Anonymous wrote:This is mainly about athletes getting corporate sponsorships, and getting paid for using their likenesses in video games and the like. This isn't about getting more money from the schools.
Maybe the schools will lose a little by having to give the kids a percentage of the sales of athletic gear with their names on them, but that's not a huge money suck.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you people read? The issue is the NCAA offering more 'educational' benefits to college-athletes. No one is getting salaries. https://www.forbes.com/sites/kristidosh/2021/06/21/what-does-supreme-court-decision-against-ncaa-mean-for-name-image-and-likeness/?sh=5ea172dd500c

You hopefully understand that the Supreme Court takes cases to make more general rulings. Their decisions are limited to the specific matters at issue, but that is why you will see concurring and dissenting opinions -- staking out where the Court is headed on a given issue and where they expect to see lower courts head. Lawsuits are already filed that will hit those issues and it will get decided in District Courts and Appellate Courts in the next year, and the NCAA will have to live with those rulings.

It is not an easy issue. First -- college athletes are popular with particular fans because of the jersey they wear. The best college player in the country might be an offensive lineman from Utah State, but no one outside of that campus would care. A Florida Gators fan roots for the Florida Gators and not the particular players. Bill Smith may be a future first round pick, but if he played for Iowa -- who cares unless you are from Iowa? That certainly gives colleges an upperhand in this. And, the players and their families are not in a typical negotiating position. How many do you suppose could afford to even hire legal counsel to assist them, while the colleges have staffs dealing with the issues.

Second -- the role of Title IX still is to be determined. If you say -- "let's pay football players $10K each" Are you going to have to pay an equivalent number of women athletes $10K each?

Third -- does national interest in college sports decline if say only the Big 10, Pac 10 and SEC decide to get into paying football and basketball players? Will poorer teams in those conferences switch out? For example, do Northwestern and Rutgers decide they can't afford to compete? Will we get down to 1 conference with teams that pay?

No, it means fair market value. It also doesn't mandate that schools MUST pay athletes. The NCAA just can't stop them from doing so.

Also, student athletes want to play regardless. Students will choose scholarship options but smaller D1 schools may be able to attract more players by offering non-scholarship players some extra help an incentive with some form of work or work study to create a more inviting package.

Also, the biggest win is NCAA rules make it very difficult for Student Athletes to find work on their own. It isn't so much that colleges have to start paying athletes but it can lift the restrictions on their earning potential.

And, if LSU or Ohio State says -- come play with us and we will pay you $40,000 kids will say -- no?

ll l

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you people read? The issue is the NCAA offering more 'educational' benefits to college-athletes. No one is getting salaries. https://www.forbes.com/sites/kristidosh/2021/06/21/what-does-supreme-court-decision-against-ncaa-mean-for-name-image-and-likeness/?sh=5ea172dd500c

You hopefully understand that the Supreme Court takes cases to make more general rulings. Their decisions are limited to the specific matters at issue, but that is why you will see concurring and dissenting opinions -- staking out where the Court is headed on a given issue and where they expect to see lower courts head. Lawsuits are already filed that will hit those issues and it will get decided in District Courts and Appellate Courts in the next year, and the NCAA will have to live with those rulings.

It is not an easy issue. First -- college athletes are popular with particular fans because of the jersey they wear. The best college player in the country might be an offensive lineman from Utah State, but no one outside of that campus would care. A Florida Gators fan roots for the Florida Gators and not the particular players. Bill Smith may be a future first round pick, but if he played for Iowa -- who cares unless you are from Iowa? That certainly gives colleges an upperhand in this. And, the players and their families are not in a typical negotiating position. How many do you suppose could afford to even hire legal counsel to assist them, while the colleges have staffs dealing with the issues.

Second -- the role of Title IX still is to be determined. If you say -- "let's pay football players $10K each" Are you going to have to pay an equivalent number of women athletes $10K each?

Third -- does national interest in college sports decline if say only the Big 10, Pac 10 and SEC decide to get into paying football and basketball players? Will poorer teams in those conferences switch out? For example, do Northwestern and Rutgers decide they can't afford to compete? Will we get down to 1 conference with teams that pay?

No, it means fair market value. It also doesn't mandate that schools MUST pay athletes. The NCAA just can't stop them from doing so.

Also, student athletes want to play regardless. Students will choose scholarship options but smaller D1 schools may be able to attract more players by offering non-scholarship players some extra help an incentive with some form of work or work study to create a more inviting package.

Also, the biggest win is NCAA rules make it very difficult for Student Athletes to find work on their own. It isn't so much that colleges have to start paying athletes but it can lift the restrictions on their earning potential.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you people read? The issue is the NCAA offering more 'educational' benefits to college-athletes. No one is getting salaries. https://www.forbes.com/sites/kristidosh/2021/06/21/what-does-supreme-court-decision-against-ncaa-mean-for-name-image-and-likeness/?sh=5ea172dd500c

You hopefully understand that the Supreme Court takes cases to make more general rulings. Their decisions are limited to the specific matters at issue, but that is why you will see concurring and dissenting opinions -- staking out where the Court is headed on a given issue and where they expect to see lower courts head. Lawsuits are already filed that will hit those issues and it will get decided in District Courts and Appellate Courts in the next year, and the NCAA will have to live with those rulings.

