free ride to an education, then pay them for being athletes, not for being students unless you're going to pay the entire student body for being students. I can't begin to imagine how much resentment this will cause among the other students, particularly if any of this is funded out of student fees or funds earmarked for scholarships. I also couldn't tell if this ruling was supposed to apply just to D-I football and basketball players or all sports, and that's not equitable either.



JMO.


Re (B)--Often students in the so-called "minor" sports may have partial scholarships. This could be directed more towards them, giving them a full scholarship. Or it could be giving an athlete more towards books which as you may or may not know ar ehella expensive

Re (C)--it's not the athletes getting paid for tutoring, its the people doing the tutoring. What about that do you not get?

I think you're missing the whole point of the ruling which is that the NCAA put a cap on what any athlete could receive for educational purposes, and it was not aimed at any sport in particular, nor at any division. Remember that ad that said "Most of us will go pro in something other than sports"? This is about that.



_________________
Don't take life so serious. It ain't nohows permanent.
It takes 3 years to build a team and 7 to build a program.--Conventional Wisdom
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 13734
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/22/21 12:36 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

FrozenLVFan wrote:
I think this is all bullshit and just obscuring cash for jocks. If you think athletes should be getting money on top of their free ride to an education, then pay them for being athletes, not for being students unless you're going to pay the entire student body for being students. I can't begin to imagine how much resentment this will cause among the other students, particularly if any of this is funded out of student fees or funds earmarked for scholarships. I also couldn't tell if this ruling was supposed to apply just to D-I football and basketball players or all sports, and that's not equitable either.


From my (admittedly limited) take on this, I thought this was more of a case where a star athlete could not be prohibited from monies they might get from commercial opportunities (autographed photos? shoe deals? image copyrights?), as opposed to outright payment to the athlete by the school. If true, it's a very small % of college athletes that benefit from this. But I may be all 'off' here....if so, please fill me in.



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
Conway Gamecock



Joined: 23 Jan 2015
Posts: 1266
Location: Here


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/22/21 12:47 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I think these "rules" and "policies" that the NCAA came up with, they came up with back in the late 1950s when they were formed, after the New York game-fixing scandal for MBB, and they wanted to keep collegiate sports clean and on the totally purely amateur level.

But back THEN, with the exception of those NY MBB schools that got taken down, collegiate sports WAS mostly amateur sports: very little to no nationally televised games, very little to no outside contracts and business being done to generate revenue off of those sports. It was mostly, buy a ticket from the university to go see a game at the stadium or arena, or listen to local radio broadcasts that were set up by the athletic departments of those programs. Or failing those two, read about the game afterwards in your local newspaper sport's section.

Then the 1980s came, with ESPN, and the entire concept got thrown onto its head. In 1982 Alabama's Bear Bryant made $450,000 a year, but only $107,000 of that was base, and the rest came from a TV broadcast contract plus a million endorsement deals he did that you can still find on Youtube today.

In 1977 Texas A&M tried to lure Michigan's Bo Schembechler away with a 10-year $200K/yr salary. About $75K of that base. He declined. They ultimately got Jackie Sherrill away from Pittsburgh in 1982 with a 6-yr deal for $240K/yr. and a $96K base. It was unheard of at the time - while Bryant's contract yielded more $$ with secondary benefits, Sherrill's contract up front had greater value.

$240,000 in 1982 is equal to $665,000 in 2021. Even Bear's $450,000 is worth only just shy of $1.3 million today.

A major university trying to hire a proven head coach for under 2 million/yr TODAY would only get laughs in their faces, or get hung up on. South Carolina hired an unproven HC for its FB program this off-season in Shane Beamer, who doesn't even have coordinator experience (beyond special teams or recruiting coordinator experience, that is), on a 5-year $2.75 million deal.

The world and reality of collegiate sports changed totally since the NCAA set it's ancient and obsolete rules for its student-athletes, but the NCAA hasn't budged much at all on it, because the longer they can hold fast, the more of that wealth of $$$ can go right into their coffers, and stay there. They collectively stepped in and shunted those New York bookies aside, and told them, "hold our beers"........

