SCOTUS rules against NCAA

[Chuck]

I've always thought that if you can't have an amateur model, then totally sever it from the school. Let the teams license the schools name, but the model should be totally overhauled.

That being said, I think SCOTUS is way out of its depth on this. I don't know if it's the lack of knowledge about sports that causes these situations, but there is a lot of precedent for understanding an amateur model. Indeed, a couple decades ago, the court ruled against student teachers on exactly similar issues, so when we hear that athletes are taken advantage of as they are in no other institution in America, it is so plainly false.

The one tell in all of this is I never, ever, ever, ever see an analysis of athletic budgets in any of this.

The media never mentions it. It's not within SCOTUS's purview so they don't have to look at it. But the Senators passing these laws, like Murphy who is frankly an embarrassment on this issue, never look at the school's budget to determine who is really being taken for a ride. And it's doubly nauseating that Murphy and Senators like him represent states where support for academics has been slashed, but there's no concern for what goes on in the classroom. Instead, sports are front and center.

This may harm something I love (college sports), but I'm not sure that it isn't the right decision. I'm not an anti-trust lawyer. That's a very specialized field. But the trend seems to be striking down the "it's always been this way" and "it's for the greater good" arguments. Especially where the greater good in this case is sports (important to our enjoyment and culture, but not as necessary as teaching).

I look at this similar to the tradition of "unpaid interns" which has mostly ended. People have made the clumsy argument that unpaid college athletes are like slaves. Of course they aren't slaves. They aren't being forced to play basketball, they can go to the G League, etc. THIS ALSO ISN'T THE SAME, but for illustrative purposes, look at what a company needs to show in order to have an unpaid intern. Can the NCAA say that teams would fit all of these criteria?

• The experience is similar to training which would be given in an educational environment. FALSE
• The internship is experience is for the benefit of the intern. FALSE
• The intern doesn't displace regular employees, but works under close supervision of existing staff. FALSE (there is no regular employee athlete).
• The company derives no immediate advantage from the activities of the intern, and on occasion its operations may actually be impeded. FALSE
• The intern is not necessarily entitled to a job at the conclusion of the internship. TRUE
• The employer and intern understand that the intern is not entitled to wages. TRUE

 

[Greedo]

This would probably never happen, but I think it would be really cool if college athletics turned into farm systems for professional sports. For example, UConn and BC could be feeder programs for the Patriots, with the Patriots funding those programs. UConn could be a feeder for the Celtics or Knicks with basketball, with one of those programs financing UConn basketball etc. I'm sure others will think it's a dumb idea, but I think it would be cool. It would benefit UConn a ton, being one of the few major sports programs in the northeast.

 

[CL82]

This would probably never happen, but I think it would be really cool if college athletics turned into farm systems for professional sports. For example, UConn and BC could be feeder programs for the Patriots, with the Patriots funding those programs. UConn could be a feeder for the Celtics or Knicks with basketball, with one of those programs financing UConn basketball etc. I'm sure others will think it's a dumb idea, but I think it would be cool. It would benefit UConn a ton, being one of the few major sports programs in the northeast.

 

[navery12]

This would probably never happen, but I think it would be really cool if college athletics turned into farm systems for professional sports. For example, UConn and BC could be feeder programs for the Patriots, with the Patriots funding those programs. UConn could be a feeder for the Celtics or Knicks with basketball, with one of those programs financing UConn basketball etc. I'm sure others will think it's a dumb idea, but I think it would be cool. It would benefit UConn a ton, being one of the few major sports programs in the northeast.

I could get on board with kids coming to college already drafted like they do with hockey, this idea seems a bit too far fetched for my taste

 

[Guapo]

I could get on board with kids coming to college already drafted like they do with hockey, this idea seems a bit too far fetched for my taste

I don’t mind the idea of kids coming to college already drafted either. However, the idea of college sports “officially” becoming a development program for the pros is something that can only come from the mind of a New England/Northeast fan lol

 

[UConn990411]

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

 

[Psolo12]

I'd love for the people opposed to this decision to have to tell the broke college kid it's okay for Emmert to be a multi-millionaire while they would lose eligibility for receiving a free meal based on them being a UConn basketball player.

 

[Waquoit]

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

Personal entertainment trumps all.

 

[Guapo]

Like I said earlier in this thread, once the game starts and there are people on the court wearing UConn uniforms playing basketball; a lot of this noise should fall by the wayside

 

[Edward Sargent]

Why aren’t room and board, the living stipend and other items “above” tuition not taxed now and how does today’s ruling change the status quo as it relates to those items?