It is not an easy issue. First -- college athletes are popular with particular fans because of the jersey they wear. The best college player in the country might be an offensive lineman from Utah State, but no one outside of that campus would care. A Florida Gators fan roots for the Florida Gators and not the particular players. Bill Smith may be a future first round pick, but if he played for Iowa -- who cares unless you are from Iowa? That certainly gives colleges an upperhand in this. And, the players and their families are not in a typical negotiating position. How many do you suppose could afford to even hire legal counsel to assist them, while the colleges have staffs dealing with the issues.

Second -- the role of Title IX still is to be determined. If you say -- "let's pay football players $10K each" Are you going to have to pay an equivalent number of women athletes $10K each?

Third -- does national interest in college sports decline if say only the Big 10, Pac 10 and SEC decide to get into paying football and basketball players? Will poorer teams in those conferences switch out? For example, do Northwestern and Rutgers decide they can't afford to compete? Will we get down to 1 conference with teams that pay?

RantingSoccerDad wrote:

NBC did an investigation last year, starting with the exorbitant fees at JMU:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/education/hidden-figures-college-students-may-be-paying-thousands-athletic-fees-n1145171

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not so sure...

Kavanaugh: “The bottom line is that the NCAA and its members are suppressing the pay of student-athletes who collectively generate billions of dollars in revenues for colleges every year. Those enormous sums of money flow to seemingly everyone except the student-athletes.”

He said that in his own opinion and it really carries no weight. The colleges will not pay. Some could -- think SEC schools but I do not think anyone would follow. This will take 20-30 years to sort out. People who can sell name should get some coin and they will soon but that is probably it.

This. They can lawfully agree to limit compensation to educational benefits. There is a reason that kavanaugh’s opinion is a solo concurrence.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not so sure...

Kavanaugh: “The bottom line is that the NCAA and its members are suppressing the pay of student-athletes who collectively generate billions of dollars in revenues for colleges every year. Those enormous sums of money flow to seemingly everyone except the student-athletes.”

He said that in his own opinion and it really carries no weight. The colleges will not pay. Some could -- think SEC schools but I do not think anyone would follow. This will take 20-30 years to sort out. People who can sell name should get some coin and they will soon but that is probably it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you people read? The issue is the NCAA offering more 'educational' benefits to college-athletes. No one is getting salaries. https://www.forbes.com/sites/kristidosh/2021/06/21/what-does-supreme-court-decision-against-ncaa-mean-for-name-image-and-likeness/?sh=5ea172dd500c

From the article you posted:

Over the weekend, however, the conversation took a turn when a group of commissioners—said to include those from the SEC, ACC and Pac-12—began urging an approach that put the onus on each individual institution to determine its own name, image and likeness rules instead of a set of rules at the NCAA level.

The letter said previous proposals at the NCAA level will lead to “inevitable confusion, uncertainty and likely litigation against the NCAA and its member conferences and institutions.” Instead, it proposes that institutions in states with state laws follow their laws while institutions without state laws could create rules at the institutional level with only two guidelines: “(A) don’t allow school employees or boosters to pay athletes, and (B) don’t allow payments in exchange for athletic performance or recruiting inducement.”

Ultimately, if a school doesn’t want to create those rules/guidelines because they are looking to bolster their program and profile - and has the boosters to fund it - they can pay players...which is happening now, just it’s under the table.

Anonymous wrote:Do you people read? The issue is the NCAA offering more 'educational' benefits to college-athletes. No one is getting salaries. https://www.forbes.com/sites/kristidosh/2021/06/21/what-does-supreme-court-decision-against-ncaa-mean-for-name-image-and-likeness/?sh=5ea172dd500c

Anonymous wrote:Do you people read? The issue is the NCAA offering more 'educational' benefits to college-athletes. No one is getting salaries. https://www.forbes.com/sites/kristidosh/2021/06/21/what-does-supreme-court-decision-against-ncaa-mean-for-name-image-and-likeness/?sh=5ea172dd500c

Over the weekend, however, the conversation took a turn when a group of commissioners—said to include those from the SEC, ACC and Pac-12—began urging an approach that put the onus on each individual institution to determine its own name, image and likeness rules instead of a set of rules at the NCAA level.

The letter said previous proposals at the NCAA level will lead to “inevitable confusion, uncertainty and likely litigation against the NCAA and its member conferences and institutions.” Instead, it proposes that institutions in states with state laws follow their laws while institutions without state laws could create rules at the institutional level with only two guidelines: “(A) don’t allow school employees or boosters to pay athletes, and (B) don’t allow payments in exchange for athletic performance or recruiting inducement.”