NIL needs fixing

[CL82]

You're crazy

You may be right, I may be crazy, but it just might be a lunatic ... that's needed to fix this insanity.

Again, my posts theoretical. I don't know if it can be fixed at this point in time. But, if the NCAA not sat on its hands, a workable resolution was possible.

Nobody should have to choose whether to be a social media star or an athlete. What's the rational basis for that membership test?

We all make choices. That's kind of how life works. The rational basis for the distinction would be the desire of NCAA organizations to provide a benefit for student athletes. They can cap the criteria at anything they'd like.

How does it not unlawfully discriminate?

Because "rich people" are not a protected class.

Can you tell a kid who is rich through inheritance that they can't play a sport?

Sure, I guess you could, but why would you since there's no risk of tampering or undue influence with inheritance. Was your account hacked by Nelson? Because that's a Nelsonian level red herring there.

A. this would actively harm the NCAA and reduce the popularity of sports

And yet it's survived just fine in the pre-NIL world, right?

B. it would not survive a challenge. Several states explicitly allow NIL without losing eligibility, and if the NCAA decided to kick those institutions out (they threatened this with CA schools) they'd face an immediate antitrust challenge that they would lose.

Well, state law doesn't govern the association of private organizations provided that they are non-discriminatory. In fact, the rate of free association is a constitutionally protected right, but you know that right?

The NCAA inviting states to come up with their own rules open the door to the problem you're talking about. And they just come up with their own rules they would've been accepted quietly and everyone would've moved on.

Can a not-for-profit association of academic can be found to have violated antitrust rules for deciding not to compensate athletes? If so, someone better let the Ivy League know. People spout about that all the time. I'm not convinced.

The more significant risk, in my opinion, is that the schools that want to exploit the system pick up their ball and go home. It would be a great excuse for the P2 to say well we're going be going our own way so that we can provide student athletes with the opportunity to earn a little money...

In any event, my post was just a thought exercise. Too often people say that things are "insoluble" and then bitch and moan rather than firing off a neuron or two to think about what a solution might look like. As I said in my original post, it was possible to structure some thing that would actually work. Whether the current mess we have could actually be corrected at this point in time, I'm not so sure.

 

[Rico444]

I don't understand why people want to fight back against this. In the past, the big money schools got the best players by paying them money under the table. This way, a lot more kids get paid. It seems kind of silly to be against this just because it's out in the open.

 

[HuskyHawk]

You may be right, I may be crazy, but it just might be a lunatic ... that's needed to fix this insanity.

Again, my posts theoretical. I don't know if it can be fixed at this point in time. But, if the NCAA not sat on its hands, a workable resolution was possible.


We all make choices. That's kind of how life works. The rational basis for the distinction would be the desire of NCAA organizations to provide a benefit for student athletes. They can cap the criteria at anything they'd like.


Because "rich people" are not a protected class.


Sure, I guess you could, but why would you since there's no risk of tampering or undue influence with inheritance. Was your account hacked by Nelson? Because that's a Nelsonian level red herring there.


And yet it's survived just fine in the pre-NIL world, right?


Well, state law doesn't govern the association of private organizations provided that they are non-discriminatory. In fact, the rate of free association is a constitutionally protected right, but you know that right?

The NCAA inviting states to come up with their own rules open the door to the problem you're talking about. And they just come up with their own rules they would've been accepted quietly and everyone would've moved on.

Can a not-for-profit association of academic can be found to have violated antitrust rules for deciding not to compensate athletes? If so, someone better let the Ivy League know. People spout about that all the time. I'm not convinced.

The more significant risk, in my opinion, is that the schools that want to exploit the system pick up their ball and go home. It would be a great excuse for the P2 to say well we're going be going our own way so that we can provide student athletes with the opportunity to earn a little money...

In any event, my post was just a thought exercise. Too often people say that things are "insoluble" and then bitch and moan rather than firing off a neuron or two to think about what a solution might look like. As I said in my original post, it was possible to structure some thing that would actually work. Whether the current mess we have could actually be corrected at this point in time, I'm not so sure.

I know we hijacked this thread but from an antitrust perspective, an association with monopoly power often cannot do what an association without it can do.

A golf course can ban Ping golf clubs. An association of every public and private golf course cannot ban Ping golf clubs.

The Ivy league can do things the NCAA cannot do. If you are a college athlete, you don't have to go to an Ivy league school, but there is no alternative to an NCAA school (realistically). So they are much more constrained.

I appreciate the thought exercise. I do think things can be made better and probably will be. Baker is pretty well connected, and Congress can do what the NCAA can't on its own.