Courts strike down NCAA athlete pay

[WallStreetHusky]

I think this helps schools ouside the chosen ones, but not sure if the part about the NCAA violating antitrust laws is good news, might provide the impetus for schools to break away from the NCAA....

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/s...nnon-case-agrees-ncaa-violates-antitrust-laws

 

[Rocktheworld]

We want schools to break away from the NCAA en masse. We want new conferences formed from scratch. That is the easiest way UConn secures its future. The Wake Forests, Purdues, Vanderbilts, and Oregon States of the world should be worried about that.

 

[OkaForPrez]

We want schools to break away from the NCAA en masse. We want new conferences formed from scratch. That is the easiest way UConn secures its future. The Wake Forests, Purdues, Vanderbilts, and Oregon States of the world should be worried about that.

The problem is the majority of P5 schools would vote to move together as a conference because of the revenue derived by gravitating around the biggest fish. I.E. The entire Big 12 around Texas and OU. There's a lot more schools that would be worried about a redraft outside of the schools who typically are pointed at for their embarrassingly small budgets. And in your hypothetical the revenue superpowers would likely band together to form an elite class and an everyone else. That might throw UConn a few rungs higher up the ladder but I think the conference we would be in would look far more like the one were in now than it would the new whose who conference(s). 1 guys opinion.

 

[Rocktheworld]

The problem is the majority of P5 schools would vote to move together as a conference because of the revenue derived by gravitating around the biggest fish. I.E. The entire Big 12 around Texas and OU. There's a lot more schools that would be worried about a redraft outside of the schools who typically are pointed at for their embarrassingly small budgets. And in your hypothetical the revenue superpowers would likely band together to form an elite class and an everyone else. That might throw UConn a few rungs higher up the ladder but I think the conference we would be in would look far more like the one were in now than it would the new whose who conference(s). 1 guys opinion.

Why would the SEC try to keep supporting a drain of a program like Vandy, or the ACC do the same thing for a Wake Forest, or a B1G for a Purdue, when they have the perfect opportunity to supplant those programs for revenue generators like UConn?

 

[HuskyHawk]

The holding summary is spot on in my view. This strengthens the NCAA folks, not the other way around. It essentially says that the antitrust laws say that the NCAA cannot restrict a member institution from paying full cost of attendance, but says that the NCAA can prevent them from paying more. Nothing more than full cost of attendance is required, and the lower court order to pay a $5000 stipend into a fund is reversed. Better summary here.

 

[upstater]

I doubt the B1g wants to throw in with the SEC.

 

[upstater]

The holding summary is spot on in my view. This strengthens the NCAA folks, not the other way around. It essentially says that the antitrust laws say that the NCAA cannot restrict a member institution from paying full cost of attendance, but says that the NCAA can prevent them from paying more. Nothing more than full cost of attendance is required, and the lower court order to pay a $5000 stipend into a fund is reversed. Better summary here.

The other judge just didn't understand sports. She was really out of her depth.

 

[OkaForPrez]

Why would the SEC try to keep supporting a drain of a program like Vandy, or the ACC do the same thing for a Wake Forest, or a B1G for a Purdue, when they have the perfect opportunity to supplant those programs for revenue generators like UConn?

I'm suggesting a better question is, in a clean slate scenario whats to stop the top 16 teams by revenue from forming their own national conference and commanding the biggest television contract? Then the next 16, then the next 16. And if UConn ends up in the 5th of those conferences, how different does our revenue stream look from today?

 

[Rocktheworld]

I'm suggesting a better question is, in a clean slate scenario whats to stop the top 16 teams by revenue from forming their own national conference and commanding the biggest television contract? Then the next 16, then the next 16. And if UConn ends up in the 5th of those conferences, how different does our revenue stream look from today?

Well I simply don't believe UConn falls into the 65-80 bracket.

 

[OkaForPrez]

Well I simply don't believe UConn falls into the 65-80 bracket.

Okay, even with the benefit of the doubt, lets say we fall into the 4th bracket. 49-64. What does that conferences TV revenue look like next to the 1st tier you know?
My understanding may be off but I'm under the impression that the top 2-3 schools in every conference do most of the heavy lifting in terms of generating demand.
So what is the revenue split between that mega conference and the rest? Is it 20% of the power 5 teams and 60% of the revenue? Now all of a sudden its not a windfall to be in the top 65 anymore. And all the teams in the 20-40 range are losing out. So are they going to vote to release everyone of their commitments? And if they don't, can and will they still boot their bottom feeders? Why are they not allowed to do that now, but would be allowed to in the NCAA break away scenario?

 

[HuskyHawk]

I'm suggesting a better question is, in a clean slate scenario whats to stop the top 16 teams by revenue from forming their own national conference and commanding the biggest television contract? Then the next 16, then the next 16. And if UConn ends up in the 5th of those conferences, how different does our revenue stream look from today?

1. The basketball tournament and TV contract go to the NCAA. Those schools couldn't put together a tournament that would have close to the same value. It's the cinderellas and wide reach that drive the thing.

