Jump to content
RSF

The price of college football just went up

Recommended Posts

Well, if this goes beyond academic benefits i.e laptops,etc and turns into actual compensation (as NIL seems to be).  The IRS will be giving student-athletes a quick course in paying taxes. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm interested to see...if this is the start of the move to fair market value for players and schools being able to actually pay a salary, does the P5 gets blown up? I'd imagine that the top schools in the SEC, + Texas, USC, Ohio State, et. al. would be ready to go to war with the new rules, but some of the schools that define themselves by their academic reputation would not be on board with fielding professional football teams. Would Stanford and Cal be on board? And would the P5 schools that have been living off of their blue-blood conference brethren be in for the arms race? I can't imagine Oregon State, Washington State, Iowa State, etc. are going to go beyond stipends...perhaps there will be a breakaway with the schools fielding pro teams? Assuming no Mtn West schools are ready to pay salaries, perhaps we end up with most of the D1 schools fielding teams of actual student athletes by a lot of P5 schools stepping back from the top tier of college football? I think it would be great for college football all around....college pro level, and a deeper, broader tier below with room for traditional rivalries, and kids with pro-level talent getting a part of the massive revenue that they are generating....

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/21/2021 at 9:38 AM, RSF said:

Supreme Court sides with former players in dispute with NCAA over compensation

9:29 AM CT

WASHINGTON -- In a ruling that could help push changes in college athletics, the Supreme Court on Monday unanimously sided with a group of former college athletes in a dispute with the NCAA over rules limiting certain compensation.

The high court ruled that NCAA limits on the education-related benefits that colleges can offer athletes who play Division I basketball and football can't be enforced.

Under current NCAA rules, students cannot be paid, and the scholarship money colleges can offer is capped at the cost of attending the school. The NCAA had defended its rules as necessary to preserve the amateur nature of college sports.


But the former athletes who brought the case, including former West Virginia football player Shawne Alston, argued that the NCAA's rules on education-related compensation were unfair and violate federal antitrust law designed to promote competition.

The case doesn't decide whether students can be paid salaries. Instead, the ruling will help determine whether schools decide to offer athletes tens of thousands of dollars in education-related benefits for things such as computers, graduate scholarships, tutoring, study abroad and internships.
 

It won’t hurt G5’s at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Nevada Convert said:

It won’t hurt G5’s at all.

The ruling was narrow in scope, but it doesn't mean NCAA doesn't have a bullseye targeted at it with players and their advocates screaming antitrust violations. Justice Kavanaugh clearly signaled the current structure is legally problematic at best. That said, the G5's were already living on the poor side of town....I'd be most concerned with what may come if I were a lower-tier P5 school....they could experience a resource deficit akin to what the G5s already live with. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Rambouche said:

The ruling was narrow in scope, but it doesn't mean NCAA doesn't have a bullseye targeted at it with players and their advocates screaming antitrust violations. Justice Kavanaugh clearly signaled the current structure is legally problematic at best. That said, the G5's were already living on the poor side of town....I'd be most concerned with what may come if I were a lower-tier P5 school....they could experience a resource deficit akin to what the G5s already live with. 

Yeah, I was thinking it could hurt lower P5’s. There’s still going to be the same elite talent with the same openings. Ohio State, etc. just has to pay them. 

Depending how much the elite players are going to get paid, it could offset the head injury scare that decreased participation. It’s tough to make it in the NFL, but if you can make good money in college, that’s a big carrot dangling there. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Rambouche said:

Read Kavanaugh’s concurrence…the court ruled narrowly on academic benefits, but the end of amateurism and a shift to fair market value are at the doorstep. The court’s ruling is a major step towards dramatic change in college athletics.

 

Kav is one justice.  It seems the rest of the Bench is not as keen as he is in his appetite.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

 

Kav is one justice.  It seems the rest of the Bench is not as keen as he is in his appetite.

