Supreme Court Rules Against NCAA in Landmark Decision
- Thread starter wvkeeper(HN)
- Start date
This is a dark day for college sports, those who love them, and, ultimately, the millions of student-athletes who will not go professional in sports, but rather are trading sports participation for a debt free education, as those opportunities will dry up soon.
While this particular case, which deals only with restrictions on "education related" benefits is narrow, and probably all the USSC will have to say on the subject, the states and congress are in a race to adopt full pay the players NIL rules, which will allow the focus of evil in sports, ESPN, to have what it wants. 20 to 30 teams playing minor league pro football and 50 to 75 teams playing minor league pro basketball. And nothing else.
It's no such thing. It's a very narrow decision.
Now if you want to lament Kavanaugh's concurring opinion, that's another thing altogether. He wants to burn it down...and I tend to agree with him.
The majority opinion serves the purpose to giving the NCAA time to get its shit together, because I promise you the burn it down lawsuits are coming. Why? The six states that passed compensation laws.
Very few here will agree with me, but burning it down is a good thing for football programs like Marshall. Let's stop pretending to be something we are not.
I agree with you, and I'll take it even further - the system itself needs to stop pretending its something its not (amateurism) and the players themselves need to stop pretending to be something they aren't (interested in education).
The most moral end result would be to remove athletics from college education entirely, and let those who want to contribute to the human race by playing sportsy-ball do that outside of the institutions that are supposedly grooming subsequent generations to take over the serious business of running our world.
Let them earn that $60,000 - $80,000 they'll make over the course of their semi-pro careers for being so good at throwing and catching things, and Marshall can start spending $15 million a year on educating the children of Southern Appalachia.
The victims of college athletics aren't the borderline-illiterate kids having their talents "exploited," its the Engineering student paying $1,000 a year in compulsory fees for tickets to sporting events she doesn't give two shits about. For all the talk about the "billions" college athletics rakes in, this is how sports at most schools are funded, and that reality desperately needs to work its way into this national debate.
P5 is and has been a minor league for the NFL.
How long until we see 18 year olds signing a contract to attend 'Bama for 50K a year?
Marshall can't compete with that, nor do I care if they do. The divide between the have's and the have not's just a bit wider.
How long until we see 18 year olds signing a contract to attend 'Bama for 50K a year?
Marshall can't compete with that, nor do I care if they do. The divide between the have's and the have not's just a bit wider.
The way I read it, the ruling says the NCAA can't limit the pay and it is basically illegal to not pay them in terms of monetary compensation. And, that pay can't be limited.
So, Alabama sees the next Randy Moss coming and they can offer them fair market value(that terms was in the ruling) and could say this recruit is worth $2 million(insert number). The next T Boone Pickens could say let's load up. It says the NCAA can limit signing bonuses or gifts but, not the salary.
The player, in theory, could go to the highest bidder just like a free agent does in pro sports.
Marshall is going to have to pay players something.
I really don’t see this changing much. The same 5-6 teams compete for the national championship and that won’t change much. Maybe Phil Knight buys a better team, maybe some billionaire decides he wants his school to have a national title, but most G5 schools won’t change much. You think Ohio or ECU is going to drop $50k a year on a DT?
Kids aren’t going to give up playing college football and go get a job because they arent getting paid.
Kids aren’t going to give up playing college football and go get a job because they arent getting paid.
Yes I think some teams will. Whether it is $500 or $50,000. Ohio and ECU have more money than Marshall does. Just think what some AAC schools could do and they could widen the gap.
School that is now a peer of Marshall's could say come here get a free education and $10,000 a semester in spending money. They do that times 85. Does Marshall have another million to spend on football payroll? And guess, what ? You pay for football and you have to pay for basketball and the womens sports.
Marshall just won the D1 soccer championship. What if you have to start paying those players? How does Marshall stack up against UNC, Clemson, Indiana now?
Schools like Bama will not be a major factor if things get to the point that you specified above. In a lot of ways, the dominating teams will revert back to those who dominated at the beginning of the 1900s.
The problem as I see it is the NCAA was not providing money to cover all costs thus opening the door to trouble. The NCAA Presidents have done a poor job managing this issue and have brought this on themselves.
I surmise that "Mops For Props" was just a situation where Marshall was way ahead of the times.
Lets be honest, likely half or more of the guys on our football team would never step foot on a college campus if it weren't for football. For various reasons. There has to be value in that. jmho.
I don't think you read it. It is clear the decision only affirms the lower court injunction to allow "enhanced education-related benefits", and also is clear anything outside of that is kosher for the NCAA to regulate. You can read it yourself, but I warn you most of it is dry and boring, so don't waste your time lol.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-512_gfbh.pdf
What isn't boring is Kavanaugh's opinion. While the case involved a very narrow subject (only if to affirm or dismiss the lower court injunction), he basically lays out a blueprint for the next lawsuit to totally smash the rules on other compensation...or perhaps legislation to do so. And believe me, it is coming.