And this could've been done in the 2010s, in the 2000s, and in the 1990s too, with the SCOTUS ruling. Even beginning in the 1980s. Nothing had changed since then....


GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 6965
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/22/21 4:02 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

FrozenLVFan wrote:
In regard to things like payments to athletes for internships and making the Dean's List, doesn't this open the schools up to accusations of discrimination by non-athletes who don't get those payments? And then there's the question of why anyone should get paid for making the Dean's List.


That was part of the NCAA's losing argument in the case -- that many of these "education-related" payments to athletes are just disguised payments for playing sports, pure and simple, and hence destroy the concept of "amateurism". The trial judge and Supreme Court disagreed, and found that some of the payments were legitimately "related" to educational purposes and hence the NCAA couldn't ban them.

As to how to justify various payments made to athletes vs. non-athletes, there may in fact be violations of various discrimination laws there. However, that would require non-athletes to bring successful discrimination lawsuits against the schools that make the payments, the conferences and/or the NCAA.
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 6965
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/22/21 4:23 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:

From my (admittedly limited) take on this, I thought this was more of a case where a star athlete could not be prohibited from monies they might get from commercial opportunities (autographed photos? shoe deals? image copyrights?), as opposed to outright payment to the athlete by the school. If true, it's a very small % of college athletes that benefit from this. But I may be all 'off' here....if so, please fill me in.


This case did not address or involve the issue of whether student-athletes can commercialize and make money from their name, image and likeness ("NIL") from outside sources. This case only involved what kinds of payments/compensation by the schools to the athletes the NCAA could ban or not ban.

The NIL rights issue is a whole separate can of undefined and squirming worms. Many states have enacted laws that permit student-athletes to have NIL rights, but other states haven't. These state laws will override any NCAA ban against NIL payments, but only of course in the states that have the laws, which themselves are somewhat inconsistent among the states.

The NCAA has said it is in favor of NIL rights, but wants there to be a uniform national rule on the issue either from the NCAA, which would have to be consistent with the state laws, or via a new national law from the federal Congress. Neither seems possible before at least six of the state NIL laws start kicking in on July 1.

Here's an article:What Does Supreme Court Decision Against NCAA Mean For College Athletes’ Name, Image And Likeness Rights?

So, the issue of what kind of NIL payments student-athletes can receive in the various states will be a mess, alongside the mess as to what "education-related" payments schools can make to student-athletes. There will no doubt be many more lawsuits to sort it all out.
FrozenLVFan



Joined: 08 Jul 2014
Posts: 2662



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/22/21 5:16 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

summertime blues wrote:
FrozenLVFan wrote:
LitePal wrote:
Coaches get paid incentives if their teams have a certain GPA so why shouldn't the students get a part of that?


A) Why should coaches get paid those incentives in the first place? They set a few rules and then academics get turned over to some Academic Development Advisor and a bunch of tutors. The latter should have student performance in their job descriptions as a parameter on which they're evaluated and receive pay raises, just like any other school employee doing a good job.

B) If a school is going to reward students for academic performance, it should be all students and not just athletes. Why do athletes get a break here for academic performance because they can shoot a jump shot and the other kids in their classes can't?

C) Why should athletes be paid for tutoring? They're usually the tutees(?) and not the tutors. Who ought to be taking home an extra check here?

I think this is all bullshit and just obscuring cash for jocks. If you think athletes should be getting money on top of their free ride to an education, then pay them for being athletes, not for being students unless you're going to pay the entire student body for being students. I can't begin to imagine how much resentment this will cause among the other students, particularly if any of this is funded out of student fees or funds earmarked for scholarships. I also couldn't tell if this ruling was supposed to apply just to D-I football and basketball players or all sports, and that's not equitable either.



JMO.