 

The additional issues raised by Kavanaugh weren't before the court... He took the opportunity in his concurring opinion to note that, in his view, broader antitrust issues with how the NCAA controls compensation have legal merit. We'll know how the other justices interpret the law if/when an applicable case makes it to them...I wouldn't hazard a guess how they might rule, but the fact that the justices simply ruled on the case before them doesn't suggest that they are or aren't on board with Kavanaugh's interpretation of the NCAA's potential antitrust violations. FWIW, I hope they open the floodgates and the kids (often poor) sacrificing the bodies and providing the actual product get some $$$ that have been getting institutions and individuals that never play a down rich. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Rambouche said:

The additional issues raised by Kavanaugh weren't before the court... He took the opportunity in his concurring opinion to note that, in his view, broader antitrust issues with how the NCAA controls compensation have legal merit. We'll know how the other justices interpret the law if/when an applicable case makes it to them...I wouldn't hazard a guess how they might rule, but the fact that the justices simply ruled on the case before them doesn't suggest that they are or aren't on board with Kavanaugh's interpretation of the NCAA's potential antitrust violations. FWIW, I hope they open the floodgates and the kids (often poor) sacrificing the bodies and providing the actual product get some $$$ that have been getting institutions and individuals that never play a down rich. 

There is a reason why Kavs was a concurrence.  Just like we can not make a guess on how the justices may rule on further cases, we can not use his concurrence as any sort of harbinger either.

Also, stop the copy paste thing.  Just speak your own words. (your posts are in rich text, so it is kinda obvious).

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Nevada Convert said:

Yeah, I was thinking it could hurt lower P5’s. There’s still going to be the same elite talent with the same openings. Ohio State, etc. just has to pay them. 

Depending how much the elite players are going to get paid, it could offset the head injury scare that decreased participation. It’s tough to make it in the NFL, but if you can make good money in college, that’s a big carrot dangling there. 

Even at schools like Alabama, the VAST majority of players never make it to the NFL. I think it would be pretty great for these kids to make some good money and get a head start on a post-football life. Seems like the least that could be done considering all they contribute to the schools, sport, and $ they generate. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

There is a reason why Kavs was a concurrence.  Just like we can not make a guess on how the justices may rule on further cases, we can not use his concurrence as any sort of harbinger either.

Also, stop the copy paste thing.  Just speak your own words. (your posts are in rich text, so it is kinda obvious).

 

 

What would a message board be without troll-like behavior. You are even more fun to interact with on the board than you are to read. I will be sure to not use paste functions in the future, lest it continue to upset you?!? I seldom post on the board because of weird stuff like this...I can't begin to imagine the type of person that takes issue with rich text or suggests that I'm cribbing from god knows where when talking about college football on a freaking MWC message board. With the entertainment of this killed for me- enjoy being a kill-joy and blowhard on the board as your hobby. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rambouche said:

What would a message board be without troll-like behavior. You are even more fun to interact with on the board than you are to read. I will be sure to not use paste functions in the future, lest it continue to upset you?!? I seldom post on the board because of weird stuff like this...I can't begin to imagine the type of person that takes issue with rich text or suggests that I'm cribbing from god knows where when talking about college football on a freaking MWC message board. With the entertainment of this killed for me- enjoy being a kill-joy and blowhard on the board as your hobby. 

 

Was just a minor suggestion.  Copying and pasting means you are either using another's words or just pasting your words written elsewhere with no further thought as to the context of the conversation you are in.

Kav writing a concurrence is Kav writing a concurrence and not a compass as to how future rulings might go.  That is all.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The NCAA is going to be hit with a tsunami of lawsuits. 
 

I do think the system is crooked, and only benefits a select few people and corporations. I don’t understand how a college athlete can give an autograph to a fan, that fan can turn around and sell it. BUT that same athlete cannot sell his own autograph. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Rambouche said:

Read Kavanaugh’s concurrence…the court ruled narrowly on academic benefits, but the end of amateurism and a shift to fair market value are at the doorstep. The court’s ruling is a major step towards dramatic change in college athletics.