Fact is that, while this case deals with "educational benefits" (which are undefined, meaning a creative writer could call things like cars, video games, maid service, luxury apartments and, maybe, cash, to be such) the NIL deal is coming soon, probably by next month, which is outright pay the players.
Which brings up two things.
First, all of this whistling past the graveyard crap about how we are going to be just fine and all of that. Nope. Full pay the players is something MU cannot afford. Very few schools can, considering Title IX and all that crud. I really have no interest in Marshall as a Division 4 or 5 non entity. No one really does. So a handful of schools with a handful of paid players will constitute college sports, and every other school, and more sadly, every other athlete, will just be left out.
Second, in the karma department, be careful what you wish for. You just might get it. The focus of evil, ESPN, is closer than ever to minor league NFL and NBA. One problem though. The history books are full of failed minor league football and basketball ventures. And the sport that does have a minor league, baseball, is a totally small time thing played totally outside the national media's view before tiny crowds in obscure towns. Why people will really care about the Columbus Buckeyes and their AAA football when the Browns and Bengals play the next day is a question ESPN will soon learn the answer to.
Which brings up two things.
First, all of this whistling past the graveyard crap about how we are going to be just fine and all of that. Nope. Full pay the players is something MU cannot afford. Very few schools can, considering Title IX and all that crud. I really have no interest in Marshall as a Division 4 or 5 non entity. No one really does. So a handful of schools with a handful of paid players will constitute college sports, and every other school, and more sadly, every other athlete, will just be left out.
Second, in the karma department, be careful what you wish for. You just might get it. The focus of evil, ESPN, is closer than ever to minor league NFL and NBA. One problem though. The history books are full of failed minor league football and basketball ventures. And the sport that does have a minor league, baseball, is a totally small time thing played totally outside the national media's view before tiny crowds in obscure towns. Why people will really care about the Columbus Buckeyes and their AAA football when the Browns and Bengals play the next day is a question ESPN will soon learn the answer to.
Agree this case opens up the future for more cases and more changes. The very largest, richest programs can likely go to a for-profit model, many already run departments as "associations." In their new league, they can rent out the school's stadiums and arenas just like others do now. But where it may have the greatest effect is for non-revenue sports everywhere and FB and MBB at the not-so-big schools like us.
Only in select cases may non-revenues be able to offer big cash deals rather than scholarships. That may keep the playing field level, as schools/organizations may lock out schools that go over the limit. They could say "you can pay all of your baseball players thousands, but we're not playing you." I could see a few new leagues formed within certain sports. Think how college soccer and wrestling leagues operate, or club sports on a much bigger scale.
OK, so what happens at schools where revenue comes from student funds? First, these for profit organizations can say fine, keep your student funds, but you (the school) are on your own for non-revenues. And students will pay, too. And we'll just convert booster club donations to memberships, seat licenses, etc. paid directly to us and not you. TV money for the big boys stays OK, maybe even increasing if more inter-sectional games mean more viewers. Schools refusing to play by the new rules may face more unhappy alums, happier faculty, and might be just as happy not dealing with athletic department or booster clout.
Would schools have some leverage because of using the naming/logo/mascot rights? Surely they could negotiate those, as the FB-BB for-profits would not have much immediate competition and could create new names using state names, nicknames if they had too.
So what happens to the athletes at the big schools? They get paid a fair salary. New league might still require enrollment as a condition of employment. Will it mean higher salaries for big name high schoolers? Yes, unless they just jump to the pros in basketball. The control on price will be how much can the market afford? You likely won't be able to pay every recruit more money than every other school.
One restraint on the name, likeness, image is that the "payer" and player may be restricted from using the team name, likeness or affiliation. You could say "John Doe shops at Kroger" but you would have some limits on what you could say about him, rather just "star quarterback" or "famous athlete."
So once the ones with money spend all they have, what happens to the rest of the athletes and schools? They can still get money/scholarships at G5 or smaller P5 schools. So that is not a lot different than today's world, except the best athletes get paid more money, make more money. Could an athlete at a CUSA school make a lot of money? Maybe, but how much and how many? Will a wealthy alum pay tens of thousands of dollars per player per every year? And when a few turn out to be not do great, will the alums get dollar shy?
These are just my opinions and very speculative. Even a players union would be workable, just like in pro sports. In fact, if you think about how it might work, a players union could form an agreement with the new league of top "school" teams to set some of the guidelines. Salary caps for college teams? Never say no.
The biggest issue to address will be around student funds/scholarships/men's non-revenue sports at our level. What happens if we eliminate student funds? Do we, or other schools have endowments to cover the scholarship costs? Title IX has some interesting implications too. Would it be ruled so broad as to say that if you spent $X on male football players, do you need to spend the same amount on female athletes? Definitely a new day coming, more frustrating for some, but more opportunities for others. Where will we fall?