Re (B)--Often students in the so-called "minor" sports may have partial scholarships. This could be directed more towards them, giving them a full scholarship. Or it could be giving an athlete more towards books which as you may or may not know ar ehella expensive

Re (C)--it's not the athletes getting paid for tutoring, its the people doing the tutoring. What about that do you not get?

I think you're missing the whole point of the ruling which is that the NCAA put a cap on what any athlete could receive for educational purposes, and it was not aimed at any sport in particular, nor at any division. Remember that ad that said "Most of us will go pro in something other than sports"? This is about that.


I skimmed through that ruling, and it was mentioned that athletes from some Div I programs had brought this case, then some factoids about the amount of money the NCAA rakes in from the men's basketball tourney and BCS bowl games, then a mention later on about Div I football and basketball. There wasn't any mention, that I found anyway, of other or minor sports. Perhaps one of our legal minds can clarify this, and who will reap the benefit of this decision. All student athletes? Just Div I athletes? Just football and basketball players? Just men's basketball players?

I don't see this benefiting minor sports at all. A bunch of schools already canned some of those during the pandemic (although a few have backpedaled), and I agree with purdue's suggestion that budgets are already strained. There'd be even more furor if minor sports get cut back or eliminated so the star football and basketball players can get even more benefits.

And I know how tutoring works, thank you, as well as how expensive textbooks are. The plan for tutoring payments wasn't clearly stated, at least that I could find.

Who's paying for this? Taxpayers? Donors? Student fees? If the money is coming from donors indirectly to athletes in select sports, you might as well just let them be paid for being athletes. Reward the non-recipients for maintaining an amateur status by spots in the Olympic program.


GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 6965
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/22/21 5:33 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Conway Gamecock wrote:
But back THEN, with the exception of those NY MBB schools that got taken down, collegiate sports WAS mostly amateur sports . . . .


You might be interested in reading the beginning of Justice Gorsuch's opinion from my link above. He begins by reciting the commercial corruption in college athletics from the beginning, mostly in football, and then details the complicated history of the NCAA and its various banned and allowed payments.

I have taken the time to excerpt part of the football corruption history -- eliminating by ellipses (. . .), for ease of reading, the many citations to the historical authorities being quoted:

Quote:
. . . it was football that really caused college sports to take off. “By the late 1880s the traditional rivalry between Princeton and Yale was attracting 40,000 spectators and generating in excess of $25,000 . . . in gate revenues.”. . . Schools regularly had “graduate students and paid ringers” on their teams. . . .

Colleges offered all manner of compensation to talented athletes. Yale reportedly lured a tackle named James Hogan with free meals and tuition, a trip to Cuba, the exclusive right to sell scorecards from his games—and a job as a cigarette agent for the American Tobacco Company. . . . The absence of academic residency requirements gave rise to “‘tramp athletes’” who “roamed the country making cameo athletic appearances, moving on whenever and wherever the money was better.” . . . One famous example was a law student at West Virginia University—Fielding H. Yost—“who, in 1896, transferred to Lafayette as a freshman just in time to lead his new teammates to victory against its arch-rival, Penn.” . . . The next week, he “was back at West Virginia’s law school.”. . . College sports became such a big business that Woodrow Wilson, then President of Princeton University, quipped to alumni in 1890 that “‘Princeton is noted in this wide world for three things: football, baseball, and collegiate instruction.’” . . .

By 1905, though, a crisis emerged. While college football was hugely popular, it was extremely violent. Plays like the flying wedge and the players’ light protective gear led to 7 football fatalities in 1893, 12 deaths the next year, and 18 in 1905. . . . President Theodore Roosevelt responded by convening a meeting between Harvard, Princeton, and Yale to review the rules of the game, a gathering that ultimately led to the creation of what we now know as the NCAA. . . . Organized primarily as a standard-setting body, the association also expressed a view at its founding about compensating college athletes—admonishing that “[n]o student shall represent a College or University in any intercollegiate game or contest who is paid or receives, directly or indirectly, any money, or financial concession.” . . .

