DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum NCAA SCOTUS Ruling

Those summaries in those tweets are dramatic but accurate. Wowzers.

The first two Tweets don't seem to read quite the same. The first Tweet states "education related benefits such as free laptops or paid post-graduate internships."

Then in Kavanaugh's written opinion it states that the athletes should be fairly compensated. It goes on to state paying student athletes a "fair market rate".

I'm interested to see how this all ends up.

It will be interesting.

I doubt it leads to players making a whole lot of money, and I doubt it becomes a bidding process.

The education along with books, room and board are worth something, just ask anybody paying off student loans.

Now, the question is what is it worth? Well, there are other questions such as how will any money be distributed?

It's also hard to read a whole lot in to one paragraph of Justice Kavanaugh's written opinion, which no doubt was longer than a single paragraph. It also doesn't really get in to what parameters the court was deciding.

I am sure much will be said over the next several weeks providing some clarity on the matter.

I think this will take years (not weeks) to really unfold. Your question is a good one, though. What happens now? Any number of things (or even nothing)... that's how specific the text is in those tweets. If I have time, I'll try to look into this more.

I wonder if they get to the point where players are paid, if athletic scholarships will cease to exist.

i think it will lead to the 4-5 star recruits getting paid, though.

and im glad SCOTUS ruled this way. people can make all this noise about tuition and room and board being covered, but the athletes -SPECIFICALLY in the big market schools - generate revenue for the universities that far exceed the "Free" aspect of going to school.

also, this in theory would end up helping actual students who want to be there for academics. especially with the rise of the transfer portal, we're seeing more and more athletes not even stay with the schools that recruited them. so if these kids can play, get paid, and NOT take up a spot in the classroom so someone who actually wants the education can be there, that's a win win.

and we can easily make the economic argument: allowing these 4-5 star recruits to make money from endorsement deals and such will bring EVEN MORE revenue to the schools who recruit them due to more interest and ratings.

there's going to be kids who choose to get paid, or kids who take the traditional route of being a student-athlete, and the kids who gotta walk on and such just like normal. there will still be athletes who will take the traditional route simply because the MARKET says they aren't worth the endorsements and such.

i also believe this will help HBCU schools who have a hard time getting recruits, because if a kid is 4-5 star and can get an endorsement deal, they will bring national attention to that school anyway. so look at a situation like Deion sanders coaching at Jackson state, its gonna help over time.

so i'm glad these kids, regardless of their background and such, have a opportunity to generate revenue at a young age.

that is, after all, the american way: getting paid market value.

In reading more on the case, the decision is fairly narrow in scope, the parameter I mentioned yesterday.

It allows schools to provide things like laptops, etc. It also opens up the ability of players to market their name and likeness.

In doing so, this probably opens the floodgates on other lawsuits that challenges why players can't be paid outright by the member schools

I have long felt that players should be paid. Again, it just depends on how much, and I clearly would be against unlimited numbers. I also worry about some of the lower levels of college sports. We tend to concentrate on the big schools, but more students participate at lower levels of NCAA sports then they do at the top levels. And even at the top levels there is a wide range between the good, and the other teams.

On a personal level, I would be good with players being able to market their likeness, etc, and be paid something. The something is the sticking point.

I don't begin to know what kind of dollars would or should be involved. For this example, lets just say $100,000 per team per year for every college team as the cap. Then the team would decide who and what they would pay. They could pay 1 player the $100,000 or they could pay every player on the team equal share. I kind of like equal share for maybe the top 40 players per team. That way, guys who don't get a share have the ability to gain share when players graduate or move to the NFL. That way many players wouldn't get any added pay for the first 2 years but could the final two years. Maybe a variant of that would be every scholarship player gets some spending money, but the top 40 get more. Again, with some sort of cap in place. I can't see where it is open to the highest bidder. That would ruin college football. I am a big Gator football fan. I have had season tickets for over 40 years. Even I wouldn't want the Gators buying up all the good players, or any other team doing so.

Lot's of options and no doubt the generator of much talk and debate as this moves forward.

To continue with another thought.

Marketing likeness can have some big drawbacks.

Take this example. A school is after a certain college player. A big name. A big auto dealer could tell the school that they will give the kid a commercial deal for X dollars a year. If it is a recruiting violation for schools to mention this, it won't take long for players or designated agent to seek out deals around the various schools seeking the player. The most deals gets the player.

I see that as a problem leading to even less parity that already exists.

I think any college athlete who can use his likeness or signature to make money should be allowed to do so. I also believe any endorsement deal they can get, they should be allowed to keep every dollar no matter how high the amount.

There's a difference between having restrictions on players and owing them. Claiming to own their name and likeness is going too far.

I don't disagree with that.

I am talking about what the colleges might pay players.

My only fear with endorsements is as I stated, I wouldn't want to see them being used as a recruiting tool.

A big urban campus like UCLA would have much larger endorsement opportunities over a school like Iowa in Iowa city.

Agreed. A school like Oregon has Nike to offer deals to any athlete. What if they chose to only support Oregon at the college level? Then it becomes a race for schools to tap into alumni and see who can offer the most perks.
It just seems like a lot of schools, especially the smaller ones, are going to get crushed in recruiting.

Exactly.

I haven't been the biggest supporter of the NCAA in some areas, but it does serve a useful purpose for the common good.

If you leave it open to boosters, Harvard might become a super powerhouse if they decided to loosen some achievement standards for the football team.

j/c...

Car dealerships lining up everywhere to start offering endorsement deals! Oregon U. w/ Nike could become a powerhouse.

In the end I doubt it will play out like that, but it does open the door.

Nike as an example is worldwide marketer. It wouldn't play to their best interests to simply market "Ducks" around the world. It will probably fall more to local business interests, such as car dealers, restaurants, etc.

j/c

I'm not a fan of where this is headed. The "rich just got richer" for the Big 5 conferences.