Only in select cases may non-revenues be able to offer big cash deals rather than scholarships. That may keep the playing field level, as schools/organizations may lock out schools that go over the limit. They could say "you can pay all of your baseball players thousands, but we're not playing you." I could see a few new leagues formed within certain sports. Think how college soccer and wrestling leagues operate, or club sports on a much bigger scale.
OK, so what happens at schools where revenue comes from student funds? First, these for profit organizations can say fine, keep your student funds, but you (the school) are on your own for non-revenues. And students will pay, too. And we'll just convert booster club donations to memberships, seat licenses, etc. paid directly to us and not you. TV money for the big boys stays OK, maybe even increasing if more inter-sectional games mean more viewers. Schools refusing to play by the new rules may face more unhappy alums, happier faculty, and might be just as happy not dealing with athletic department or booster clout.
Would schools have some leverage because of using the naming/logo/mascot rights? Surely they could negotiate those, as the FB-BB for-profits would not have much immediate competition and could create new names using state names, nicknames if they had too.
So what happens to the athletes at the big schools? They get paid a fair salary. New league might still require enrollment as a condition of employment. Will it mean higher salaries for big name high schoolers? Yes, unless they just jump to the pros in basketball. The control on price will be how much can the market afford? You likely won't be able to pay every recruit more money than every other school.
One restraint on the name, likeness, image is that the "payer" and player may be restricted from using the team name, likeness or affiliation. You could say "John Doe shops at Kroger" but you would have some limits on what you could say about him, rather just "star quarterback" or "famous athlete."
So once the ones with money spend all they have, what happens to the rest of the athletes and schools? They can still get money/scholarships at G5 or smaller P5 schools. So that is not a lot different than today's world, except the best athletes get paid more money, make more money. Could an athlete at a CUSA school make a lot of money? Maybe, but how much and how many? Will a wealthy alum pay tens of thousands of dollars per player per every year? And when a few turn out to be not do great, will the alums get dollar shy?
These are just my opinions and very speculative. Even a players union would be workable, just like in pro sports. In fact, if you think about how it might work, a players union could form an agreement with the new league of top "school" teams to set some of the guidelines. Salary caps for college teams? Never say no.
The biggest issue to address will be around student funds/scholarships/men's non-revenue sports at our level. What happens if we eliminate student funds? Do we, or other schools have endowments to cover the scholarship costs? Title IX has some interesting implications too. Would it be ruled so broad as to say that if you spent $X on male football players, do you need to spend the same amount on female athletes? Definitely a new day coming, more frustrating for some, but more opportunities for others. Where will we fall?
Everyone is thinking along the lines of Alabama, Clemson, etc when pay for play comes to fruition, but I believe schools like Oregon with their Nike money, Maryland with the UA money, Stanford with their billions of dollars will be among the schools that become big time players.
I stick to my opinion. I would be more worried about an increase in the number of allowed scholarships.
As to Ohio having more money - it’s all subsidies, so I guess if the students are cool with paying their parents money so a RB can pull down $100k, good for them. Maybe the upside is that if we don’t try to rape students to pay for this, Marshall may become a more attractive option for kids who go to college to actually learn. Enrollment increases and the city benefits.
As to Ohio having more money - it’s all subsidies, so I guess if the students are cool with paying their parents money so a RB can pull down $100k, good for them. Maybe the upside is that if we don’t try to rape students to pay for this, Marshall may become a more attractive option for kids who go to college to actually learn. Enrollment increases and the city benefits.
Want to learn? We want a good football team.
The ruling says paying them in just scholarships is not valid.
The guise of amateurism was going to fall eventually. What will be most interesting to see is where the line is drawn between the "haves" and the "have nots."
Does college football end up looking like the MLB, where 5-7 teams can win the World Series every year because they spend the most?... Sadly it may.
College basketball is a different animal. There is far more talent to spread around, and teams only have 15 roster spots. Smaller schools will still be able to compete because the Duke, Kentucky, Kansas, etc of the world can only pay 15 kids each and there are thousands of kids to recruit every year.
Does college football end up looking like the MLB, where 5-7 teams can win the World Series every year because they spend the most?... Sadly it may.
College basketball is a different animal. There is far more talent to spread around, and teams only have 15 roster spots. Smaller schools will still be able to compete because the Duke, Kentucky, Kansas, etc of the world can only pay 15 kids each and there are thousands of kids to recruit every year.
What about the majority of college athletes who are not going pro? My son was a STUDENT-athlete. He got his undergrad degree and his Masters while under scholarship. He has one year left in his PhD program - the only part of his education he's had to pay for. Will there be a place for the athlete who wants to play while getting his degree?
I disprove that sentiment every year with Banker.
World Series Winners by Year (payroll rank):
2010: Giants (10th)
2011: Cardinals (11th)
2012: Giants (8th)
2013: Red Sox (3rd)
2014: Giants (7th)
2015: Royals (20th)
2016: Cubs (14th)
2017: Astros (18th)
2018: Red Sox (1st)
2019: Nationals (7th)