Reality did not always match aspiration. More than two decades later, the Carnegie Foundation produced a report on college athletics that found them still “sodden with the commercial and the material and the vested interests that these forces have created.” . . . Schools across the country sought to leverage sports to bring in revenue, attract attention, boost enrollment, and raise money from alumni. The University of California’s athletic revenue was over $480,000, while Harvard’s football revenue alone came in at $429,000. . . . College football was “not a student’s game”; it was an “organized commercial enterprise” featuring athletes with “years of training,” “professional coaches,” and competitions that were “highly profitable.”

The commercialism extended to the market for student-athletes. Seeking the best players, many schools actively participated in a system “under which boys are offered pecuniary and other inducements to enter a particular college.”. . . One coach estimated that a rival team “spent over $200,000 a year on players.”. . . In 1939, freshmen at the University of Pittsburgh went on strike because upperclassmen were reportedly earning more money. . . . In the 1940s, Hugh McElhenny, a halfback at the University of Washington, “became known as the first college player ‘ever to take a cut in salary to play pro football.’”. . . He reportedly said: “‘[A] wealthy guy puts big bucks under my pillow every time I score a touchdown. Hell, I can’t afford to graduate.’”. . . In 1946, a commentator offered this view: “[W]hen it comes to chicanery, double-dealing, and general undercover work behind the scenes, big-time college football is in a class by itself.”
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 13734
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/22/21 7:07 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:
Howee wrote:

From my (admittedly limited) take on this, I thought this was more of a case where a star athlete could not be prohibited from monies they might get from commercial opportunities (autographed photos? shoe deals? image copyrights?), as opposed to outright payment to the athlete by the school. If true, it's a very small % of college athletes that benefit from this. But I may be all 'off' here....if so, please fill me in.


This case did not address or involve the issue of whether student-athletes can commercialize and make money from their name, image and likeness ("NIL") from outside sources. This case only involved what kinds of payments/compensation by the schools to the athletes the NCAA could ban or not ban.


Thank you for that....it appears I was way off!

Well, God Bless 'em ALL! Shocked



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11044



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/23/21 12:15 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Thanks, Glenn, for shedding light on the narrowness of the ruling ...

But even so, this is a huge blow to the NCAA because it appears to me that the Supreme Court is saying that the foundation of the collegiate athletic system is fundamentally flawed.

Kavanaugh's minority opinion would seem to open the door for future cases involving damages for athletes who were not compensated for their labor due to antitrust violations. Maybe not, as I'm no lawyer, but the hypocrisy and corruption of the NCAA and the universities is now getting full scrutiny in the harsh light of the courts and the media.

It has always been an unjustifiable system, and should be completely replaced.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
Michael



Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 493



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/23/21 2:14 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Just my opinion, but this is the beginning of the end for collegiate sports. You already only have a score of football programs that cheat enough to compete for national titles... The S(ure) E(veryone) C(heats), OSU, Michigan, Oregon (also known as Nike University) and a handfull of others. Men's football and basketball players are already paid tens of thousands under the table and provided luxury cars while they are in school. The joke is OSU only has 79 car dealerships sponsoring them, so the punters have to drive their own vehicles. The Fab Five were paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by a professional gambler to attend Michigan.... Alabama never stopped paying its football players, they just got rid of the handshake line. Now you are starting to open the Pandora's box where the schools that already have built up an advantage from their cheating will be given new routes to hide those payments through and thus an even bigger advantage in recruiting. If you are pointing to how this will help minor sports, you are delusional. The money will still go where it makes more money, not tossed away on sports that do not generate revenue. This only widens the gulf between the haves and the have nots and the sports will collapse on themselves when most of the have nots realize college athletics is a luxury they cannot afford in an environment where the rampant cheating keeps them second or third class citizens.



_________________
Michael
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 6965
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/23/21 5:34 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK wrote:
Thanks, Glenn, for shedding light on the narrowness of the ruling ...

But even so, this is a huge blow to the NCAA because it appears to me that the Supreme Court is saying that the foundation of the collegiate athletic system is fundamentally flawed.