I can just see it: Ohio State is in negotiations with Drew Rosenhaus for the top 3 players in the USA...they will need to arrange their roster to make room under the cap "budget"...but sources saw they have the ability to reduce the roster and re-work a few deals to make it happen...and will likely see booster payments endorsement $$$ to get the deals done...OR...

Headed into the NCAA tournament, Bob Smith is threatening to hold out until his endorsement deal is "properly & fairly" supplemented by the University.

The students are already compensated by the value of the scholarship...that's the deal that they accept...now "people" don't like the deal that they keep signing up for...it fits the 'new' American way I suppose.

I think the NCAA is likely to split Division 1 into 2-3 tiers...I think it was headed that way BEFORE this decision and that will only accelerate now. The protected facade of many NCAA institutions functioning as a minor league will be lifted.

j/c:

Businesses large and small, everywhere, will be taking advantage of this. At 12:01 AM, athletes were signing deals across the country to collect on their likeness.

Good for them. I love the idea that the NCAA's power has diminished significantly as a result.

Does Clemson stand to gain from athletes gaining endorsements, or will they get buried by their competition? My understanding is that they will gain from this, but maybe not as much as the Alabama's and tOSU's.

I can see it now:







assengill Douche

Who knows? I guess we will just have to see how it plays out.

Inside all of this there are going to have to be some sort of logical rules to keep it from going free for all.

If not, college sports are in trouble.

Some people seem to think that an athlete who risks his health, and as such his possible sports career, should have no opportunity to cash in. The excuse is that they are given an education. Maybe someone should do the math there to see that's not fair compensation.

Even the Olympics has recognized that athletes getting paid can compete in the Olympics. Just look at basketball and hockey as examples. People who ordinarily support capitalism rail against this because infusing capitalism into college sports will "ruin it".

This will be no different than any other capitalist process. The best athletes will get the cream and the lesser athletes will get less and in some cases nothing. Those who have continually supported capitalism should be applauding this.

It doesn't give "schools" an advantage. It gives the best athletes the advantage. The cream rises to the top. I thought that was the American Way?

They have plenty of opportunity to "cash in". They are free to play any sport anywhere in the world. If the scholarship isn't enough compensation, they can choose not to take and not to play there. That is how capitalism works.

The schools with the most money - that already have a huge advantage - will reap the benefits and won't have to hide the pay-for-play anymore.

There is nothing in that ruling thus far that allows colleges to pay athletes. It only allows them to make money for themselves. The law now dictates they can make money while they're in college. It seems as though you feel the NCAA should be allowed to not only refuse to pay athletes, but own the rights to them off the field. The SCOTUS has ruled that is not the case. Colleges do not own them off the field.

As usual, your understanding of the issue and my point-of-view are totally skewed...I'm stunned at this.

j/c...



Barstool gobbling up lots of athletes today.

USA society puts too many resources into education. They could educate just as well for less cost across the board.

I don't have a problem with players making money. Many times I have said I would be good with the SEC pulling out of the NCAA and doing their own thing, including paying players some sort of stipend.

I do think there needs to be some sort of caps and rules regarding such. If the NCAA is the governing body over such, I have no problem. The NCAA by and large is needed and has done a good job as a governing body.

In the end, I believe something will be worked out and agreed upon that will also be upheld by courts. The Supreme Court didn't say there couldn't be regulations and limits.

I am not all that worried about the schools as much as I am about boosters. Big boosters, in their frenzy for a winner, aren't afraid to throw their big bucks around no matter the rules in place. They do their best to find a way, and school size doesn't really matter. They all have their fat cats they rely on for new facilities and programs at the college.

Even a school like UTC, a fairly small school has it's deep pockets...

A cap on how much they can make?

I disagree. Their value should be predicated on how much the market values them. If it is a lot, so be it. Good for them.

As a result of this paying of athletes, I wonder if the following will happen:
1. 18-22 year olds now with an extreme amount of money will get in trouble because of it, impacting their professional pursuits.
2. SJWs and the media will whine about how much more men are getting than women.

Ok, we disagree. I do understand your point.

Now it gets in to complicated ground. If it is reasonable to think a school benefits from a player attending it's institution, is it not reasonable to think a player benefits from attending one school over another?

Does a players "fame" result solely from their performance, or is it enhanced by the school they attend? In other words, would attending OSU give the player more opportunity for exposure than say attending Western Kentucky, even if said players performance was equal?

John Paul Football could have made millions. He also may have not made it out of college because of it.

I don't see how those logical rules can be legally applied. As soon as you try and limit how much someone can make, you're asking for a lawsuit. This ruling just opened the floodgates. There is no players union like in the NFL where collective bargaining can limit the amounts paid to rookies.
There absolutely will be a free for all with bloodsucking agents trying to rope in anybody with talent.

Then with the corporate agreements like NIKE/Oregon....what's to keep big business striking up an agreement where they'll pay every football player for a specific school a certain amount of money to attract the best talent to that school?

This is going to get ugly.

That made me think of the number of non-student, students who will stay for four years now (getting paid) rather than risk the jump to the pros when they are about to become academically-ineligible.

When players make money "off of their likeness" will they be wearing generic uniforms - or none - like many pros do so as to avoid having to share $$$ with their employer/teams/NFL,NBA, etc?

Bolded and underlined your above comments for emphasis.

If those athletes were "equal" they would have been offered a scholarship to OSU and wouldn't be attending Western Kentucky. Athletes also know that the school they attend gets them more looks from NFL scouts by the high profile that goes with it. They're not choosing between the two and deciding they would rather go to Western Kentucky.

j/c...

Nice deal.