That "major step" has been out there for years, and we all know that it will occur at one level or another.  Great.  That might change the sport.  This ruling did nothing but allow for reasonable academic benefits to be provided.  It didn't affect the sport at all.  The next one might, but nothing has changed as of now.

Much ado about nothing.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/21/2021 at 8:24 AM, WAC_FAN said:

Meh, the rich schools were doing this already and being creative to get around this.

What blew me away was hall of famer Hugh McElhenny saying he took a pay cut to play for the 49ers from what he was earning as a Washington Huskie. I knew there was blatant cheating in the old PCC but thought it was confined to Oregon, UCLA and USC.

Apparently UDub cheated better. :cheer:

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Rambouche said:

The ruling was narrow in scope, but it doesn't mean NCAA doesn't have a bullseye targeted at it with players and their advocates screaming antitrust violations. Justice Kavanaugh clearly signaled the current structure is legally problematic at best. That said, the G5's were already living on the poor side of town....I'd be most concerned with what may come if I were a lower-tier P5 school....they could experience a resource deficit akin to what the G5s already live with. 

The actual RULING was narrow but the dictum wasn't.

The NCAA's existence as we've known it is now officially on the clock and that sack of crap has only itself to blame.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, 818SUDSFan said:

What blew me away was hall of famer Hugh McElhenny saying he took a pay cut to play for the 49ers from what he was earning as a Washington Huskie. I knew there was blatant cheating in the old PCC but thought it was confined to Oregon, UCLA and USC.

Apparently UDub cheated better. :cheer:

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, 818SUDSFan said:

The actual RULING was narrow but the dictum wasn't.

The NCAA's existence as we've known it is now officially on the clock and that sack of crap has only itself to blame.

The NCAA's existence as we've known it went on the clock when they created autonomy.  This didn't accelerate that, it just reaffirmed it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Headbutt said:

The NCAA's existence as we've known it went on the clock when they created autonomy.  This didn't accelerate that, it just reaffirmed it.

I predict the following, at least in non-right to work states: Unionization is coming to many college sports teams.

Maybe paradoxically, it will come first not to college football but to something like women's basketball. The women will see how much their male counterparts are earning via the NIL concept as a result of their own individual bargaining power versus the peanuts most of them will get and they'll seek to gain bargaining power on a collective basis in order to compensate. Maybe the women won't be very successful. However, it seems to me they could hurt their employer university not merely from a PR standpoint but financially. For example, by going on strike just prior to a televised game a team could force their university to be on the hook for 100% of whatever money damages would be owed for nonperformance under the competing schools' contract with the broadcasting network. Maybe all could be lawfully fired if they did that. However, how much money could doing that cause the university in further money owed to a broadcast network and in bad pub and attorney's fees to defend an unfair practice charge filed with the National Labor Relations Board?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 818SUDSFan said:

I predict the following, at least in non-right to work states: Unionization is coming to many college sports teams.

Maybe paradoxically, it will come first not to college football but to something like women's basketball. The women will see how much their male counterparts are earning via the NIL concept as a result of their own individual bargaining power versus the peanuts most of them will get and they'll seek to gain bargaining power on a collective basis in order to compensate. Maybe the women won't be very successful. However, it seems to me they could hurt their employer university not merely from a PR standpoint but financially. For example, by going on strike just prior to a televised game a team could force their university to be on the hook for 100% of whatever money damages would be owed for nonperformance under the competing schools' contract with the broadcasting network. Maybe all could be lawfully fired if they did that. However, how much money could doing that cause the university in further money owed to a broadcast network and in bad pub and attorney's fees to defend an unfair practice charge filed with the National Labor Relations Board?

This would certainly force the anticipated split from the NCAA by the blue bloods, and could kill sports at a lot of universities.  Only a handful of schools have a truly self supporting athletic department.  The rest require varying levels of support from student fees.  Broke ass students covering other students paychecks will not go over lightly.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...