There is also something called the Spruch Amendment from 1961. I was paid as an employee while I was a grad student at NYU but did not have to pay taxes as long as I was a student. The same amendment should apply to student athletes.

 

[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]

This may harm something I love (college sports), but I'm not sure that it isn't the right decision. I'm not an anti-trust lawyer. That's a very specialized field. But the trend seems to be striking down the "it's always been this way" and "it's for the greater good" arguments. Especially where the greater good in this case is sports (important to our enjoyment and culture, but not as necessary as teaching).

I look at this similar to the tradition of "unpaid interns" which has mostly ended. People have made the clumsy argument that unpaid college athletes are like slaves. Of course they aren't slaves. They aren't being forced to play basketball, they can go to the G League, etc. THIS ALSO ISN'T THE SAME, but for illustrative purposes, look at what a company needs to show in order to have an unpaid intern. Can the NCAA say that teams would fit all of these criteria?

• The experience is similar to training which would be given in an educational environment. FALSE
• The internship is experience is for the benefit of the intern. FALSE
• The intern doesn't displace regular employees, but works under close supervision of existing staff. FALSE (there is no regular employee athlete).
• The company derives no immediate advantage from the activities of the intern, and on occasion its operations may actually be impeded. FALSE
• The intern is not necessarily entitled to a job at the conclusion of the internship. TRUE
• The employer and intern understand that the intern is not entitled to wages. TRUE

If this opens up the classroom to have teaching assistants get paid at minimum wage level, it will be interesting. And very very costly. Because the "internship" argument is indeed used for that class of worker. We saw what happened when Brown grads sued for more pay. SCOTUS effectively decided that they should be considered amateurs. But that happened in the late 1990s. We'll revisit it again and see that all student labor fall under the category of labor now.

I'm still of the opinion that college sports should enter the market and license the school's name. It would clear all of the BS away.

My chef complaint is that no one ever talks budgets and analyzes the finances.

 

[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?

 

[uconndogs]

I understand the significance of SCOTUS decision, but I must be missing something. Because it seems to me the money that some of these kids are going to get for their "likeness" will dwarf what the average student athlete will receive from this decision. I can't even imagine what kids in SEC football programs are going to receive with the promotional programs that those ADs and boosters are going to dream up. Will be very interesting.

 

[Dean Wormer]

Billions spreads over 4000 schools and 400,000 athletes.

But that money the rich NCAA bureaucrats, the high-salaried coaches, and the media entities make, is disproportionate to how much the so-called "amateur student-athlete" is getting. That's the real issue here.
Why should a coach or AD make millions off of my back, and "reward" me with an academic scholarship as my only compensation? And why should the NCAA regulate and stop me from pursuing other ways to make my own money? I may not like the SCOTUS decision and where this is heading for college sports, but I understand it.

 

[Guapo]

But that money the rich NCAA bureaucrats, the high-salaried coaches, and the media entities make, is disproportionate to how much the so-called "amateur student-athlete" is getting. That's the real issue here.
Why should a coach or AD make millions off of my back, and "reward" me with an academic scholarship as my only compensation? And why should the NCAA regulate and stop me from pursuing other ways to make my own money? I may not like the SCOTUS decision and where this is heading for college sports, but I understand it.

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

 

[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]

But that money the rich NCAA bureaucrats, the high-salaried coaches, and the media entities make, is disproportionate to how much the so-called "amateur student-athlete" is getting. That's the real issue here.
Why should a coach or AD make millions off of my back, and "reward" me with an academic scholarship as my only compensation? And why should the NCAA regulate and stop me from pursuing other ways to make my own money? I may not like the SCOTUS decision and where this is heading for college sports, but I understand it.

It's disproportionate to a few NCAA bureaucrats (not a lot of them) and the D1 coaches (about 100 of them in 2 sports).

The real problem is that there is a big disconnect between education and their athletic duties. So the very real compensation that players get in the form of scholarship, room and board and $5k stipend is devalued by that disconnect. This is why I think the programs should sever themselves from the colleges and instead license the college name for a nominal amount ($1).

This same SCOTUS court would not allow a salary cap on coaches because of antitrust laws, but the plain fact is that these schools are losing money on sports. When you realize how much money goes into training, tutoring, coaches, facilities, travel, recruiting, on top of the tuition, $5k stipend, room and board, then holy cow there is a huge amount of money being devoted to each student.

If college sports do move this way toward ending amateurism, I am in favor of them becoming totally separate entities that can pay players directly, with no school outlay. Let the market determine their pay. No more subsidies.

 

[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.