2. The NCAA sponsors all the sports at those schools. Who would manage that? Everything but football would suffer or die outright. Given the title IX mandates, that can't happen at these schools.

3. The football money is really pretty minor in the scheme of the budgets at these schools. The difference achieved from a break-off would be just a sliver of that. It's fairly inconsequential.

4. This is an old boys club. University presidents want to belong to it together.

 

[kyleslamb]

I think this helps schools ouside the chosen ones, but not sure if the part about the NCAA violating antitrust laws is good news, might provide the impetus for schools to break away from the NCAA....

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/s...nnon-case-agrees-ncaa-violates-antitrust-laws

I hear the bolded comment so often, and it continues to make no sense to me.

The NCAA is a member organization run by its members. The voting structure is set up to where the schools at the top have the most power. I'll never understand why people think these schools are going to break away from an organization they're basically in charge of.

The NCAA is violating anti-trust laws because these schools have put in place rules that make that so. Why would they start another organization to avoid anti-trust when it's they who created the anti-trust issues in the first place?

 

[kyleslamb]

The holding summary is spot on in my view. This strengthens the NCAA folks, not the other way around. It essentially says that the antitrust laws say that the NCAA cannot restrict a member institution from paying full cost of attendance, but says that the NCAA can prevent them from paying more. Nothing more than full cost of attendance is required, and the lower court order to pay a $5000 stipend into a fund is reversed. Better summary here.

The ruling is pretty silly when you see the rationale behind it. The court basically cited amateurism as the reason why these athletes shouldn't be entitled to a value set on their likeness, retroactively.

So the court is saying, yes, the NCAA is violating anti-trust laws, but it's saying the NCAA cannot require the schools to make whole the people who were impacted by the violations all because it would threaten some arbitrary spin on amateurism.

 

[HuskyHawk]

The ruling is pretty silly when you see the rationale behind it. The court basically cited amateurism as the reason why these athletes shouldn't be entitled to a value set on their likeness, retroactively.

So the court is saying, yes, the NCAA is violating anti-trust laws, but it's saying the NCAA cannot require the schools to make whole the people who were impacted by the violations all because it would threaten some arbitrary spin on amateurism.

It's a complete judicial compromise from what I can see. I'll need to read it more carefully to say whether their application of the Rule of Reason makes sense. My practice does cause me to focus on antitrust regularly, but I wouldn't call myself an expert.

 

[OkaForPrez]

1. The basketball tournament and TV contract go to the NCAA. Those schools couldn't put together a tournament that would have close to the same value. It's the cinderellas and wide reach that drive the thing.

2. The NCAA sponsors all the sports at those schools. Who would manage that? Everything but football would suffer or die outright. Given the title IX mandates, that can't happen at these schools.

3. The football money is really pretty minor in the scheme of the budgets at these schools. The difference achieved from a break-off would be just a sliver of that. It's fairly inconsequential.

4. This is an old boys club. University presidents want to belong to it together.

Is this an argument on why there wont be a break away? If so that's fine, but its the central premise of what Rock is saying is our best case scenario. And I'm just trying to understand the thought process better. Does that in fact make a difference to whether or not a conference would boot a member? What changes between the current and future reality that makes that possible? And then, if we're assuming that a ncaa breakaway is a shotgun start dissolution of all conferences, what happens then? That's the scenario I was proposing above.

 

[kyleslamb]

It's a complete judicial compromise from what I can see. I'll need to read it more carefully to say whether their application of the Rule of Reason makes sense. My practice does cause me to focus on antitrust regularly, but I wouldn't call myself an expert.

Yeah it did come across as a compromise. Selfishly, I like the ruling because while I think legally the NCAA should lose the case, I also don't mind preserving some semblance of 'amateurism.' I do believe athletes should be able to profit off their likeness, but I don't want to see them in a pay-for-play situation, ever.

Still, it seemed like the court deviated away from legal precedent in order to 'preserve' amateurism. Putting my sports interests aside, I didn't like that aspect of the ruling.

 

[WallStreetHusky]

I hear the bolded comment so often, and it continues to make no sense to me.

The NCAA is a member organization run by its members. The voting structure is set up to where the schools at the top have the most power. I'll never understand why people think these schools are going to break away from an organization they're basically in charge of.

The NCAA is violating anti-trust laws because these schools have put in place rules that make that so. Why would they start another organization to avoid anti-trust when it's they who created the anti-trust issues in the first place?

The way I see it, and all though I am not an antitrust attorney, I am a $$ guy, any opening schools can see to enrich themselves, they will take. And I can see that opening via them taking their own big time football schools and setting up their own governing body, that DOESNT say it represents everyone (unlike the NCAA) and just keeping more profits for themselves. Its a natural progression, they wont recreate the NCAA, they will create their own entity that will be structured in a way to skirt any antitrust laws and in the process generate more money for themselves, split fewer ways. IMHO.