Kavanaugh's minority opinion would seem to open the door for future cases involving damages for athletes who were not compensated for their labor due to antitrust violations. Maybe not, as I'm no lawyer, but the hypocrisy and corruption of the NCAA and the universities is now getting full scrutiny in the harsh light of the courts and the media.

It has always been an unjustifiable system, and should be completely replaced.


Yes, the legal-technical "huge blow" to the NCAA in the decision is that the Supreme Court unanimously held that the NCAA's rules are subject to antitrust (anti-competition) laws. Most of the Supreme Court case was devoted to the NCAA's arguments that it should be immune from the antitrust laws for a variety of reasons. The Supreme Court rejected every one of those "immunity" arguments, said that the NCAA is subject to the antitrust laws, and that in this case we are ruling that some of your bans on "education-related" payments/compensation to athletes violate the antitrust laws.

And, yes, the "door is open" for future cases to review the bans on noneducational payments, such as salaries for athletes, because those bans were not part of this appeal to the Supreme Court. However, that's not to say the NCAA will be unable to justify some or most of those bans if they ever do get to the Supreme Court.

As to the net effect of all this, I am more in Michael's camp than Clay's. Remember, the NCAA has these bans because the rich and powerful schools WANT and can afford to make hokey "education-related" payments to athletes and will be the ones who WANT to pay noneducational direct compensation to top athletes -- especially in the power sports of football and men's basketball.

Moreover, what college athlete is going to make any significant NIL money under the state laws and perhaps new NCAA rules allowing it? What college athlete is going to be paid for her picture on a Wheaties box? Probably no one other than the very top All-Americans. And where are those top A-A's? At the rich, power schools in the rich, power conferences.

So, I fear that the likely outcome of all these movements to give more and more capitalistic largesse to college athletes will be to make the power sports richer at the rich and powerful schools, vastly increasing their recruiting power against the poorer schools, and thus taking us back to the bad old days of "paid ringers" and "tramp athletes" and financial "chicanery" in big school athletics. Especially when coupled with the highly increased ease of transfer without penalty.
ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11044



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/24/21 3:00 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

If 85 Alabama football boosters want to pay each scholarship football player $50,000 to "endorse" their business, it's perfectly legal, as I understand it.

Corporate endorsements and NIL money are not the issue. A booster free-for-all, with no salary cap, is the likely outcome.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
CalwbbFan



Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 1401



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/25/21 3:57 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/2021/06/25/meet-the-cal-basketball-player-took-the-ncaa-to-the-supreme-court-and-won/
Quote:

Justine Hartman learned she won an antitrust case against the NCAA this week when her attorney called her: “We did it. Everything is about to change.”

Hartman, a former Cal women’s basketball player, was one of the lead plaintiffs in a class-action suit that some observers say could pave the way for groundbreaking changes in collegiate sports after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of the student-athletes.


The court’s nine justices determined Tuesday that the NCAA cannot limit compensation to students in the form of tuition, room and board and limited educational expenses such as laptops or study abroad programs.


“I couldn’t be more excited for the future generations and the current ones to experience this change,” Hartman said Thursday, speaking publicly about the high court decision for the first time.


CalwbbFan



Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 1401



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/25/21 5:20 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/2021/06/25/meet-the-cal-basketball-player-took-the-ncaa-to-the-supreme-court-and-won/
Quote:

Justine Hartman learned she won an antitrust case against the NCAA this week when her attorney called her: “We did it. Everything is about to change.”

Hartman, a former Cal women’s basketball player, was one of the lead plaintiffs in a class-action suit that some observers say could pave the way for groundbreaking changes in collegiate sports after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of the student-athletes.


The court’s nine justices determined Tuesday that the NCAA cannot limit compensation to students in the form of tuition, room and board and limited educational expenses such as laptops or study abroad programs.


“I couldn’t be more excited for the future generations and the current ones to experience this change,” Hartman said Thursday, speaking publicly about the high court decision for the first time.


Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » NCAA Women's Basketball - General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin