SCOTUS rules against NCAA

[Dean Wormer]

Kind of crazy how many people on here are opposed to this decision, but it’s not shocking either.

Change is scary to some people, even when its necessary.
The old system had a nice run but once the duckets got bigger, it was doomed to failure. Billions of $$ -vs- tuition and a degree is not a fair match, no matter how the "amatuer" NCAA wants it to be. It won't happen overnight but at least now they can work out a system that works for everybody, at least that's the hope. This was a long time coming.

 

[superjohn]

Change is scary, even when its necessary.
The old system had a nice run but once the duckets got bigger, it was doomed to failure. Billions of $$ -vs- tuition and a degree is not a fair match, no matter how the "amatuer" NCAA wants it to be. It won't happen overnight but at least now they can work out a system that works for everybody, at least that's the hope. This was a long time coming.

Sounds nice but nothing ever works for everybody. Everything is pointing to us having less haves who have more and the rest will be have nots.

 

[Dean Wormer]

Sounds nice but nothing ever works for everybody. Everything is pointing to us having less haves who have more and the rest will be have nots.

Very true. It wasn't gonna stay the same not with P5 banking on something like this happening all these years. We may end up s outta luck, but the signs were all there long ago. Hell, there's P5 members right now who might end up on the short end. How long will a conference be willing to carry a school that's not pulling its weight (here's looking at you, Wake Forest).
If Oregan gives a kid access to Phil Knight money and Nike clout, why would he even consider going elsewhere when there's only a limited number of others nationally that could compete like that? We were shunned once and this smells like the 2nd shoe dropping to me. sucks but inevitable.

 

[superjohn]

Very true. It wasn't gonna stay the same not with P5 banking on something like this happening all these years. We may end up s outta luck, but the signs were all there long ago. Hell, there's P5 members right now who might end up on the short end. How long will a conference be willing to carry a school that's not pulling its weight (here's looking at you, Wake Forest).
If Oregan gives a kid access to Phil Knight money and Nike clout, why would he even consider going elsewhere when there's only a limited number of others nationally that could compete like that? We were shunned once and this smells like the 2nd shoe dropping to me. sucks but inevitable.

I just don't understand the thinking that where we could be headed is good for college sports. If it plays out the way I think it could it would probably be the end of college sports...

 

[upstater]

Change is scary to some people, even when its necessary.
The old system had a nice run but once the duckets got bigger, it was doomed to failure. Billions of $$ -vs- tuition and a degree is not a fair match, no matter how the "amatuer" NCAA wants it to be. It won't happen overnight but at least now they can work out a system that works for everybody, at least that's the hope. This was a long time coming.

Billions spreads over 4000 schools and 400,000 athletes.

 

[upstater]

Kind of crazy how many people on here are opposed to this decision, but it’s not shocking either.

Why?

 

[Chin Diesel]

Sounds nice but nothing ever works for everybody. Everything is pointing to us having less haves who have more and the rest will be have nots.

Those who pushed for this "reform" consider your statement to be a feature not a bug.

 

[BigErnMcCracken]

the real villain (if such a thing exists) here, are the TV executives, the apparel executives, the schools themselves and presidents, the NCAA, the Bowl Committees and the entire apparatus that had become fabulously wealthy thanks to the labor of others - paid or otherwise

I don't know, man, Dabo Sweeney's a pretty easy guy to dislike.

 

[Guapo]

I don't know, man, Dabo Sweeney's a pretty easy guy to dislike.

definitely

 

[upstater]

I’m generally on your side, but copy and pasted my response to a similar comment about coaches salaries on the football board:


I don’t really have a problem with coach’s salaries - they’re working to produce the product that others are profiting from. How valuable has Nick Saban been to Alabama? It’s almost incalculable.

the real villain (if such a thing exists) here, are the TV executives, the apparel executives, the schools themselves and presidents, the NCAA, the Bowl Committees and the entire apparatus that had become fabulously wealthy thanks to the labor of others - paid or otherwise

Break it down please. How have the schools become fabulously wealthy off of this?

It's the coaches who are creating the totally distorted reality between players compensation and coaching compensation.

 

[Guapo]

Break it down please. How have the schools become fabulously wealthy off of this?

It's the coaches who are creating the totally distorted reality between players compensation and coaching compensation.

Schools are not a “for profit” business in the same ways our hospitals and health care facilities are not “for profit.” Look at president’s and administrative salaries at these schools - and their operating budgets, public support and donations; not to mention their public profiles. I’m not saying these are necessarily bad things - it shows the inherent value of athletics.

Do you think UConn is what it is today without the basketball programs?

 

[HuskyHawk]

Schools are not a “for profit” business in the same ways our hospitals and health care facilities are not “for profit.” Look at president’s and administrative salaries at these schools - and their operating budgets, public support and donations; not to mention their public profiles. I’m not saying these are necessarily bad things - it shows the inherent value of athletics.

Do you think UConn is what it is today without the basketball programs?

It depends on whether other schools have basketball programs. You have sports teams because it attracts some students. Some want that experience. Others want a really amazing gym on campus...so you build one. Others want lots of good food options, so you add that. Others want dorms with suites rather than communal bathrooms, so you build that. These schools spend billions on things that are outside of the educational experience, so they can attract more applications and as that boosts their competitive ranking and prestige, then they can charge more. It's a cycle that drives up cost.

But very few schools make any money off athletics. Most of the P5 lose money. The idea that there is some profit that these players generate and which they aren't earning, that's a myth. Yes the coaches are well paid. Because the coaches are there longer than the players, recruit the players so have many times the impact on the program that any player could. I would guess that 99.5% of all D1 scholarship athletes are overcompensated.

 

[Guapo]

It depends on whether other schools have basketball programs. You have sports teams because it attracts some students. Some want that experience. Others want a really amazing gym on campus...so you build one. Others want lots of good food options, so you add that. Others want dorms with suites rather than communal bathrooms, so you build that. These schools spend billions on things that are outside of the educational experience, so they can attract more applications and as that boosts their competitive ranking and prestige, then they can charge more. It's a cycle that drives up cost.

But very few schools make any money off athletics. Most of the P5 lose money. The idea that there is some profit that these players generate and which they aren't earning, that's a myth. Yes the coaches are well paid. Because the coaches are there longer than the players, recruit the players so have many times the impact on the program that any player could. I would guess that 99.5% of all D1 scholarship athletes are overcompensated.

I get that, I would caution there’s some shady accounting that goes into the “schools don’t make money on athletics” thought. Besides the point, though because I’m not really advocating for schools to pay players directly, but the athletes should 1000% be able to leverage their names for endorsements etc.

 

[HuskyHawk]

I get that, I would caution there’s some shady accounting that goes into the “schools don’t make money on athletics” thought. Besides the point, though because I’m not really advocating for schools to pay players directly, but the athletes should 1000% be able to leverage their names for endorsements etc.

I agree on NIL, with some rules. The risk there is boosters. Come play QB at UGA and we will pay you $40k to be the face of the local BBQ chain in our commercials. Needs to occur post recruitment. But the current rules are stupid, especially for those athletes that really created a brand on their own, like the LSU gymnast (Livvy Dunne, 1.1M followers on Insta, and it isn't because she's at LSU) and many years ago, Brian Bosworth at OU. YouTube, Instagram and TikTok have truly changed the landscape and they should all be able to monetize those platforms. I don't see how that impacts recruiting.

 

[Guapo]

 

[Dean Wormer]

Crack staff at NCAA HQ is on it!!